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 3: Urban

Representation ID: 5149

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: 5087

COMMENT Leicester City Council (Mr Fabian D'Costa)

Summary:

Leicester City Council Transport Strategy team: Mitigation measures on the existing transport network in Leicester to support new growth may be required for any adverse impacts identified based on the findings of robust transport modelling. These areas may include:
 The A47 Uppingham Road/Humberstone Road corridor, Scraptoft Lane, and the A563 Outer Ring Road (Colchester Road, Hungarton Boulevard, Hamilton Way, Troon Way).
 In addition to improvement of corridors, mitigation measures may also be required to prevent traffic rat-running through Thurnby Lodge and Netherhall.
 Public Transport improvements which increase services to Leicester city centre should consider demand for kerb space and improvements as necessary.

Representation ID: 5007

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

Summary:

Object to option 3.

Representation ID: 4991

OBJECT Mr &Mrs D Giles and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4983

OBJECT Mr R Mackness

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4919

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: 4918

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: 4917

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

The increased numbers of housing proposed in this option (comparative to other options) in Market Harborough and on the eastern edge of the PUA are only likely to increase the risks associated with the issues identified under Option 2.

Representation ID: 4876

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: 4862

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4828

SUPPORT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4804

SUPPORT Mrs Sarah Mettrick

Summary:

Support option 3.

Representation ID: 4783

OBJECT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4742

SUPPORT Brian Newman

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4732

OBJECT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4722

SUPPORT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4713

SUPPORT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4704

OBJECT Janet Lount

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4694

OBJECT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4685

OBJECT P. Panham

Summary:

Object to option 3.

Representation ID: 4648

OBJECT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4639

OBJECT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4629

OBJECT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4614

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4601

OBJECT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4592

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Support option 3

Representation ID: 4583

SUPPORT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Support option 3

Representation ID: 4565

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Option 3 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: 4553

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4544

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4535

SUPPORT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Support option 3

Representation ID: 4522

SUPPORT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Support option 3

Representation ID: 4470

SUPPORT S Knott

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4460

OBJECT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4447

SUPPORT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4438

SUPPORT L Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4432

OBJECT K. J. Tutt

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4423

OBJECT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4411

SUPPORT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Support option 3

Representation ID: 4389

SUPPORT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 4388

SUPPORT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4373

OBJECT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4362

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4352

SUPPORT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4333

SUPPORT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4317

SUPPORT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4306

SUPPORT Susan Hart

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4292

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4257

OBJECT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4248

OBJECT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4230

OBJECT Gladman Developments Ltd (Ms Nicole Penfold)

Summary:

This option is too urban centric and does not support the growth of the rural communities to any extent. The vitality and viability of many rural settlements within the District could be harmed, with additional pressure on services and facilities.

Representation ID: 4206

SUPPORT Bruton Knowles (mr Paul Barton)

Summary:

Our clients (Trustees of the Bowden Settlement) favour Option 3 as this follows NPPF guidance to locate development in places which are considered to be sustainable and have a range of accessible facilities without having to use the car.

Representation ID: 4194

OBJECT J Frisby

Summary:

Object to option 3

Representation ID: 4152

SUPPORT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4142

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Support option 3

Representation ID: 4123

OBJECT M Earl

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4114

SUPPORT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4105

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. We support the Council's identification of Overstone Park as the site to deliver the scale of development associated with these options.
Market Harborough is the most sustainable location in the District the starting point should be that growth is directed to appropriate sites. Option 3 is preferred.

Representation ID: 4092

SUPPORT J Dilks

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4077

OBJECT N Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4068

OBJECT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 4039

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 4028

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: 4020

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D Crofts

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 3996

SUPPORT Mr Michael Cole

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 3986

SUPPORT Ms Pamela Cole

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 3976

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 3966

SUPPORT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 3946

OBJECT S Canham

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 3935

SUPPORT Ms Linda Butt

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 3900

SUPPORT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 3888

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D Barratt

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 3880

SUPPORT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Support Option 3

Representation ID: 3868

OBJECT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Object to option 3.

