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 4: Scraptoft / Thurnby SDA

Representation ID: 5151

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 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.
The Plan should include policies which support the inclusion of space for wildlife and water in all new development in the District. Policies which promote sustainable drainage solutions to water managment (swales, ponds)can provide habitat for wildlife as measures to promote the naturalisations of water courses

Representation ID: 5088

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: 5024

COMMENT Mr John L. Marlow

Summary:

Acknowledging that new development activity is taking place at Scraptoft, it seems to me that as an illustration of simple infill development, that type of activity could take place at any number of locations across the district. Therefore it has no strategic significance.

Representation ID: 5013

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

Summary:

An SDA to the east of Scraptoft is supported; its location one of the more sustainable locations for growth given its proximity and ease of access to the range of higher order services available in Leicester (refelcted in the settlement hierarchy). It will form a key component of future development strategy and play an important role in meeting development requirements. An indicative masterplan shows a development of some 1,500 homes, a new local centre, primary school, new areas of accessible green space and a new link road (offering strategic benefits). The proposals represent a deliverable development solution providing new housing in a highly sustainable location.

Representation ID: 4992

OBJECT Mr &Mrs D Giles and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4984

OBJECT Mr R Mackness

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4959

SUPPORT Mr John Martin

Summary:

Of the options suggested and having considered the impact on the whole area covered by HDC, I think that one SDA around Scraptoft / Thurnby is the best causing minimum inconvenience and the only one showing a proper relief road. (I assume this new relief road has been, or will be, properly costed into this option?) Other options, except the rural one, would need major additional road infrastructure that doesn't appear to have been included.

Representation ID: 4922

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Economic Growth comments:
The strategic growth proposed to the east PUA and at Lutterworth is supported in principle as these locations are idenitfied for economic growth identified in the Strategic Economic Plan (the Leicester PUA growth area and the South West Leicestershire growth area), and supported through the proposed actions in the County Council's Enabling Growth Plan.
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: 4921

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Education Comments:
Support the principle from an education perspective as the proposal is large enough to provide a new school.

Representation ID: 4914

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transport Comments:
It is potentially possible that any proposals for strategic growth in places such as Scraptoft and Thurnby could well be limited unless and until a strategy can be put in place to address cumulative traffic issues in the north-east of the PUA. This would require the use of a strategic modelling tool, i.e. LLITM.
A link road between Scraptoft village and the A47 (as described in paragraph 58 and illustrated at appendix B) might help to address some of the more local issues. However, there is a risk that it could also encourage rat-running of more strategic traffic if it were to enable a quicker route for drivers to avoid congestion on the main road network in the north east of the PUA.
Additionally, a link road could be a considerable financial cost to the development. If this option were to be taken forward, there would need to be certainty that the development is viable in the light of the scale of infrastructure that it might be required to provide.

Representation ID: 4891

OBJECT Ms Susan Letts

Summary:

Object to Option 4.

Representation ID: 4889

COMMENT Grace Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

Grace Homes accepts that the development of a SDA is likely to be required to meet housing need but does not have a fixed view on the most appropriate location for the SDA. Rural development, including at Selected Rural Villages, could complement a single SDA strategy by providing shorter term development opportunities. This is an important factor to consider given the requirmement for the Council to be able to deliver a five year housing land supply +20% buffer.

Representation ID: 4863

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4829

SUPPORT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Support Option 4

Representation ID: 4805

SUPPORT Mrs Sarah Mettrick

Summary:

Support option 4.

Representation ID: 4784

OBJECT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Object to Option 4.

Representation ID: 4758

OBJECT Mr Ian Verrall

Summary:

Object to option 4.

Representation ID: 4755

OBJECT Miss Claire Orton

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4751

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Packer

Summary:

Object to Option 4.

Representation ID: 4743

OBJECT Brian Newman

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4733

OBJECT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4723

OBJECT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4714

OBJECT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4705

OBJECT Janet Lount

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4695

OBJECT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4686

OBJECT P. Panham

Summary:

Object to option 4.

Representation ID: 4680

OBJECT Mrs Pankhania

Summary:

Object to Option 4.

Representation ID: 4656

OBJECT Ms Pauline Pearce

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4649

OBJECT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4640

OBJECT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4630

OBJECT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 4616

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4602

OBJECT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4593

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4584

SUPPORT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Support option 4

Representation ID: 4566

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Option 4 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: 4554

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4545

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4536

OBJECT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4529

OBJECT Mr Terry Johnson

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4523

OBJECT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4504

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

Summary:

Object: Although Thurnby /Scraptoft are included within the Leicester PUA, they are distinct settlements with their own facilities. The scale proposed would significantly overwhelm these settlements to the detriment of their character, particularly as this figure does not even include the existing recent approvals. Particular concern is also raised over the ability for infrastructure to accommodate this level of growth in Scraptoft/Thurnby. Significant work to ensure these options are deliverable would need to be undertaken from a service perspective.

