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 2: Core Strategy Distribution

Representation ID: 5148

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 EA's flood level modelling for the River Welland is currently under review and will be updated shortly (by end of year).
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: 5006

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

Summary:

Object to option 2.

Representation ID: 4916

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: 4915

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: 4912

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transportation Comments:
The County Highway Authority supported in principle the growth distribution on which the current Core Strategy is based, although it did raise some issues in respect of the impacts of growth in certain locations. One of these was in respect of the transportation evidence to support the growth of Market Harborough. However, evidence underpinning the Core Strategy shows modelled congestion in the district is most likely to arise because of the effects of the limited road network in Market Harborough. Potentially indicating that Market Harborough might not be a suitable location in transportation terms to allocate further strategic housing growth.
The County and District Councils are currently undertaking a joint study to identify what transportation measures are required to support the known/planned growth in and around the town. Until the outcomes are known it is not possible the County Highway Authority to provide an indication as to the ability of Market Harborough to accommodate further strategic housing growth. The scale of infrastructure required might not be fundable by developers alone.

Also there are increased risks of putting further housing numbers on the eastern edge of the PUA in combination with growth to the north-east of the PUA (impact on strategic traffic issues including Leicester City roads).

Representation ID: 4875

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: 4861

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4842

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: 4827

SUPPORT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4803

COMMENT Mrs Sarah Mettrick

Summary:

Option 2 would be acceptable.

Representation ID: 4782

SUPPORT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4741

OBJECT Brian Newman

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4731

OBJECT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4721

SUPPORT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4712

OBJECT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4703

OBJECT Janet Lount

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4693

OBJECT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4684

OBJECT P. Panham

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4647

OBJECT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4638

OBJECT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4628

OBJECT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4613

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4600

OBJECT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4591

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4582

SUPPORT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4564

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Option 2 does not allow for sufficient flexibility in future housing growth. It is unrealistic and contrary to the objectives of sustainable development to focus the vast majority of future housing growth in one or two settlements or within the urban areas of the borough alone. There is a readily available supply of land within the rural area of the District, including land owned by TCG at Houghton on the Hill, Great Glen and Stoughton, which could contribute to future housing growth and deliver much needed affordable housing and investment for these communities.

Representation ID: 4552

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4543

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4534

OBJECT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4521

OBJECT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4503

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: 4469

OBJECT S Knott

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4457

SUPPORT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

Support option 2

Representation ID: 4446

SUPPORT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4437

SUPPORT L Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4431

OBJECT K. J. Tutt

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4422

SUPPORT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4410

SUPPORT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Support option 2

Representation ID: 4387

SUPPORT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 4386

SUPPORT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4372

OBJECT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4360

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4350

OBJECT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4332

OBJECT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4316

OBJECT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4305

OBJECT Susan Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4291

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4256

OBJECT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4247

OBJECT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4228

SUPPORT Gladman Developments Ltd (Ms Nicole Penfold)

Summary:

This option allocates a meaningful level of growth to the rural centres whilst distributing a significant amount of growth to the larger, more sustainable, urban settlements.

Representation ID: 4207

COMMENT Bruton Knowles (mr Paul Barton)

Summary:

Although favouring Option 3, our clients (Trustees of the Bowden Settlement) also recognise that without adequate growth Rural Settlements will
die and therefore also see merit in Option 2 which attempts to strike a
balance between Urban and Rural growth.

Representation ID: 4203

OBJECT GREAT EASTON Parish Council (Mr David Gibley)

Summary:

Object to Option 2 as not sustainable and will generate excessive travel without enabling effective centres to develop to provide services. Urban concentration is preferred.

Representation ID: 4193

OBJECT J Frisby

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4185

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: 4151

OBJECT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4141

OBJECT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4122

OBJECT M Earl

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4113

OBJECT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4104

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)

Summary:

Options 2 and 3 allow Market Harborough to consolidate its position as the primary centre for the district. It will help support and underpin the retail and other services provided in the town and add to the overall resilience and sustainability of the town. The converse would be true if development were to be limited around the town. We support the Council's identification of Overstone Park as the site to deliver the scale of development associated with these options (totals of 1,329 and 1,983 dwellings for Market Harborough respectively).