Representation ID: 3859

SUPPORT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3848

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: 3836

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3803

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Needs moer research

Representation ID: 3784

SUPPORT Mr Simon Holder

Summary:

the main areas of development already have an urban character and offer good transport links and opportunities for employment

Representation ID: 3766

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

impact on Lutterworth without any benefits

Representation ID: 3746

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3715

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: 3671

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3652

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3649

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Not enough information on benefit to Lutterworth

Representation ID: 3583

SUPPORT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I support

Representation ID: 3564

OBJECT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

Housing requirements for Harborough are too high under this option, which would cause problems for infrastructure, particularly roads, and Kibworth could accommodate some additional housing

Representation ID: 3534

SUPPORT Hungarton Neighbourhod Plan Committee (Mr James Patterson)

Summary:

Hungarton NDP committee have expressed their main support for option 6 but would favour 3 if this was nota successful or viable option.

Representation ID: 3446

OBJECT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

Whilst this has the benefit of concentrating development thus maximising the chance of infrastructure support, the level of development proposed for Lutterworth, without the commitment to an eastern bypass, will exacerbate traffic problems. There may also be school capacity issues in the Lutterworth area.

Representation ID: 3440

OBJECT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

The strategy in Option 3 (Urban Focus) fails to have regard to the evidence of available and suitable land around the towns. Option 3 also plans for housing in the order of 4,600 dwellings over the plan period at Market Harborough, and as with Option 2, the ability to deliver this scale of housing growth in one housing market prior to 2031 is questioned. In addition, it is questioned whether there are sufficient suitable sites available given the evidence within the 2014 SHLAA.

Representation ID: 3431

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Adverse impact on Lutterworth without any benefits.

Representation ID: 3407

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: 3400

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

Summary:

Support for a greater focus of development at the LPUA and Sub-Regional Centre.

Representation ID: 3387

OBJECT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 3384

OBJECT nicholas fielden

Summary:

Scraptoft is NOT an urban centre. It is a village with one pub, a small co-op, a paper shop and a small village hall. It DOES NOT HAVE a school, a doctor's surgery, recreation facilities or a community centre so why should it be thought we can sustain a further 500 homes in addition to the 700+ already built and in the process of being built here. Our village has had more than its fair share of development and has given up rural land already.

Representation ID: 3377

OBJECT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 3351

SUPPORT Mrs Elaine Moss

Summary:

Areas suitable for proposed development

Representation ID: 3346

COMMENT Mr David Nance

Summary:

The Option is reasonable but could be improved by a more even ditribution across the Urban areas.
Could Harborough Infrastructure Cope with this?

Representation ID: 3330

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

no requirement for whats set out

Representation ID: 3316

COMMENT Mrs Angela Lomas

Summary:

The larger towns should take the bulk of new development. Lutterworth is more suited than Market Harborough since it is situated close to Magna Park and the motorways.

Representation ID: 3307

SUPPORT Mr Ken Moss

Summary:

Areas suitable for development

Representation ID: 3239

SUPPORT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

results in less car use

Representation ID: 3215

OBJECT George Burton ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY Ltd (George Burton)

Summary:

This option represents very limited housing in the rural areas. With insufficient expansion the factors that make village life sustainable will be eroded to the detriment of existing residents. This could result in stagnation of smaller settlements and result in ultimately disproportionately higher property values in those locations.

Representation ID: 3201

SUPPORT ARNESBY Parish Council (Terry Cane)

Summary:

Arnesby Parish Council supports this option because it propose the least number of new homes at Fleckney. The PC considers that the roads servicing Fleckney are not appropriate for a significant increased traffic.

Representation ID: 3181

COMMENT Dr Janet Riley

Summary:

Of options 1-3, I think this is the best, however, it may still place too many houses in rural locations remote from jobs, community facilities and public transport. In its favour, this option recognises the previous commitment of the Core Strategy that Kibworth has already had a lot of development and cannot accept more houses without new community facilities. I think this option is still not as good as those which focus further development around Lutterworth, with its good transport links and potential for economic growth.