Representation ID: 4499

OBJECT mr anthony taylor

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4496

OBJECT Barbara Taylor

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4489

OBJECT Mr and Mrs R Thomas and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 4: There are too many homes already with planning permission. The facilities such as schools and leisure could not cope with any more.

Representation ID: 4486

OBJECT Mrs C Thompson

Summary:

Object to option 4. Sraptoft does not need any more building as there have been many developments in and around the village, and Beeby Road has taken the brunt over the past few years.

Representation ID: 4471

OBJECT S Knott

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4462

OBJECT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

Object to option 4, 7 and 8: We object to the Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA as:
(i) it is unfair that this area should take such a high proportion of the District's houses
(ii) it compromises the Scraptoft/Thurnby Separation Area
(iii) Thurnby & Bushby is not a sustainable location for major development despite its proximity to Leicester due to lack of amenities and poor transport links.
iv) The proposed Relief Road is a road to nowhere except perhaps for through traffic going to or from the East.

Representation ID: 4448

OBJECT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4439

OBJECT L Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4433

OBJECT K. J. Tutt

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4424

OBJECT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4416

OBJECT Mr Scott Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4412

OBJECT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4405

OBJECT Terry & Jan Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4391

OBJECT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4390

SUPPORT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Support Option 4

Representation ID: 4381

OBJECT Ms Jade Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4374

OBJECT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4361

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4353

OBJECT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4347

OBJECT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

Object to Option 4: Scraptoft has had over 450 houses built in the confines of the parish over the last six years with further applications passed for 130 dwellings off Pulford Drive, Scraptoft, 178 dwellings off Beeby Road, Scraptoft with a further application passed for 385 dwellings just over the parish boundary in Thurnby.

We consider this new road would serve very little to alleviate congestion on the A47 as the new road would take traffic generated from the 1,000 dwellings proposed in options 4, 7 and 8 plus the traffic from the planned Charity Farm development, plus traffic from the A47 itself. Also much of the land identifed is within the separation area.

Representation ID: 4340

OBJECT Ms Victoria Hicks

Summary:

As another resident living in Thurnby, a village which has increasingly become blighted by rising volumes of traffic on roads not built to accommodate them.

Of particular concern to myself as a local parent is what impact such a massive increase of housing would have on the safety of children and parents and carers at St Luke's School. The road outside is already grid-locked at peak times. It can't accommodate any more traffic.

Representation ID: 4334

OBJECT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4323

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

Summary:

This option is unsuitable in terms of impact on the separation between settlements and the local landscape.

Representation ID: 4318

OBJECT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4308

OBJECT Susan Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4293

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4286

OBJECT Mr H Brindley

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4258

OBJECT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4249

OBJECT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4195

OBJECT J Frisby

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4186

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: 4172

OBJECT Ms Sarah Field

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby have taken significant recent development, with no provision for new schools, doctors, improved bus service or community centre.
The traffic is appaling on Station Lane.

Representation ID: 4167

OBJECT Mrs June Field

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby have taken significant recent development, with no provision for new schools, doctors, improved bus service or community centre.
The traffic is appaling on Station Lane.

Representation ID: 4162

OBJECT Mr John Field

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby have taken significant recent development, with no provision for new schools, doctors, improved bus service or community centre.
The traffic is appaling on Station Lane.

Representation ID: 4153

OBJECT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4143

OBJECT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 4124

OBJECT M Earl

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4115

OBJECT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4107

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)

Summary:

The accessibility to key facilities from this area is not as expected. The walking distance to a secondary school and a leisure centre is of concern. The train station is also beyond walking distance. This lessens the sustainability credentials of this site and is an example of where following a settlement hierarchy approach might not always lead to the identification of the most sustainable sites.
Attracting employment at this location would seem difficult and there would be a reliance on the existing employment in Leicester. Sustainable transport links are limited and most commuting is likely to be car based.

Representation ID: 4093

OBJECT J Dilks

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4087

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.

The suggested new " bypass" would not resolve this.

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

Representation ID: 4079

OBJECT N Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4069

OBJECT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4063

OBJECT Ms Judith Windley

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4057

OBJECT Mr Brian Windley

Summary:

Object to option 4.

Representation ID: 4040

OBJECT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 4029

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

Summary:

Option 4 is wholly inappropriate for the District.

Representation ID: 4021

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D Crofts

Summary:

Thurnby and Scraptoft are already saturated by existing housing, the roads through the villages are congested. The proposed new road would not alleviate traffic flows and will open the valley to potential further housing.

Representation ID: 4011

OBJECT Mr M Cooper

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3997

OBJECT Mr Michael Cole

Summary:

Permission has already been given for 500 houses off Beeby Road, Scraptoft, with further houses elsewhere. The roads are at saturation point, and there are a lack of facilities in the area.

Representation ID: 3987

OBJECT Ms Pamela Cole

Summary:

Permission has already been given for 500 houses off Beeby Road, Scraptoft, with further houses elsewhere. The roads are at saturation point, and there are a lack of facilities in the area.