Representation ID: 4091

SUPPORT J Dilks

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4076

OBJECT N Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4067

OBJECT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4062

OBJECT Ms Judith Windley

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 4056

OBJECT Mr Brian Windley

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 4038

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 4027

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

Summary:

Set A (Variations on current distribution of development- Options 1, 2 and 3) provides the most suitable approach to future development, with Option 1 considered to be the most appropriate.

Representation ID: 4019

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs D Crofts

Summary:

Support Option 2

Representation ID: 3995

OBJECT Mr Michael Cole

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 3985

OBJECT Ms Pamela Cole

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 3975

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 3965

OBJECT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 3956

OBJECT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 3926

OBJECT Ms Caroline Bright

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 3899

OBJECT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 3879

OBJECT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 3867

OBJECT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Object to option 2

Representation ID: 3858

SUPPORT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3847

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

Options 2 (Core Strategy) and 3 (Urban Focus) proposed a greater share of housing at Market Harborough. There are number of other options which include one or more housing allocation sites at Market Harborough.

In relation to the key allocation sites we are able to respond as follows:
* Market Harborough: The development of any of the three proposed housing allocation sites are expected to require improvements to the foul sewerage network. There may also be a need for additional sewage treatment enhancements .

Representation ID: 3835

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3802

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Need more research

Representation ID: 3763

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Fair distribution of housing

Representation ID: 3744

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3714

OBJECT Mr Andy Bromley

Summary:

Market Harborough simply cannot cope with this level of development without huge infrastructure developments that are not proposed and simply will not happen. Our roads will not be able to cope with the extra traffic and the developments on the edge of town are cut off and create extra traffic into the centre, it already takes 20 minutes to drive from one side of town to the other. Land next to Blackberry Grange will join development to Brampton Valley Way and destroy wildlife especially Owl habitat. Farndon Fields development will effectively join East Farndon to Harborough

Representation ID: 3691

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: 3669

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3666

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: 3648

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Fair distribution of housing

Representation ID: 3606

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

While this option also spreads the distribution of housing, it does not make the most of potential housing growth should the Magna Park development be determined. With regard to the PUA, the option further substantially increases housing provision, without addressing the impact this would have on an increased volume of traffic.

Representation ID: 3605

COMMENT Mr Vincent Brown

Summary:

This plan appears to share out the necessary housing requirements fairly evenly over the district. I do however object to any development within or around Kibworth due to the current daily congestion of the A6 and the junctions onto the A6 in the village, which cannot be allowed to get any worse. A bypass is necessary at the earliest opportunity.

Representation ID: 3604

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: 3592

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

While this option also spreads the distribution of housing, it does not make the most of potential housing growth should the Magna Park development be determined. With regard to the PUA, the option further substantially increases housing provision, without addressing the impact this would have on an increased volume of traffic.

Representation ID: 3562

COMMENT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

This option has a high housing requirement for Market Harborough, in addition to recent housing increases, which would put strain on infrastructure, particularly roads, and also has quite high housing requirement in rural villages, which would again change their character. It is more acceptable than options 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9, but options 4, 6 and 8 are preferable to this option 2.

Representation ID: 3552

SUPPORT EAST LANGTON and CHURCH LANGTON Parish Council (Mrs Roz Folwell)

Summary:

This option appears to offer the best level of protection against inappropriate development in rural areas without infrastructure to support it.

Representation ID: 3491

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

Summary:

This option whereby the adopted Core Strategy distribution is used would also respond well to market demand which would aid deliverability. However, it relies to a significant degree on a large Sustainable Urban Extensions (the SDA at Market Harborough) which has large, expensive infrastructure requirements which may delay effective delivery. In my view, Fleckney could cater for a greater level of development than envisaged in the CS distribution scenario by reducing the figure for Market Harborough and transferring it to Fleckney without significant detriment to its landscape setting or environment in general

Representation ID: 3484

SUPPORT Mr Kenneth Hollinshead

Summary:

Within structural compatibility .

Representation ID: 3461

SUPPORT Mrs Janet Hastings

Summary:

Although not perfect, I feel this Option spreads the housing burden more fairly.

Representation ID: 3438

OBJECT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

Option 2 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 2 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: 3429

SUPPORT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

To date, this approach has enabled our village and the surrounding communities to grow adequately according to demand. We support this because there is not enough information on Lutterworth SDA option, in particular to determine if it suitably benefits our village and surrounding areas (e.g. access restrictions in Lutterworth, or eastern "by-pass" being dual carriageway). In addition, option 2 allows a fair distribution of housing, with a focus in areas that meet the new local plan vision / objections (e.g. sustainable transport, with Market Harborough train station and electrified line supporting growth in that area).

