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 6: Lutterworth SDA

Representation ID: 5143

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

From a flooding prepective, in line with NPPF, sites located within Flood Zone 1 would be our preferred location for growth in the District. Sites located within FZ3b is not permitted for residential development and would only be appropriate for a very limited type of employment development. Sites in FZ 3a and 2 must be sequentially tested from a flooding perspective and whenever possible development should also be steered away from these locations.
The River Swift flows through the southern part of Lutterworth and is a tributary of the River Avon. The river has a history of flooding in Lutterworth, most recently in 2008. Housing development of the scale proposed in Options 6, 8 and 9 would significantly increase the surface water run off 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 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: 5091

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 A426 Lutterworth Road, A5460 Narborough Road and the A563 Outer Ring Road (Palmerston Way, Asquith Boulevard, and Soar Valley Way).
 It is important to bear in mind of the impact of the new development will have on air quality. Soar Valley Way / Glenhills Way junction is a declared Air Quality Management Area.

Representation ID: 5034

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

LCC Education: Support the principle from an education perspective as scope for growth at Lutterworth and Fleckney.

Representation ID: 5026

COMMENT Mr John L. Marlow

Summary:

With a single River Swift crossing, the centre of Lutterworth is plagued by a constant flow of through traffic.
Much of that traffic movement is north/south between Rugby and Leicester, together with traffic generated by the network of major highways and motorways junctions lying to the south, east and west of Lutterworth. No relief for Central Lutterworth is indicated on the map, and despite a new road between the A426 north of Lutterworth and the A4304 to the east, I fear that Lutterworth will continue to suffer.
Care must be taken in the siting of a new junction on the A4304 near Misterton as the settlement could have been the site of a Roman Villa, later converted to an early Christion minster.

Representation ID: 5009

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

Summary:

Object to option 6.

Representation ID: 5002

OBJECT Mr John McDermott

Summary:

Building a Service Station at Junction 20
-Closing Leicester Forest East and replacing it by one at Lutterworth is illogical. It is too far south in relation to other service stations at Donnington Park (29 miles) and Watford Gap (10 miles).
-If the service facilities are on the east side only of the M1 then 50% of their customers (ie those travelling north) will have to travel TWICE around the roundabout at junction 20 which is already very busy.
-Service stations should be built on both sides of the motorway to be efficient.

Representation ID: 4999

OBJECT Mr John McDermott

Summary:

Object. Deliberately creating a town dissected by busy M1 is madness. The alternative sites do not have this complication and therefore should be selected. Residents of Lutterworth East would be downwind of a very busy motorway suffering traffic fumes and noise. It is noted that the current town centre of Lutterworth has the worst traffic pollution in Leicestershire.
The busy M1 J21 roundabout would be impacted unacceptably by:
- Lutterworth East and West movements;
- Magna Park traffic and possible extension;
- potential service station.
Clearly more houses should be built in Lutterworth to support Magna Park and other industries but this should be modest and probably north of Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 4994

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs D Giles and 1 other

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4986

SUPPORT Mr R Mackness

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4929

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Assets Comments:
A separate detailed submission by the Lutterworth East Landowner Group, of which LCC is a member, will be made in respect of the Lutterworth SDA. Accordingly, Options 6,8 and 9 which include this strategic allocation are strongly supported.
The Plan does not propose any additional employment growth in Lutterworth were the Lutterworth SDA to be delivered. Given the possible long lead in time to deliver employment at the SDA, it is suggested that an appropriate allocation be made to meet existing employment needs for the immediate term. The Lutterworth Road/Coventry Road site could help fulfill this need in the short term,particularly of businesses who wish to relocate now. It could also help to deliver allotments on additional land owned by the CC.

Representation ID: 4928

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Economic Growth comments
The strategic growth at Lutterworth is supported in principle as this location is a fous 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.
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: 4927

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Education Comments:
Option 6 Lutterworth SDA; support the principle from an education perspective as scope for growth at Lutterworth and Fleckney.