Representation ID: 3977

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3967

SUPPORT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Support Option 4

Representation ID: 3947

OBJECT S Canham

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3932

OBJECT T Bull

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3929

OBJECT Mrs H Brindley

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3927

OBJECT Ms Caroline Bright

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3916

OBJECT Mrs Helen Brackenbury

Summary:

Options 4, 7 and 8 contravene the Scraptoft Neighbourhood Plan, with Scraptoft and Thurnby / Bushby taking several developments in recent years.
The proposed releif road will channel traffic through the A47/Station Lane junction.

Representation ID: 3907

OBJECT Dr Bhaumik

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3901

OBJECT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3889

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D Barratt

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3881

OBJECT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 3869

OBJECT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Object to option 4

Representation ID: 3860

SUPPORT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3837

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3804

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Needs more research

Representation ID: 3782

SUPPORT Mr Simon Holder

Summary:

Scraptoft and Thurnby are close to employment areas and as such limit environmental impacts due to traveling to and from work

Representation ID: 3768

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Focus on Leicester detracting on Lutterworth

Representation ID: 3747

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3718

SUPPORT Mr Andy Bromley

Summary:

Strategic Development areas make total sense as they provide infrastructure and employment that smaller developments will not provide

Representation ID: 3673

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3653

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3613

OBJECT mrs ami benning

Summary:

this area doesn't have the infrastructure to support all of these extra houses and the risk to road pressure makes it extremely dangerous, it has already been objected to once, go back to that

Representation ID: 3607

OBJECT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

The SDA relies on a relief road linking Scraptoft Lane (j. with Covert Lane) and the A47. This would not ease congestion in Scraptoft Village and traffic heading for the City of Leicester or cutting through to Oadby to the South of the PUA, would continue to use the existing junction with the A47 (already at capacity) - see responses to Q1. Thurnby, Bushby and Scraptoft already have a commitment of 761 dwellings which will rise to 939 should the Gladman proposal for 178 dwellings on land off Beeby Road be approved. An SDA of 1,000+ dwellings would result in a severe erosion of the Area of Separation and a highly disproportionate contribution to the housing needs of the District. This option places even more emphasis on the PUA where there is a lack of employment potential, with the result that there would be an even greater increase in volume of traffic and the consequent need for residents to travel to work.

Representation ID: 3584

OBJECT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I object

Representation ID: 3567

OBJECT Mrs Gloria Uhegwu

Summary:

The size of land for the proposed 1000 new dwellings is simply too small and cannot be sustained. The local amenities (which frankly is none existent at the moment) will be stretched to a boiling point.

Representation ID: 3566

COMMENT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

This option is preferable to 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 and 9, but less favourable than 6 and 8 due to the still relatively high housing allocation for Harborough, as well as rural villages

Representation ID: 3528

OBJECT Dr Andy Uhegwu

Summary:

THE SHARE VOLME OF DWELLINGS PROPOSED IS BOUND TO CAUSE TRAFFIC JAMS, OVERCROWDING AND UTOLD HRADSHIP TO RESIDENTS. THE TRANSPORT LINK PROPSED IS SIMPLY GROSSLY INADEQUATE.

Representation ID: 3485

OBJECT Mrs Gina McCaffrey

Summary:

We dont feel that a relief road cutting through from the A47 to the Covert lane/Station lane junction would be a safe option.

Representation ID: 3466

OBJECT Mr Christopher Wigginton

Summary:

There is no employment in Scraptoft/Thurnby for this level of new population. Covert Lane is a narrow, dead end country lane and would require major redevelopment to cater for the amount of traffic created by a new school and residential dwellings. Building a new road from the A47 to the mini roundabout by the church would destroy the rural nature of this location.

Representation ID: 3455

SUPPORT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

Housing is concentrated in closer proximity to existing population and employment. However, this should only go ahead if coupled with improvements to transport in the A47 corridor.

Representation ID: 3441

OBJECT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

In summary, Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA is not the most appropriate strategy for the District given the villages respective size, location, characteristics and ability to accommodate growth. Delivery of the SDA is questioned in relation to highway capacity within the City. Furthermore, the SDA is considered likely to adversely impact on the regeneration and development objectives of the City, as well as fail to assist in achieving the economic and growth objectives for Harborough District.

Representation ID: 3436

SUPPORT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

This could represent a natural enlargement of Leicester providing residents with shorter commutes into the city centre. Less air pollution as a result of shorter journeys to and from work.

Representation ID: 3416

OBJECT nicholas fielden

Summary:

Strongly object
700 homes already built or in pipeline here Scraptoft has already has shouldered the burden for the district
No need for more housing here massive developments at Hamilton (Leicester)
Few amenities - two shops, pub, village hall
No benefit for village from proposed road linking to A47
Destruction of prime agricultural land and rural outlook
Loss of separation from Thurnby as well as ribbon development out towards Houghton next on the cards
Primary school in wrong place and secondary school provision needed
No doctors for village population already
Developers of housing so far have failed to deliver on promises of amenities so no trust left there

Representation ID: 3408

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: 3401

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

Summary:

Support for development at the LPUA as the most sustainable and capable location for development in the District.