Representation ID: 3406

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: 3396

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

Summary:

Bloor Homes Ltd objects to this Option. As acknowledged in 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: 3374

OBJECT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 3350

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: 3343

COMMENT Mr David Nance

Summary:

As for the rural option it does not focus enough on those areas that have more available land close to urban or large village infrastructure.
Those areas can justifiably take more. There are however benefits in sticking reasonably close to the Core Strategy in terms of distribution but also embracing significant growth in those areas best suited to sustain growth in terms of infrastructure, transport, employment, education, leisure and enterprise whilst minimising travel and therefore remaining environmentally friendly

Representation ID: 3324

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

small villages with no amenities should be being built up to provide the better community amenities and housing distribution such as Frolesworth, Leire

Representation ID: 3320

SUPPORT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

With more concentrated development, I feel there is a greater chance that necessary infrastructure will be attracted, whilst still offering support to smaller settlements.

Representation ID: 3309

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: 3237

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

need some large developement

Representation ID: 3213

OBJECT George Burton ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY Ltd (George Burton)

Summary:

Whilst being preferable to options 3,4 & 5, Option 1 represents a better distribution of new housing to reflect the character of Harborough District

Representation ID: 3187

SUPPORT Miss Louise Weston

Summary:

Although not perfect, I feel this Option spreads the housing burden more fairly.

Representation ID: 3185

SUPPORT Maria Petillon

Summary:

Although not perfect, I feel this Option spreads the housing burden more fairly.

Representation ID: 3174

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

For similar reasons that I object to option 1: 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: 3163

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 more houses without new community facilities. This option would only add more traffic to the system. It is not a sustainable option.

Representation ID: 3162

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

For similar reasons that I object to option 1: 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: 3155

SUPPORT Mr Ray Petillon

Summary:

Although not perfect, I'm sure, I feel this Option spreads the housing burden more fairly.

Representation ID: 3145

SUPPORT Mrs A Mitcheson represented by Berrys (Val Coleby)

Summary:

On behalf of our client we support the identification of Market Harborough as a key location for growth and we support growth options 2 and 3 which would see relatively high housing growth across SHLAA sites identified in and adjacent to the town.

Representation ID: 3141

SUPPORT Cathy Bishop

Summary:

Not available

Representation ID: 3134

SUPPORT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

worked ok to date. out of recession will enable more development to reach HDC targets

Representation ID: 3125

SUPPORT Mrs Joanna Richter

Summary:

This appears to be a fair distribution and is based on plans that have been crafted only a short time ago. Why should these now be brushed aside?
The focus on Fleckney seem to be heavier than it ought to be, but it also reflects fairly on Kibworth which already has had an inappropriately large development and as such cannot cope with further housing.

If we really need this much housing in the District (I cannot quite see the local demand to be honest) then this option appears to be the fairest one.

Representation ID: 3053

OBJECT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

I object to the 56 houses planned for Kibworth and 44o houses for Fleckney

Representation ID: 3011

SUPPORT Mrs Susan walter

Summary:

More sensible spread of housing across the district.

Representation ID: 3004

OBJECT Mr Ian Clarke

Summary:

To many houses for Harborough which already has a permenant traffic jam. To many house in the villages surrounding Market Harborough

Representation ID: 2976

OBJECT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I object.

Representation ID: 2974

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

MH currently struggles to support its existing population and by focusing the development in MH would put more pressure on lready overloaded services.
Previous option - putting focus on rural communities where the paying of full council tax would be in excess of 95% and we will not get a green bin collection???

Representation ID: 2956

OBJECT Scott Sims

Summary:

Too many houses for Houghton

Representation ID: 2954

OBJECT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

More housing in Kibworth and Lutterworth, where there is excellent road access, would be better than extra housing in Great Bowden which cannot cope with existing traffic, on narrow roads.

Representation ID: 2879

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2870

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2852

OBJECT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

The burden needs to be shared

Representation ID: 2812

SUPPORT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

Currently operates effectively

Representation ID: 2808

SUPPORT Mr Ian Wilson

Summary:

Further distribution of employment opportunities would benefit the whole area.