Representation ID: 3175

COMMENT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Development should be within areas where the need for private car use is minimised - this can only happen where there is immediate access to shops, schools, surgeries etc.

Representation ID: 3164

COMMENT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Development should be within areas where the need for private car use is minimised - this can only happen where there is immediate access to shops, schools, surgeries etc.

Representation ID: 3135

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

no benefit to towns as a result, e.g. lutterworth just has impact but no infrastructure

Representation ID: 3103

SUPPORT Mr Alexander Hunt

Summary:

The larger existing towns are more likely to have better facilities and infrastructure to cope with the additional demand generated from new developments.

Representation ID: 3099

SUPPORT Miss Alicia Hunt

Summary:

The larger existing towns are more likely to have better facilities and infrastructure to cope with the additional demand generated from new developments.

Representation ID: 3095

SUPPORT Miss Georgina Hunt

Summary:

The larger existing towns are more likelyto have better facilities and infrastructure to cope with the additional demand generated from new developments.

Representation ID: 3089

OBJECT mr MARK sutton

Summary:

enviorment impact
snot enough support serives
lack of community facilities to support new housing
traffic

Representation ID: 3085

SUPPORT Mrs Karen Hunt

Summary:

This plan is a more sensible approach utilising the existing facilities of the larger towns, although Lutterworth could take some of the proposed development for Market Harborough.

Representation ID: 3054

SUPPORT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

I support this proposal as Kibworth is unable to take any new housing developments and the planned development in Fleckney isn't too large.

Representation ID: 3051

SUPPORT Mr graham gosling

Summary:

This looks like the most viable option

Representation ID: 3037

SUPPORT Ms Helen Sibson

Summary:

This seems like the fairest distribution of houses. Urban areas already have good infrastructure and could much more efficiently absorb additional housing than rural areas, without significantly altering their character.

Representation ID: 3015

SUPPORT Mrs Susan walter

Summary:

Housing predominantly in Lutterworth and market harborough is more sensible as these are towns already have better facilities and infrastructure. They are therefore more able to cope with extra housing.

Representation ID: 3008

OBJECT Mr Ian Clarke

Summary:

Don't like the very large development at Market Harborough and the idea of no development in Kibworth

Representation ID: 2984

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

as above

Representation ID: 2979

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

As above

Representation ID: 2977

SUPPORT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I support.

Representation ID: 2960

SUPPORT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

I would have a few more houses in Kibworth and a few less in Harborough in this model

Representation ID: 2957

OBJECT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

I like the majority of development being round the larger towns that have the infrastructure to support it, but think that Lutterworth has such good transport links it should have a larger number of houses than it does in this option.

Representation ID: 2941

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Pedley

Summary:

I think we should protect our rural villages and concentrate any significant new housing developments in already urban areas.

Representation ID: 2931

OBJECT Dr Matthew Clarke

Summary:

We fundamentally disagree with this proposal. It would destroy the nature of the community, and the existing and proposed additional infrastructure is entirely incapable of supporting such a level of development. Harborough DC has neglected Scraptoft/Thurnby for years in terms of funding for amenities; the amenities are inadequate for the existing population and there is no evidence that this would be remedied in any practical way by the planned development. Additionally, there is an existing need to substantially improve the traffic flow in the area due to current on-going developments and no further development can be considered.

Representation ID: 2880

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: 2871

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: 2853

OBJECT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

The burden needs to be shared more equally

Representation ID: 2816

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

no effective

Representation ID: 2788

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

In relation to the needs of the Harborough district as a whole, we believe that creating concentrated areas of housing development ( Scraptoft, Kibworth, Harborough, Lutterworth) is the best approach. The proposals focused on Lutterworth, with its motorway access, employment prospects, infrastructure development opportunities etc. are a more realistic way forward in planning new housing developments comprehensively, rather than the piecemeal approach of many of the options.

Representation ID: 2731

COMMENT Mr Thomas Price

Summary:

This option proposes too large a development at Market Harborough but maybe too light a development on the selected rural villages. A better option would be to increase the Kibworth development and the allocation to the villages and to then reduce the allocation at Market Harborough.