Representation ID: 3378

OBJECT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 3352

SUPPORT Mrs Elaine Moss

Summary:

Areas suitable for proposed development

Representation ID: 3348

COMMENT Mr David Nance

Summary:

The numbers are distributed unevenly although there are positives.
In all cases housing should be concentrated near to where people work to reduce travelling and therby road congestion, wear and tear and be more environmentally friendly
If The develoments at Magna Park are real then more housing could be focussed in that area without overloading

Representation ID: 3329

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

No requirement for as set out

Representation ID: 3305

SUPPORT Mr Ken Moss

Summary:

Areas suitable for development

Representation ID: 3282

OBJECT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

Scraptoft Parish Council's objection comments sent by email

Representation ID: 3268

OBJECT Mrs Wendy Wheeler

Summary:

There has already been substantial housing development in the scraptoft /thurnby area over several years which has created more traffic on the main A47 leading to travel disruption. We have also lost large area of green sites that are important to the wildlife in the area. There is also no proper infrastructure in place to support this development.

Representation ID: 3176

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Unbalanced distribution of housing,, which achieves nothing

Representation ID: 3166

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Unbalanced distribution of housing,, which achieves nothing

Representation ID: 3136

SUPPORT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

aligns well with vision / targets

Representation ID: 3104

SUPPORT Mr Alexander Hunt

Summary:

On the outskirts of the city, this plan is the most suitable as it can take advantage of the existing services and facilities with less of an environmental impact than would be the case in some of the more rural areas.

Representation ID: 3100

SUPPORT Miss Alicia Hunt

Summary:

On the outskirts of the city, this plan is the most suitable as it can take advantage of the existing services and facilities with less of an environmental impact than would be the case in some of the more rural areas.

Representation ID: 3096

SUPPORT Miss Georgina Hunt

Summary:

On the outskirts of the city, this plan is the most suitable as it can take advantage of the existing services and facilities with less of an environmental impact than would be the case in some of the more rural areas.

Representation ID: 3086

SUPPORT Mrs Karen Hunt

Summary:

Being on the outskirts of the City, with all of its facilities and services this is the most sensible plan.

Representation ID: 3078

SUPPORT Mr David Hunt

Summary:

As this is on the outskirts of the city this would be a more suitable plan

Representation ID: 3067

SUPPORT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

The distribution is reasonable. I think more houses should be allocated to Market Harborough and Lutterworth and less at Fleckney and Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby

Representation ID: 3014

OBJECT Mr Ian Clarke

Summary:

Not a sensible spread of housing

Representation ID: 2986

SUPPORT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

This option takes advantage of the spread of development in the urban areas of the district and would be a better balance in terms of housing and employment growth an proximity to the City centre where most opportunities in employment lay and better connectivity by rail can be obtained

Representation ID: 2978

OBJECT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I object.

Representation ID: 2965

OBJECT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

71 houses is too many for a village with narrow roads like Great Bowden, unless the development is along the Leicester Road.

Representation ID: 2926

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 accommodating 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 way by the planned development at a practical level. Additionally, there is an existing need to substantially improve the traffic flow in the area and no further development can be considered.

Representation ID: 2881

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: 2872

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: 2854

OBJECT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

The burden of new house provision needs to be shared., The infrastructure including transport links , health care and. Education provision are already stretched beyond capacity.

Representation ID: 2819

SUPPORT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

the second most sustainable location out of SDAs after Mkt Harborough, according to draft consultation objectives

Representation ID: 2809

OBJECT Mr Ian Wilson

Summary:

This would inevitably lead to Thurnby/Scraptoft being engulfed by the city.

Representation ID: 2726

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

There is a disproportionate amount of housing development in the rural settlements

Representation ID: 2711

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

There is a disproportionate amount of housing development in the rural settlements

Representation ID: 2699

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Has a high focus on the urban Leicester area thereby detracting from the Harborough District.

Representation ID: 2664

OBJECT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is not supported as it would provide for the largest number of dwelling to be provided in the Scraptoft, Thurnby, Busby SDA which would have a significant impact on this part of the district and on existing services.

Representation ID: 2659

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: 2648

OBJECT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

We strongly object to this housing option. No housing provision is made for Broughton Astley or the Rural Centre Kibworth. The Kibworths and Broughton Astley constitute large sustainable settlements with a good level of services. To propose no provision to beyond 2031 in both settlements and to propose only small numbers in the remaining Rural Centres is in conflict with their role in the Settlement Hierarchy, and does not plan positively for the future of rural areas. The Draft Vision looks in particular towards a focus for rural development via SDA's which is not supported by this option.

Representation ID: 2612

OBJECT Mrs Marie Galton

Summary:

I am opposed to a large urban extension on the edge of Thurnby/Bushby and Scraptoft. It would completley change the character and openness of the valley either side of Thurnby brook and the slopes either side as the land rises towards the A47 and Covert Lane. The proposed link road would not reduce traffic levels in the village itself as the vast majority of residents like myself travel into the City using A47 and key junctions such as Grange Lane which are already very congested during peak times. It appears it would also sever several well used public footpaths.