Representation ID: 2805

OBJECT Mr Ian Wilson

Summary:

Object on the basis of lack of additional employment in locations such as Kibworth. Any additional development in such locations should concentrate on affordable homes for local families with matching employment opportunities.

Representation ID: 2786

SUPPORT nicholas fielden

Summary:

A fairer distribution of housing than putting the majority at Scraptoft but smaller bespoke housing developments needed that cater for the actual wants of the villages not what developers choose.

Representation ID: 2723

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2716

COMMENT Mr Thomas Price

Summary:

This option spreads the load more evenly over the district, however, it still requires too much development in the selected rural villages.

Representation ID: 2713

OBJECT mrs angela pearce-smith

Summary:

too many houses for Harborough and surrounding villages

Representation ID: 2708

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2694

SUPPORT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

To date, this approach has enabled our village and surrounding communities to grow adequately according to demand. We support this because there is not enough information on the Lutterworth SDA option in particular to determine if it suitably benefits our village and surrounding towns ( e.g. access restrictions in Lutterworth, or Eastern "by-pass" being a dual carriageway). In addition, option 2 allows a fair distribution of housing, with a focus in areas that meet the new local plan vision/objections (e.g. sustainable transport, with Market Harborough train station and electrified line supporting growth in that area).

Representation ID: 2657

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: 2652

OBJECT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is not supported because it would require a large proportion of the 30% of new dwelling to be provided in the rural area to be provided in Fleckney which would put additional pressure on existing services and fundamentally change the nature and character of the Village.

Representation ID: 2634

OBJECT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

The proposal for 56 homes in Kibworth is inappropriate and not in accordance with its position in the Settlement Hierarchy. Kibworth is a highly sustainable settlement with a good range of services and infrastructure. Significantly higher levels of housing provision are required to support Kibworths role as the largest Rural Centre. It is considered that at least 40% of future new housing should be planned for the rural settlements to achieve the Draft Vision and provide a rural focus.

Representation ID: 2618

OBJECT MRS PAT FOOTMAN

Summary:

not enough infrastructure to support any further housing developments

Representation ID: 2593

OBJECT Mr Alec Brewin

Summary:

Would be better to concentrate majority of development in Lutterworth where it is needed

Representation ID: 2566

OBJECT Hugh Woolley

Summary:

I object.

Representation ID: 2563

OBJECT Mr Richard .J. Sutton

Summary:

I live in Great Bowden. Under this option an extra 83 houses will be located there. The roads and schools cannot support this level of additional development

Representation ID: 2551

OBJECT Mr Andrew Hamilton

Summary:

Object!

Representation ID: 2545

OBJECT Mr Andrew Hamilton

Summary:

Object!

Representation ID: 2537

SUPPORT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Takes the additional population nearer to the key services

Representation ID: 2531

SUPPORT 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. I believe `Market Harborough better able to cope with further development.

Representation ID: 2509

OBJECT Jo Brodrick

Summary:

Object due to the current pressure seen for growth in Market Harborough

Representation ID: 2423

SUPPORT Mr Richard Wayman

Summary:

Follow the existing core strategy. We concur with the Scraptoft Neighbourhood Plan that is being implemented.

Representation ID: 2419

SUPPORT Mr Gary Kirk

Summary:

This option appears to offer the best level of protection against inappropriate development in rural areas without infrastructure to support it.

Representation ID: 2416

OBJECT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2400

OBJECT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

Too many houses in villages with little infrastructure, little or no employment opportunities and greater pressure on already busy and dangerous A roads.

Representation ID: 2380

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

OK

Representation ID: 2361

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Core strategy has already been superseded by passing of Airfield Farm SDA. Unless the 1300 proposed is instead of 1500 - if so then support this option

Representation ID: 2315

OBJECT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Objection

Representation ID: 2312

OBJECT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

Too many houses for rural areas. Would create loss of village identity

Representation ID: 2309

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Definition of this option is confusing - with 1500 homes already approved by committee on the SDA which was contrary to the numbers allocated in the core strategy. It could mistakenly be read that 1300 homes would be allocated instead of the 1500 planned. However in addition to the 1500, under this option, a further 1300 would be required which would bring unacceptably high growth to Market Harborough over the plan period with no opportunity to absorb the growth already in the pipeline. Enhanced healthcare facilities still not certain and proposals to date are little more than an upgraded surgery.