Representation ID: 2725

SUPPORT mike webster

Summary:

HOUSING WHERE IT IS NEEDED AND SPREAD IN THE THREE MAIN AREAS

Representation ID: 2710

SUPPORT mike webster

Summary:

THERE IS A BETTER SPREAD OF HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACROSS THE COUNTY IN THE AREAS WHERE IT IS NEEDED MOST

Representation ID: 2696

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Has an impact on Lutterworth without any tangible benefits.

Representation ID: 2661

SUPPORT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is supported because it will provide the majority of new dwelling in Market Harborough and the other urban centres which are best able, with their existing services and infrastructure, to absorb the numbers proposed. The remaining 20% allocated to the rural centres and villages will have much less of an impact on services and will not change significantly the character and nature of the rural centres and villages where the dwellings are to be provided.

Representation ID: 2658

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: 2640

OBJECT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

The provision of 20% of the District's future housing need to be met in the rural settlements is inadequate, and not a sustainable option for the rural settlements that require additional housing to support exsiting and new infrastructure. The provision of 20% is too low, is not in accordance with the Settlement Hierarchy and does not plan positively for the future growth of rural areas. It has been evidenced that the rural areas in the District can accommodate much higher housing numbers than proposed in this option. At least 40% of future housing needs should be met in rural areas.

Representation ID: 2605

OBJECT Mrs Marie Galton

Summary:

This appears to be the opposite of the rural option which would lead to high levels of devopment concentrated in a few selected areas. It is doubtful whether this approach would generate sufficient infrastructure to mitigate the impact of development and continues an existing strategy which is already stretching local services and facilities.

Representation ID: 2594

OBJECT Mr Alec Brewin

Summary:

Better to concentrate majority of housing in Lutterworth where it is most needed

Representation ID: 2588

SUPPORT Mr Matthew Canderton

Summary:

Keeps the development where there's the employment and infrastructure to sustain it

Representation ID: 2574

OBJECT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

Another 500 houses in addition to 700 already given planning permission and currently being built at Scraptoft is far too many for a village. We are NOT part of the Leicester conurbation - we are the first rural village to the East of Leicester and desperately want to keep our village identity and borders. We do not have the needed infrastructure to support this much development and have had building companies previously renege on their promises. These housing proposals are for them to profit from and not for residents' benefits.

Representation ID: 2567

OBJECT Hugh Woolley

Summary:

I object.

Representation ID: 2543

OBJECT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Poor access, need for new schools, limited jobs.
Poor option

Representation ID: 2541

SUPPORT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Those conurbations already with good and expandable facilities including jobs and schools get most new houses

Representation ID: 2532

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 and therefore support no development here

Representation ID: 2428

OBJECT Mr Richard Wayman

Summary:

Not the best option. Stay the course with the core strategy and the Scraptoft Neighbourhood Plan.

Representation ID: 2418

OBJECT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2403

OBJECT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

Slightly better option than 1 & 2 but too many houses in Mkt Harborough compared to Lutterworth.
Thurnby and Scraptoft are already oversubscribed with development and A47 even now is a nightmare scenario. Extra houses along this corridor are the last thing needed

Representation ID: 2381

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

OK

Representation ID: 2363

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Too much development in Harborough

Representation ID: 2356

SUPPORT Mr Ian Harris

Summary:

As long as there is no filling in between the villages and Leicester.

Representation ID: 2340

SUPPORT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

The urban settlements have better infrastructure and job opportunities. There are also likely to be more brown field sites available rather than building on green fields

Representation ID: 2338

SUPPORT Dr Frank L Clark

Summary:

Houghton on the Hill does not have the infrastructure to support any of the other schemes. Small scale development would be appropriate for Houghton, I therefore support the urban scheme.

Representation ID: 2316

SUPPORT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 2314

OBJECT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

Rural settlements cannot cope with this amount of housing

Representation ID: 2310

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

This brings unacceptable level of growth to Market Harborough which is already suffering from congestion, poor air quality and overstretched facilities. There is no indication that this option would bring any infrastructure benefit to alleviate this situation.