Representation ID: 2596

OBJECT Mr Alec Brewin

Summary:

This is option is so unsuitable, it is the worst one of the lot. Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby has ALREADY had major housing developments over the last few years and they are still being built now along with others waiting to be built. The villages would just become part of the greatest Leicester area with no identity or separation. Just because this is the furthest away from Harborough town doesn't mean it is the best!! The the new link road is a farce. You wait until the artics latch on the fact they can use it to avoid A47 !!!

Representation ID: 2578

OBJECT Miss Julie Beall

Summary:

Scraptoft has seen so much development it will no longer be the village it is now.
All of the surrounded countryside and wildlife will be gone. It will be blended in with the city, also the link round will destroy any countryside left and put too much traffic through the area.

Representation ID: 2577

OBJECT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

This proposal runs contrary to the recent Neighbourhood plan where residents voiced their need for separation of village borders using green wedges and the protection of the environment. The road development would have no bearing on the problem of traffic through Scraptoft as it travels towards Leicester and Oadby NOT the A47. Four years ago, Harborough Council threw out plans for developers wishing to build on this agricultural land due to the negative impact on the local environment so how has this changed? Further reasons for my objection are noted on the attachment.

Representation ID: 2569

OBJECT Hugh Woolley

Summary:

I strongly object.

Representation ID: 2547

OBJECT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Poor road access to the village sites.

Representation ID: 2534

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Morris

Summary:

Although I wish no further development in Kibworth I don't think Scraptoft etc is the correct place for significant development either.

Representation ID: 2435

OBJECT Mr Richard Wayman

Summary:

Strongly object to the additional substantial strategic development option. Scraptoft has already fulfilled it's development under the current core strategy and neighbourhood plan. This option does not maintain appropriate separation with Thurby/Busby, would exacerbate current flooding issues and traffic congestion. Covert Lane would need expanding causing destruction of hedgerows and natural environment. and footpaths. The proposed development sites are remote to Scraptoft Village Centre and amenities. The primary school location is unacceptable due to proximity to heavy farm equipment using Covert Lane.

Representation ID: 2424

OBJECT Mr craig sands

Summary:

This plan would add massive congestion to the area and the site called relief road would just be a excuse to developed further towards keyham.all traffic would still head to scraptoft lane or station road.using the " relief "road would take you out further on the uppingham road when 90% of traffic will head back towards the city ..smaller developments spread around the region is a more sustainable approach,helping to keep local services more viable and spreading the growth instead of just a urban sprawl...

Representation ID: 2413

OBJECT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2404

OBJECT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

Development in Scraptoft Thurnby area of this size would put intolerable pressure on dangerous A47.
This plan would mean the joining up of Leicester with the villages along the A47 would become almost certain. Not the aim. Please keep villages separate.

Representation ID: 2382

OBJECT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Not OK

Representation ID: 2364

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Too many houses required in rural villages

Representation ID: 2353

OBJECT Mr Ian Harris

Summary:

Object to large scale addition to Scraptoft/Bushby as there is sufficient growth and there should remain the separation from Leicester and between the villages.

Representation ID: 2352

OBJECT Mrs Kim Garner

Summary:

Scraptoft & Thurnby have already took a HUGE share of the house building. The proposed development will spoil the semi-rural feel that Scraptoft & Thurnby have. I moved to Scraptoft because of the village setting & it's glorious surrounding countryside & open fields for walking. We do not want another Hamilton on our doorstep. Keep Scraptoft & Thurnby semi-rural.

Representation ID: 2323

OBJECT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

These areas do not have the infrastructure to cope with this amount of development

Representation ID: 2320

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Although slightly preferable to the Option 3 this still allocates another large development without adequate infrastructure provision to Market Harborough.

Representation ID: 2317

OBJECT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Objection

Representation ID: 2291

OBJECT Mr Michael Brooks

Summary:

Too many houses already planned for Scraptoft Thurnby Bushby area without any more being added, the infrastructure would be totally inadequate.

Representation ID: 2278

OBJECT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Too much focus into one area, removing choice and hindering development across the region

Representation ID: 2262

OBJECT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

Development in Scraptoft & Thurnby is unfair and out of proportion with the rest of the county. Scraptoft has already seen its community doubled and large developments have already been approved in this area.

Representation ID: 2246

OBJECT 1975 KETAN JETHWA

Summary:

The area cannot sustain this level of housing without destroying the country side.

Representation ID: 2239

OBJECT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

concentration of development in an area that has seen its village double in size is unfair.

Representation ID: 2221

OBJECT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

Unfair to build 1000 dwellings in Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA as there are not enough local amenities able to sustain such a large development,

Representation ID: 2217

OBJECT Prof. Penelope Allison

Summary:

This number of houses in Scraptoft is unlikely to be sustainable with current transport provision and will cause sprawl along the A47 towards Houghton-on-the-Hill,

Representation ID: 2201

OBJECT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Too many houses for Scraptoft, Thurnby, Bushby and Houghton. 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: 2194

OBJECT K Patel

Summary:

This is the worst and the least sustainable option. It is highly concentrated in one area, which will cause many issues - Loss of biodiversity, village character, landscape ...