Representation ID: 2275

OBJECT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Does not reflect the rural and natural character of the district

Representation ID: 2259

SUPPORT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

More equal spread of developments

Representation ID: 2249

OBJECT Mr Peter Francis

Summary:

Less severe than option 1 but with the same downsides

Representation ID: 2237

OBJECT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2216

SUPPORT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

Important to keep villages alive

Representation ID: 2213

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: 2212

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: 2199

OBJECT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Too many houses for Houghton on the Hill. Lack of adequate supporting infrastructure.

Representation ID: 2192

OBJECT K Patel

Summary:

Loss of character and resource problems.

Representation ID: 2165

OBJECT mr John Goldby

Summary:

Houses should be built to urban areas, not village so that the needs of the residents i.e. schools, doctors and social needs including employment can be met

Representation ID: 2154

OBJECT mrs linda atkinson

Summary:

scraptoft particulary, 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: 2123

OBJECT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

Too many houses in Houghton on the Hill

Representation ID: 2108

OBJECT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Loss of character and resource problems.

Representation ID: 2095

OBJECT Mr David Birch

Summary:

Large increase in traffic on already overcrowded A6 through Kibworth

Representation ID: 2070

OBJECT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2069

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: 2058

OBJECT Mr Simon Cook

Summary:

Not the best solution

Representation ID: 2006

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

More consideration needs to given to the ability of the communities and infrastructure to cope with increased development

Representation ID: 1976

OBJECT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

no road infrastructure to support

Representation ID: 1962

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1942

OBJECT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Object to 2. This option would result in serious strain on village resources and loss of rural character

Representation ID: 1931

OBJECT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Object to Option 2: Bits all over the place no good as no infrastructure to cope.

Representation ID: 1919

OBJECT Mr Peter Harding

Summary:

Too many houses near Scraptoft - does not take into account the additional housing being built nearby ie Keyam Lane, Hamilton & Barkby - roads will suffer

Representation ID: 1893

OBJECT Mr Sam Hudson

Summary:

More development is required in Lutterworth

Representation ID: 1881

OBJECT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

Again massive increase in traffic along the A6 with increase in air pollution NO2 LEVELS ALREADY DANGEROUSLY HIGH- MASSIVE INCREASE IN LUNG CANCER PROPABLE.

Representation ID: 1877

OBJECT Miss Laura Hudson

Summary:

Development should be concentrated on Lutterworth

Representation ID: 1863

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Hudson

Summary:

Scraptoft/Bushby/Thurnby has already had its fair share of new housing development with near on 1000 houses already approved to be built. This is before this proposed 1200 houses is added to it. Be proportionate, either spread load around all areas or concentrate in Lutterworth area where housing is needed for magna park. The proposed new a47 link road is NOT an advantage. It is not needed and will not relieve traffic. It would create rat run so A47 can be avoided.

Representation ID: 1841

SUPPORT Medbourne Parish Plan Group (Mr P Polito)

Summary:

The 70/30% split between urban and rural is a fair distribution of the housing requirement. Many villages require semi detached/small houses to meet the need for starter homes. There is also a requirement for bungalows/retirement housing, which would then free up some of the larger houses, which are currently occupied by elderly people who wish to continue to live in the village, but would like to downsize. Villages need moderate expansion to maintain their sustainability and support local enterprises.

Representation ID: 1827

SUPPORT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

More equal spread so no crucial changes to areas of population

Representation ID: 1769

OBJECT Mr Donald Urquhart

Summary:

Scraptoft Thurnby and Bushby already have too much development. We will fight any attempt to destroy our villages.

Representation ID: 1751

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1729

SUPPORT Stefan Richter

Summary:

I see no reason why the well crafted Core Strategy that only recently came into force should be brushed aside and I support that we stick with it.

It is unfortunate that central government forces so many new houses upon us when there's no clear assessment of the actual local need. However this option is at least remotely sensible out of all the presented options as it spreads new housing around the district.

Let's not forget that Kibworth and Great Glen have had substantial (yet to be finished) developments that are stretching local infrastructure to breaking point.

Representation ID: 1706

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

Summary:

Traffic problems, flow and parking should be addressed particularly on Main street.

Representation ID: 1691

OBJECT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

I do not agree with this option

Representation ID: 1680

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: 1669

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: 1650

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: 1640

OBJECT Mr philip colver

Summary:

Market harboro has already had far too many houses built over last 10 years

Representation ID: 1636

SUPPORT Mr Ross McMinn

Summary:

Represents a good spread of housing across the region.