Representation ID: 2303

SUPPORT Mrs Linda Clark

Summary:

Urban settlements are best able to cope with extra housing developments. Infrastructure and services are already available close by. Easier travel to work and availability of local employment is higher than in rural areas. I believe that there should be some rural development, but this should be limited to enable communities to cope with the associated demands on local infrastructure and services.

Representation ID: 2276

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Would maintain the overall character of the district with the balance between urban and rural

Representation ID: 2261

OBJECT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

Development in Scraptoft/Thurnby is out of proportion to the rest of the county

Representation ID: 2254

COMMENT Mr Peter Francis

Summary:

But can Harborough cope with this amount of growth?

Representation ID: 2253

SUPPORT Mr Peter Francis

Summary:

Urban focus is the way forward to provide comprehensive community needs

Representation ID: 2241

SUPPORT Kathleen Barker

Summary:

Better infrastructure / communications

Representation ID: 2238

OBJECT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

The spread of development is uneven across the county

Representation ID: 2231

SUPPORT Mrs Louise Pilkington

Summary:

The economic climate is such, and will likely remain so for the foreseeable future, that people need housing in urban areas close to employment opportunities. People want access to employment, schools, shops, medical services, service in general and recreational opportunities which are more accessible and sustainable in urban areas. The dwindling and very poor public transport options available in the rural areas (only likely to worsen with public spending cuts) and limited facilities and services makes sustainability problematic. An 80/20 split, urban to rural new development seems more appropriate.

Representation ID: 2218

OBJECT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

Too many houses for Scraptoft, Bushby, Thurnby

Representation ID: 2215

SUPPORT Prof. Penelope Allison

Summary:

This option focuses development in the more urbanised parts of the region and limited growth in smaller village areas. This is a more sustainable option with more housing in areas with better options for sustainability in terms of transport, amenities and employment.

Representation ID: 2200

OBJECT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby are already arguably overdeveloped. Green wedges, existing natural separation between villages are systematically coming under threat of erosion. It makes more sense to target locations where the existing infrastructure is strong enough to support development - not in rural areas where development will encroach on existing open countryside, and increase road traffic congestion.

Representation ID: 2193

OBJECT K Patel

Summary:

Loss of character and resource problems.

Representation ID: 2179

SUPPORT Mr John Cotton

Summary:

Larger towns are more able to support the number of houses. Smaller villages are currently being overwhelmed and losing their rural identity

Representation ID: 2167

SUPPORT mr John Goldby

Summary:

this is the only option where social needs can be accommodated, i.e. schools, doctors employment ect. less rural development and more attached to larger urban areas. i.e. Harborough, lutterworth, kibworth ect.

Representation ID: 2156

OBJECT mrs linda atkinson

Summary:

scraptoft particularly, and thurnby bushby have had more than their fair share of housing in recent times and area of separation ruled by inspector should be upheld.

Representation ID: 2147

SUPPORT Dick Hosie

Summary:

An urban focus makes logistical sense.

Representation ID: 2124

OBJECT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

Scraptoft Thurnby and Bushby growth is just increasing the outskirts of Leicester and by too much

Representation ID: 2112

SUPPORT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Development where the resources are.

Representation ID: 2085

OBJECT Mr David Birch

Summary:

1900 new houses in Market Harbrough will lead to large increase in traffic through Kibworth on an already overcrowded A6

Representation ID: 2076

COMMENT Mrs Carol Birch

Summary:

Better than Option 1 or 2 but will still increase traffic within the rural area with no effective remedy.
Also, the HDC should not make any decisions on current planning applications until village Neighbourhood Plans currently in production are finished and after that, an option chosen.

Representation ID: 2072

OBJECT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2008

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

More emphasis needs to be placed on development of urban areas, which have the necessary services and infrastructure, but to deliver the numbers required, it would be better to focus on a single Strategic Development Area

Representation ID: 1977

OBJECT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

no road infrastructure to support

Representation ID: 1963

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1939

SUPPORT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Support 3 These options put development where facilities, infrastructure and transport links are in place and are the most sustainable

Representation ID: 1932

OBJECT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Object to Option 3: Bits all over the place no good as no infrastructure to cope.