Representation ID: 2185

OBJECT MRS Rosalea Gibson

Summary:

i feel that all the local services are already stretched to their limit and that traffic conditions would become dangerous

Representation ID: 2178

OBJECT Miss Julie Beall

Summary:

Scraptoft has had its fair share of development recently. To add this many houses still would stop the area being a village and totally ruin the area

Representation ID: 2177

OBJECT Mr. Edward Campton

Summary:

The amount of housing specified for this area is beyond the villages' capacity that has already sustained a large amount of housing without any noticeable infrastructure. There is not an NHS doctor's practice, school or community facilities in Scraptoft. There is a noticeable increase in the number of children from new developments in Scraptoft. Additionally our highways are not suitable for a high increase in traffic. Having monitored car speeds in the past the roads are getting more dangerous especially on tight corners where I have seen young children crossing blind corners at their peril.

Representation ID: 2169

OBJECT mr John Goldby

Summary:

scraptoft and thurnby will loose their identity if over developed and start to merge into Leicester. also no facilities for doctors, schools and social care. only local shops are also a problem. The countryside to the east of scraptoft and thurnby should be preserved.

Representation ID: 2168

OBJECT Mr David Gibbs

Summary:

I object to this option due to many houses already having been approved for the area and the amount of building that has taken place in the area over the past few years.

Representation ID: 2158

OBJECT mrs linda atkinson

Summary:

scraptoft particularly and thurnby bushby have had more than their fair share of housing in recent times and the area of separation ruled by inspector should be upheld. the proposed trunk road from a47 would alter character of area , be visually obtrusive cutting through open country partly in an area of separation. congestion to junction covert lane/scraptoft lane/church hill/station lane would be huge, type of traffic , hgvs from a47 would be a folly.

Representation ID: 2125

OBJECT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

too many in Scraptoft Bushby and Thurnby

Representation ID: 2113

OBJECT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Strain on resources and loss of character.

Representation ID: 2097

SUPPORT Mr David Birch

Summary:

no further development of Kibworth and not too much more traffic on A6

Representation ID: 2079

COMMENT Mrs Carol Birch

Summary:

This option would not put as much extra traffic on to the A6 as some of the others, which would be a good thing.

Representation ID: 2074

OBJECT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2060

OBJECT Mr Simon Cook

Summary:

Scraptoft and Thurnby does not have the infrastructure to support this plan. The proposed link road does not improve transport to Oadby or through Barkby in the slightest , which would be needed with an extra 1000 homes

Representation ID: 2004

SUPPORT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

Scraptoft/Thurnby is well positioned to accepted additional growth and would benefit from enhanced local services

Representation ID: 1989

OBJECT Mr Richard Procter

Summary:

Massive urban extension causing real damage to the countryside.
700 houses already planned
Link road will not be used by those residents wanting to travel to Leicester. They will use Station Road. The junction of Station Rd and A47 by Coles Nursery will be dreadful.
The planned primary school opposite the farm entrance would be unacceptable.
Covert Lane would have to be made into at least a 2 lane road.
The roundabout at the top of Station Rd would need major works.
The area of natural beauty and public footpaths in the immediate area would be destroyed. I am totally against the proposal

Representation ID: 1978

OBJECT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

no infrastructure to support - A47 into Leicester not capable of handling

Representation ID: 1970

OBJECT Mrs Miriam Newell

Summary:

Scraptoft already has the new Persimmon Housing on Beeby Road. Scraptoft village is taking the brunt of the traffic via Beeby Road. It is already a very busy village with a small one way system. The village can't cope with another estate being built and two cars per house adding to the already dangerous road, Scraptoft has provided it's fair share of new houses, as they also have the Davidsons development and Scraptoft Hall in 2015

Representation ID: 1964

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1943

OBJECT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Object to 4. This option would result in serious strain on village resources and loss of rural character

Representation ID: 1933

OBJECT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Object to Option 4.

Representation ID: 1921

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: 1911

OBJECT haydn Gopsill

Summary:

This relies on the supposed benefit of a relief road to reduce the congestion at the A47/Station Lane junction. These benefits are a fallacy unless you propose to run HGV up and down Station Road, from Covert Lane to the trocodero service station (I'm sure the city would oppose that). Traffic would still need to use the Station Lane/A47 junction in Thurnby to travel between Barkby/A46 and Oadby/A6 (there is no other viable route)

Representation ID: 1887

OBJECT Mr Sam Hudson

Summary:

STRONGLY OBJECT. Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby cannot and should not have to accommodate an additional 1200 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: 1886

OBJECT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

This option like 1,2,and 3 leads to a massive increase in traffic along the A6. Kibworth will become a traffic jam nightmare. See previous comments on options 1,2,3.