Representation ID: 1620

OBJECT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

A6 incapable of further traffic.

Representation ID: 1575

OBJECT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner

Representation ID: 1566

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 developments in these villages!!

Representation ID: 1553

OBJECT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

Still too many houses for Fleckney in this one.

Representation ID: 1539

OBJECT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

You should put all developement in rural areas - do not put it near us in Scraptoft -

We will fight this -

Representation ID: 1522

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: 1505

OBJECT Mrs Diane Miles

Summary:

The building of 83 houses would increase traffic problems, detract from the rural aspect of the village (Great Bowden) and put pressure on school places.

Representation ID: 1484

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Support rural.

Representation ID: 1462

SUPPORT Robin Childs

Summary:

minimum impact on existing services and infastructure

Representation ID: 1427

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 1411

COMMENT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 1407

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.
Lutterworth has an established town base and would easily absorb the extra homes. It is easily linked to major road networks

Representation ID: 1406

OBJECT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 1396

OBJECT Mr Richard Chambers

Summary:

Although the overall distribution seems fair, this option is not viable without a road access assessment to deal with the additional residential and industrial traffic to Fleckney. Without road infrastructure upgrades, it is unlikely that the roads currently serving access to Fleckney would be able to deal with the increase in traffic without causing problems for neighbouring towns, especially Kibworth.

Representation ID: 1387

SUPPORT Mrs michelle Woolston

Summary:

This seems to be the most sensible way of distributing housing across the district with greater emphasis on the existing towns which have better infrastructure to deal with further development.

Representation ID: 1383

OBJECT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

Great Glen and Kibworth have already taken more housing than is sustainable. Fleckney is served by rural roads which have no capacity to take the huge increase in traffic which would result.

Representation ID: 1372

OBJECT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 1363

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: 1318

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: 1294

OBJECT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 1277

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: 1261

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

Summary:

This option whereby the adopted Core Strategy distribution is used would also respond well to market demand which would aid deliverability. However, it relies to a significant degree on a large Sustainable Urban Extensions (the SDA at Market Harborough) which has large, expensive infrastructure requirements which may delay effective delivery.

Representation ID: 1247

OBJECT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1213

OBJECT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

too heavily Harborough weighted

Representation ID: 1134

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

Summary:

The proposed level of provision for Kibworth (56 dwellings) is inappropriate and does not recognise the position of this particular Rural Centre (The Kibworths) in the settlement hierarchy. it is the largest Rural Centre with a good range of facilities and services. A substantially higher level of housing provision is warranted over the Plan period accordingly.

Representation ID: 1098

OBJECT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

Swinford does not support the large number of houses proposed

Representation ID: 1084

OBJECT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

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: 1037

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: 1033

OBJECT Mr John Biggin

Summary:

Far too many houses for Market Harborough. If we have to take this high level of develepoment then surely it should go next to the largest area of employment - Magna Park

Representation ID: 1021

SUPPORT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

The draft Neighbourhood Plan is best able to provide relevant policies on housing and employment needs for the settlement. The Kibworth 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. Core strategy policy 17 contains protection for the Kibworths and Great Glen against largescale housing outside limits of development; this protection must remain until Neighbourhood Plans adopted.

Representation ID: 991

OBJECT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

Too many houses proposed in Market Harborough. Where is the plan for other services.

Representation ID: 982

OBJECT Mr Alastair Willis

Summary:

Far too many houses proposed for Market Harborough. Many plans are already approved there. Most are on the peripheral edges of the town. Traffic congestion is already an issue. Little has been said so far about providing enhanced services in health, education and public transport.

Representation ID: 962

OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

See text in comment at option 3 - applies to 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: 931

OBJECT Mr Richard Painter

Summary:

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: 904

OBJECT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Some new housing in rural areas but be proportional

Representation ID: 894

OBJECT Mr Raymond Godfrey

Summary:

Whilst not as bad as Option 1 in the following respects, this option will still 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.

Representation ID: 814

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Oldridge

Summary:

56 houses would be a reasonable number of houses to absorb into the Kibworths.

Representation ID: 685

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

Representation ID: 650

OBJECT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

Object
Too many houses would have to be accommodated in Market Harborugh

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

Powered by OpusConsult