Representation ID: 1920

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: 1891

OBJECT Mr Sam Hudson

Summary:

STRONGLY OBJECT. Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby cannot and should not have to accommodate an additional 500 houses when this area has already had substantial housing development recently with still more already agreed and ready to build. The proposed link road is not needed. The already agreed building works will have new link access from A47 anyway. The separation between villages will disappear. There is also flooding issues already that would be made worse.

Representation ID: 1885

SUPPORT Mr Jonathan Parsons

Summary:

All logic and environmental consideration would suggest that any further development should take place close to the motorway network, within areas offering employment opportunities or within areas close to mainline train stations

Representation ID: 1884

OBJECT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

Again massive increase in traffic movements , see comments on options 1 &2.
(Option 1 - suggests that additional 1900 home occupiers will travel along the A6 mainly on working days;given that planning permission for 1000 homes north of M. Harborough already approved, 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.School / health centres at max capacity adding to traffic congestion and poorer air quality to kibworths.
(Option 2 - Again massive increase in traffic along the A6 with increase in air pollution...)

Representation ID: 1874

OBJECT Miss Laura Hudson

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby has already had a massive expansion of new housing development that has recently been built, currently being built and plans agreed to be built. This totals over 1000 houses already. This proposal suggests adding another 1000 houses !! Be proportionate, another area needs to take the strain, spread the load to all areas for housing. Also the proposed a47 link road is not needed and will not ease traffic, it will be used as rat run.

Representation ID: 1862

OBJECT Mrs Deborah Hudson

Summary:

Strongly object. 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: 1858

SUPPORT Mr Bill Barrie

Summary:

It makes sense to have the bulk of development where the existing infrastructure is strong enough to support it - and not in rural areas where development will encroach on existing open countryside, and increase road traffic congestion because of lack of public transport.

Representation ID: 1789

OBJECT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

too much development proposed in Mkt Harborough.

Representation ID: 1770

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: 1753

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1707

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

Summary:

Smaller number of new residents more likely to fit into the village community.

Representation ID: 1694

OBJECT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

I do not agree

Representation ID: 1681

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: 1670

OBJECT Mr James Hudson

Summary:

The requirement of 478 houses in Scraptoft/Thurnby /Bushby is too high when this area already has new housing agreed and to be built in the high 100s. Spread the load over the whole Harborough area evenly

Representation ID: 1651

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: 1641

OBJECT Mr philip colver

Summary:

Market harboro has already outgrown the town by number of houses built over last 10 years and more still already agreed

Representation ID: 1634

SUPPORT Mr Ross McMinn

Summary:

Market Harborough has the best existing infrastructure and transport links to accept this level of housing and this option reduces the impact on rural communities.

Representation ID: 1621

OBJECT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

More development here will effectively bring the A6 through Kibworth to a standstill.

Representation ID: 1608

SUPPORT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

In general I support the concept of keeping rural areas rural and urban areas urban

Representation ID: 1576

OBJECT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner

Representation ID: 1567

OBJECT Mr Peter Coombs

Summary:

Scraptoft. Thurnby and Bushby have already suffered a 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: 1554

OBJECT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

Way too many houses,for Market Harborough

Representation ID: 1540

OBJECT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

You have tried in 2011 to railroad this area for more development -

Please build in rural areas which need an injection of population and commerce -


Leave Scraptoft alone!

Representation ID: 1523

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: 1485

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Again too much development around saturated urban areas and not dying villages.

Representation ID: 1428

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 1412

SUPPORT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 1408

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: 1388

SUPPORT Mr Alex Boddy

Summary:

This will help to preserve the rural nature of the district which many of its residents find appealing, and the concentration of new accommodation in areas where employment is realistic will help to reduce environmental impact

Representation ID: 1384

SUPPORT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

If large scale development is to be sustainable, it must be met in the urban settlements.