Representation ID: 1871

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: 1868

OBJECT mr stephen pratt

Summary:

No more housing in Scraptoft area.

Representation ID: 1859

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: 1842

OBJECT mr Terry Woodhouse

Summary:

This is not a good option. We need to preserve the green space around Scraptoft and Thurnby

Representation ID: 1823

OBJECT Dr Viren Mistry

Summary:

There is already a significant level of development planned. Local schools already have large classes and will struggle to cope with the extra demand without a reduction in quality of education.

Representation ID: 1820

OBJECT Mr Andy Garner

Summary:

STRONGLY OBJECT. Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby cannot and should not have to accommodate an additional 1200 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. If this development was to be approved Scraptoft would lose its village feel & this would have a negative effect on current residents.

Representation ID: 1796

OBJECT Mr Rodney Gibson

Summary:

There are insufficient local services to cope with the additional people, in terms of schools and doctors. Local road are already too congested and dangerous at school times and rush hours

Representation ID: 1791

OBJECT Robin Shakespeare

Summary:

Local infrastructure will not sustain further development. Scraptoft village already used as rat run between A46/A47 and proposed relief road will only increase traffic and congestion through village centre and at Covert Lane junction. Lack of employment or retail developments in proposed SDA will further increase congestion and overtax limited local amenities. Location of proposed primary school will place further strain on road networks. Historic and rural nature of Scraptoft will compromised, effectively ending its existence as a separate rural community. Significant levels of new housing has already been provided in Scraptoft, and more is unsustainable for a small village..

Representation ID: 1790

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

this option recognises that Kibworth just does not have the capacity and infrastructure to support additional housing

Representation ID: 1771

OBJECT Mr Donald Urquhart

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1754

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1740

OBJECT Mr Michael Lord

Summary:

It's a misconception that Thurnby/Bushby, Scraptoft is a sustainable location just because it borders Leicester. The restricted road network, lack of adequate public transport, services and facilities mean it's not sustainable

It involves building on the important Scraptoft/Thurnby Separation Area and the attractive local amenity Thurnby Brook Valley.

The Relief Road is not such a bonus as it might appear. It will deliver the cars from 1000 households onto the existing congested road system. It won't take the pressure off Station Road or the A47/Station Road junction because traffic will have to use these to get to Leicester or Oadby.

Representation ID: 1710

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

Summary:

It becomes more likely that Houghton will be joined with Thurnby and Bushby

Representation ID: 1708

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

Summary:

Object on grounds of increased traffic problems and assimilating new residents into the community.

Representation ID: 1704

OBJECT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

I do not support this option

Representation ID: 1696

OBJECT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

I seriously do not agree

Representation ID: 1682

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: 1678

OBJECT Mr Steve Walton

Summary:

This development has little or no benefit to Scraptoft. It will only reduce the identity of the village and have a major increase on commuter traffic.

Representation ID: 1671

OBJECT Mr James Hudson

Summary:

STRONGLY OBJECT. Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby cannot and should not have to accommodate an additional 1200 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: 1652

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: 1642

OBJECT Mr philip colver

Summary:

As before market harboro has already had far too many housing estates built

Representation ID: 1622

COMMENT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

fairer distribution, however, some serious thought must be given to traffic on the A47.

Representation ID: 1611

OBJECT Emma Lee

Summary:

The infrastructure is not there to support the number of new homes proposed for the Scraptoft area and transport links are very poor. This is one of the lowest options for employment opportunities.

Representation ID: 1588

OBJECT Dr Mala Patel

Summary:

Scraptoft is already a busy thriving area which is still able to maintain a villagey feel that would be completely lost if developed further. The existing countryside is invaluable in allowing residents to appreciate a calm natural environment amid the busy stressful city life.

Representation ID: 1577

OBJECT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner.

Representation ID: 1568

OBJECT Mr Peter Coombs

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1562

OBJECT ANDREW WHITEHOUSE

Summary:

Strongly object. The scraptoft / Thurnby area is saturated with new homes and developments, Jelsons being the most recent build in progress.

The schools , roads (Station Lane) and infrastructure will all struggle especially with the proposed link road from the A47 to a new proposed roundabout on the corner of Covert Lane and Station Lane.

This massive building plan will severely impact and have a great detrimental effect on the current open aspect of the area.

Why are we planning to build on green field sites AND NOT BROWN FIELD SITES which have a much less impact on the natural environment?

Representation ID: 1555

OBJECT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

Too many houses in Fleckney

Representation ID: 1541

OBJECT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

We are saturated here - more development means more pressure on the community - more burglaries, more crime - we have an ageing population in Scraptoft - Why cant you buld in rural areas -

We will fight this in court if necessary -

Leave Scraptoft alone!

Representation ID: 1531

OBJECT Mr rajesh kumar

Summary:

Strongly object-As a parent who child attends a local school I know for a fact this area can't cope in that ascpect Let alone the infrastructure for more houses.