Representation ID: 4926

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transportation Comments:
Lutterworth's performance in traffic sustainability terms, relative to Market Harborough, Harborough District (as a whole) and also to many other areas of the HMA, is comparatively better both in terms of the impacts on total vehicle travel time and total delay.However, the Strategic Traffic Assessment prepared by AECOM highlighted potential off-site highway impacts, including possible link capacity issues that could arise on the A426 Rugby Road and impacts on the M1, which in turn means impacts on M1 J20.
A more rigorous assessment, using LLITM, would be necessary to establish a greater understanding of the site's potential traffic impacts on the surrounding road network (taking into account any employment proposals in the area).
An SDA to east of the M1 would also have relatively poor walking/cycling links to facilities in Lutterworth and potential issues in terms of diverting public transport services through the site.
Other issues:
- Potential cost of link road including a new bridge over the M1); and
- costs of providing improved access for sustainable transport modes;
- mitigating off-site impacts is likely to be considerable.

Representation ID: 4900

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Support Option 6: Delivery of an SDA at Lutterworth is strongly supported. This SDA allocation would make a significant contribution to housing numbers and has the potential to deliver substantial economic and environmental benefits to the town. It would provide housing to support any future extension to the strategic distribution site at Magna Park. Lutterworth SDA, a site capacity in excess of 2500 dwellings together with an employment allocation, has the potential to deliver any shortfall in housing numbers within the period to 2031 or alternatively provide housing at a sustainable location into the next plan period.

Representation ID: 4887

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: 4865

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Object to option 6

Representation ID: 4831

SUPPORT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4806

SUPPORT Mrs Sarah Mettrick

Summary:

Support option 6.

Representation ID: 4796

COMMENT MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council (Cathy Walsh)

Summary:

We support the development of sufficient housing to trigger the construction of the Lutterworth Eastern Bypass. However, we would strongly object to the allocation of land for the motorway service facilities.
We are also concerned if Lutterworth is allocated extra housing but the Eastern Bypass is not constructed it will become impossible to travel into and out of Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 4786

SUPPORT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4765

COMMENT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)

Summary:

We would like to raise serious concerns about the potential Strategic Development Area at Lutterworth given its proximity to Misterton Marshes SSSI. It is highly likely that large-scale residential and associated development in this area would have significant hydrological and other impacts on the SSSI, including human footfall, which could damage or destroy the interest features for which it is notified.

Representation ID: 4752

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Packer

Summary:

Support Option 6.

Representation ID: 4745

SUPPORT Brian Newman

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4735

SUPPORT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4725

SUPPORT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4716

SUPPORT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4707

SUPPORT Janet Lount

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4697

SUPPORT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4688

OBJECT P. Panham

Summary:

Object to option 6

Representation ID: 4658

SUPPORT Ms Pauline Pearce

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4651

SUPPORT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4642

SUPPORT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4632

SUPPORT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Support option 6.

Representation ID: 4617

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 4603

SUPPORT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Support this option

Representation ID: 4594

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 6

Representation ID: 4586

SUPPORT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4568

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Option 6 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: 4556

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 6

Representation ID: 4547

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 6

Representation ID: 4538

SUPPORT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4525

SUPPORT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4473

SUPPORT S Knott

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4464

SUPPORT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

We support the Lutterworth SDA because it would provide a Lutterworth bypass.

Representation ID: 4450

SUPPORT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4441

SUPPORT L Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4426

SUPPORT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4414

SUPPORT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4396

SUPPORT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 4393

SUPPORT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4376

SUPPORT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4364

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Objetc to Option 6

Representation ID: 4355

OBJECT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 4343

SUPPORT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

After carefully considering all the options we believe that options 6 (Lutterworth SDA) would be the best contender as this is the only option that could alleviate more traffic problems on the A46 and A6 and at the same time give Lutterworth a new link road between the A4304 and A426 alleviating traffic congestion through the town centre. We also consider that the close proximity of Lutterworth to Magna Park would also address employment within the area.

Representation ID: 4336

SUPPORT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4320

SUPPORT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4310

SUPPORT Susan Hart

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4295

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4260

SUPPORT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4251

SUPPORT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4211

SUPPORT Mr R Flint

Summary:

Option 6 is preferred. The preferment is solely for the reason that it appears that this option alone would provide an eastern bypass for Lutterworth and, thus, reduces traffic flows through the Town.