Representation ID: 1373

OBJECT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 1364

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: 1305

SUPPORT Professor Alan Wells

Summary:

The level of rural development proposed in this option is more sustainable environmentally and in terms of resources and services than options 1 and 2.

Representation ID: 1295

OBJECT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

Object to Option 3

Representation ID: 1271

OBJECT Miss Sally Dean

Summary:

Too heavily centred on Market Harborough. It is becoming overrun with characterless 'boxes'. It's 'market' town feel is being erased. Congestion is dreadful now and will only get worse.

Representation ID: 1248

SUPPORT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

Infrastructure and transport links in place. Most sustainable.

Representation ID: 1214

OBJECT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

too heavily Harborough weighted

Representation ID: 1135

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

Summary:

Insufficient provision is being made in the rural part of the District under this particular Option. The proposed %ge split towards the latter (20%) is considered too low and does not reflect the role of Rural Centres in the settlement hierarchy. At least 40% should be directed towards 'rural settlements'.

Representation ID: 1099

OBJECT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

No Eastern relief road for Lutterworth

Representation ID: 1085

SUPPORT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

Modest growth in rural villages sufficient to enable young people and to rehouse. Better access to shops etc for more people and better public transport access.

Representation ID: 1065

OBJECT Maxine Kempster

Summary:

Proportion of new housing in Market Harborough too high

Representation ID: 1055

SUPPORT Tony Hipgrave

Summary:

The rural villages are already suffering from traffic related issues as people go to work in the local urban areas and beyond. It makes much more sense to combine housing and employment locations rather than to add more stress to the creaking rural environment.

Representation ID: 1038

SUPPORT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

It is important to provide affordable housing in all the rural villages and although this plan may go someway to providing that need the developments must be ear-marked for that purpose.

Representation ID: 1034

OBJECT Mr John Biggin

Summary:

Whilst I agree that development should take place adjacent to urban areas rather than in villages, this is too many for Market Harborough. Magna Park is the largest employment area and therefore it would make sense to put the largest develpoment near to it.

Representation ID: 1012

SUPPORT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

The draft Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan is best able to provide relevant policies on housing and employment needs for the settlement. This will provide a better guide for the levels of housing and employment that the community agrees together with the key infrastructure and community facilities, e.g. new schools, new healthcare and improved access onto A6, that are essential to sustain any agreed levels of housing.

Representation ID: 1005

COMMENT Mr Paul Green

Summary:

I strongly support Option 3 this will enable the character and variety of villages and settlements to be retained. Also it will allow substantial investment in Market Harborough to revitalise the town, create a pedestrianised high street,establish a master plan for the centre and suburbs requiring high standards of design, and sort out the current traffic issues. People in the district need a vision of what can be created not merely a continuing negative approach to further development. This is a unique opportunity for the town please do not waste it!!

Representation ID: 983

OBJECT Mr Alastair Willis

Summary:

Market Harborough currently has 5 house building sites, planning approval for 1500+ more houses, and 4 more proposed in this document. The town and its services are likely to be overwhelmed soon by all these piecemeal edge-of-town developments.

Representation ID: 947

OBJECT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

This option will not help sustain villages and will lead to ever rising house prices and social disintegration in the rural areas - with potential loss of local level services.

Representation ID: 932

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: 913

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

I support

Representation ID: 905

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Rural new build should be proportional

Representation ID: 895

SUPPORT Mr Raymond Godfrey

Summary:

It makes economic and ecological sense to build new houses close to the areas where adults work and children go to school. Our rural roads are not designed or maintained well enough, particularly in winter, to take more traffic, so it is more sensible to concentrate new housing in areas with good road links.

Representation ID: 815

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Oldridge

Summary:

I support this option as feel it would be unsustainable with regard to infrastructure e.g. schools, roads etc to have any more houses built in the village.

Representation ID: 756

OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

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 MH 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: 687

SUPPORT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Like this option

Representation ID: 651

OBJECT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

STRONG OBJECTION
Too many houses would have to be accommodated in Market Harbough

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

Powered by OpusConsult