Representation ID: 1528

OBJECT mr simon rodak

Summary:

We already have 4 large developments.

Representation ID: 1524

OBJECT 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: 1515

OBJECT mr simon rodak

Summary:

Thurnby - Scraptoft known as Thurnby meadows is set in the heart of a deep natural valley and segregation land between the two sides. This meadow land being part of a major path that forms a stream which flows directly towards housing into the City which has outdated flood defenses, pre 1970s. We already have at least 4 very large housing schemes being developed in this area to date. Local roads are highly congested into the City both into and out & a link road cutting across to the A47 east will have no resemblance resolve issues along congested route.

Representation ID: 1506

OBJECT Mrs Diane Miles

Summary:

The village (Great Bowden) cannot sustain an increase in population, due to concerns over traffic, parking and school provision.

Representation ID: 1486

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Strongly object. The scraptoft area is saturated with homes and developments. The schools and infrastructure will struggle. It is no longer a village. And more homes would mean greater disruption for the area. Other settlements need the regeneration Scraptoft doesn't. The creation of link road would be travesty on the landscape.

Representation ID: 1463

OBJECT Robin Childs

Summary:

Urban extension would impact severely on existing infrastructure and services

Representation ID: 1429

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 1414

OBJECT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 1409

OBJECT Mr Ian Pilon

Summary:

Scraptoft has already undertaken several developments and has at least 2 waiting to start.This massive increase will destroy our historical village settlements with modern buildings that will deteriate within 25 years. Scraptoft,Thurnby and Bushby are losing their identity. All roads in the area are continually congested. Scraptoft would not cope with this extra housing and people.

Representation ID: 1374

OBJECT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Object to Option 4

Representation ID: 1367

OBJECT Mr John Coombs

Summary:

I think 2 SDAs are better than one in order to spread the housing load across the district.

Representation ID: 1350

OBJECT STOUGHTON Parish Council (Karen Giddens)

Summary:

We object strongly to option 4 and any further development in the Scraptoft/Thurnby and Houghton settlements as both the A47 and A6 approaches to Leicester are already congested at extended peak times, and Stoughton is already plagued by heavy traffic seeking to link between these two roads. Any more vehicles will be unsustainable and indeed dangerous.

Representation ID: 1307

OBJECT Professor Alan Wells

Summary:

This proposal locates the bulk of new housing in the Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA whilst bulk employment growth centres on Market Harborough. The implications for traffic growth, air pollution and congestion are highly adverse; 1000 new dwellings equates to typically 2000 addition private vehicles (2 car families the norm) and without joined up pubic transport (also the norm) this SDA adds disproportionately to traffic and carbon emissions.

Representation ID: 1292

OBJECT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

This option is not supported. The A47 is too narrow and too busy to take additional traffic from this development and will force additional traffic to Station lane and Scraptoft Lane.
In addition, further development in the area of Scraptoft is causing flooding.

Representation ID: 1282

OBJECT Mr Barry Barker

Summary:

We should not allow any further development in Scraptoft until the proposed community centre is built as promised when all of these building projects where started. We cannot permit builders to ignore the needs of the existing community.

Representation ID: 1249

OBJECT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

Not sustainable. Strain on village resources and loss of character.

Representation ID: 1217

SUPPORT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

This allows reasonable levels of housing distribution throughout the South of the District ( where previous & current housing allocations have been heavy) and indicates likely provision of community & transport infrastructure.

Representation ID: 1136

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

Summary:

No provision is made within Kibworth under this Option which is considered unsound given the size of the settlement (the Kibworths), its role within the rural hierarchy and the level of facilities and services therein.

Representation ID: 1101

OBJECT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

Swinford does not support the large number of houses proposed

Representation ID: 1086

OBJECT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

Shrinks the green wedge east of the existing settlements. Is effectively a growth of Leicester City with the likelihood of future amalgamation

Representation ID: 1040

OBJECT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

This will result in the parishes being subsumed into Leicester and lose their character.

Representation ID: 1039

OBJECT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

Too centralised.

Representation ID: 1013

SUPPORT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

The draft Kibworth and Great Glen Neighbourhood Plans will best be able to provide relevant policies on housing and employment needs for the settlement. These will provide a better guide for the levels of housing and employment that the communities agree, together with the key infrastructure and community facilities required to sustain any level of housing. Until that time, largescale housing growth for the Kibworths and Great Glen outside the limits of development should be limited, and any developments around Kibworth must take account of the lack of capacity at the primary school or GP surgeries.

Representation ID: 963

OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

See 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: 948

OBJECT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

This would place undue reliance on delivery from one site and may take a very long time to come on stream and deliver housing.

Representation ID: 933

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: 914

OBJECT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Too much rural development

Representation ID: 906

OBJECT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Less housing targeting rural areas. Be proportional

Representation ID: 816

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: 688

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

Representation ID: 652

OBJECT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

STRONG OBJECTION
The SDA at Scraptoft and Thurnby is not enough on its own. Too many houses would have to be accommodated in Market Harborough

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

Powered by OpusConsult