Representation ID: 4197

OBJECT J Frisby

Summary:

Object to option 6

Representation ID: 4173

SUPPORT Ms Sarah Field

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4168

SUPPORT Mrs June Field

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4163

SUPPORT Mr John Field

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4155

SUPPORT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4145

OBJECT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Object to option 6

Representation ID: 4137

OBJECT Mr Romuald Wasik

Summary:

I feel that building 2000+ homes on the opposite side of the M1 will be creating a new town/village. At present there is a road access between the two sides at the motorway junction and at the Gilmorton road. There is a public foot path through Misterton Way. Unless people are prepared to get into their cars there will be very little integration. I feel that choice No 5 and No 7 would be more feasible.

Representation ID: 4126

SUPPORT M Earl

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4117

SUPPORT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4109

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)

Summary:

The SHLAA states for this site:

* Partly within flood zone 2 and 3;
* Site contains a SSSI;
* Site contains grade 2 agricultural land;
* The Highway Authority is concerned that the site is severed from the existing settlement;
* Highways England is concerned that a high proportion of trips would be made by car potentially requiring works at M1 junction 20;
* A new vehicle crossing of the M1 may make development unviable.

Viability doubts about whether 2,500 homes could fund a link road that includes a bridge over the M1, while still providing planning contributions.

Representation ID: 4095

SUPPORT J Dilks

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 4082

OBJECT N Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 4071

OBJECT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 4042

OBJECT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 4036

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

Summary:

Option 6 is wholly inappropriate for the District.

Representation ID: 4023

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs D Crofts

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3999

SUPPORT Mr Michael Cole

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3989

SUPPORT Ms Pamela Cole

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3979

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 3969

SUPPORT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3957

OBJECT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 3949

OBJECT S Canham

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 3918

SUPPORT Mrs Helen Brackenbury

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3909

SUPPORT Dr Bhaumik

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3903

SUPPORT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3891

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs D Barratt

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3883

SUPPORT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 3871

SUPPORT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Support option 6

Representation ID: 3862

SUPPORT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3839

SUPPORT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3788

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

No information relating to control of traffic thro town resulting in air and noise pollution. No commitment for planned investment for improvement in infrasatructure and possible
pedestrianisation of centre. this could act as a magnet for business and visitors alike.No info given for surgeries,schools and increased parking
areas Weight and speed restrictions required on A426 has not been addressed No adequate reason for service station given.
Until information on these areas is given, I would object

Representation ID: 3781

SUPPORT Mr Simon Holder

Summary:

Lutterworth provides good transport links and employment opportunities

Representation ID: 3777

SUPPORT Mr Simon Holder

Summary:

. The M1 and A5 provide good transportation links. The size of this development would not alter the character of Lutterworth

Representation ID: 3749

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3741

OBJECT Miss Margaret Wild

Summary:

Greater pressure on surrounding infrastructure, in particular the A426
Lutterworth is already a vehicle orientated town so this proposal contradicts the consultations' suggested vision on sustainable transport and reducing car usage.
the By-pass may not be built for some time therefore resulting in extra pressure and no benefit to Lutterworth for a long time

Representation ID: 3725

OBJECT Mr Andy Bromley

Summary:

Strategic Development areas make total sense as they provide infrastructure and employment that smaller developments will not provide but Market Harborough developments on the edge of town are cut off and create extra traffic into the centre which the roads will not be able to cope with, 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: 3688

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Not enough information in relation to combating increased traffic in Lutterworth and surrounding area,including A426 The by pass should be dual .No mention of detail improvements in order to reduce traffic pollution and noise in town centre. also no mention of pedestrianisation which could act as a magnet for business and residents alike. No consideration given to extra building/parking for surgeries. and parking in general. No evidence of a vision for the future of Lutterworth to improve the infrastructure and environment

Representation ID: 3679

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3656

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3639

SUPPORT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

The Parish Council considers this as their preferred option as it would provide a much needed by-pass for Lutterworth and a level of infrastructure which would be sustainable, particularly in view of the proposed extension to Magna Park.

Representation ID: 3615

SUPPORT mrs ami benning

Summary:

brilliant idea, go ahead

Representation ID: 3609

OBJECT Mr Andrew Craig

Summary:

Even greater pressure on surrounding infrastructure that is being burdened by Magna Park, in particular A426.  Directly contradicts consultation's suggested vision on sustainable transport and reducing car usage - Lutterworth is currently a vehicle oriented town.  Divides the community and results in a sterile environment separated by the M1.  By-pass may not be built for some time resulting in no benefit for Lutterworth for a long tim

Representation ID: 3586

SUPPORT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I support

Representation ID: 3570

SUPPORT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

This option gives modest housing requirement to Harborough, which should be sustainable while still retaining the character of the town and road capacity, and maintains moderate development in rural villages suitable for sustaining them. Lutterworth, with its proximity to the M1 has much better transport links and could cope with higher housing requirement

Representation ID: 3532

SUPPORT Hungarton Neighbourhod Plan Committee (Mr James Patterson)

Summary:

Hungarton NDP committee feel that this option along with the associated employment is the best for the district. However we recognise that it may be the most reliant on a set of decisions which may not all come together. In that case we would favour option 3 as a second approach

Representation ID: 3510

OBJECT Dr Stuart Rimmington

Summary:

Even greater pressure on surrounding infrastructure that is being burdened by Magna Park, in particular A426.
Directly contradicts consultation's suggested vision on sustainable transport and reducing car usage - Lutterworth is currently a vehicle oriented town.
 Divides the community and results in a sterile environment separated by the M1.
 By-pass may not be built for some time resulting in no benefit for Lutterworth for a long time

Representation ID: 3471

OBJECT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

I support the idea of concentrating development in one or more SDAs, but feel the level of development suggested for Lutterworth in this option is excessive. Land to the east of Lutterworth may well be suitable for development and an eastern bypass is desirable, but the addition of a service area on the M1 and further land for distribution, will bring development too far into the countryside. If this option is selected, the district must engage in a strategic overview of all development in the Lutterworth area, rather than the piecemeal approach which currently seems to prevail.

Representation ID: 3465

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Wigginton

Summary:

Lutterworth offers the best option for sustainable employment for the people moving into the area. By creating a small new settlement on the other side of the M1 from existing settlements, there will be less disruption to current inhabitants.

Representation ID: 3464

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

As presented, the Lutterworth SDA negative effects outweigh the potential benefits. An integrated strategic growth plan for Lutterworth would be needed. We are concerned about increased traffic on an already at-capacity A426; the SDA resulting in 2 separate disjointed communities; a direct contradiction of the consultation's proposed visions on sustainable development, in particular transport; the risk of the relief road not being built immediately; a service station that can only be accessed from one direction putting undue stress on M1 J20; the risk of existing residents moving out of Lutterworth due to all the negative impacts.

Representation ID: 3445

SUPPORT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

In summary, planning for a strategic development area with growth in homes and employment together at Lutterworth SDA is the most sustainable and appropriate strategy having regard to the alternative options.

Representation ID: 3433

SUPPORT mrs Anne-Marie jameson

Summary:

Lutterworth has a need for more housing for the increasing workforce needed to support businesses.

Representation ID: 3432

SUPPORT mrs Anne-Marie jameson

Summary:

Lutterworth has a need for more housing for the increasing workforce needed to support businesses.

Representation ID: 3410

COMMENT Mr John David Edmonds

Summary:

Using land to east of Lutterworth would affect other areas, including Lutterworth itself minimally. It would create new location with minimal disturbance to Leicestershire.

Still risks over stretching the A47 into Leicester.

Representation ID: 3398

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

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3380

SUPPORT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 3358

OBJECT Mr David Nance

Summary:

Too big for any one area it is like creating a new town and too far removed from the current distribution which is not unreasonable although would benefit from tweaking to reflect employment and transport

Representation ID: 3355

SUPPORT Mrs Elaine Moss

Summary:

Areas suitable for proposed development

Representation ID: 3322

SUPPORT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

Needs foot/cycle paths adding to plan
vehicles not likely to travel out of their way to get back on to the Road - pedestrianisation of the main route into Lutterworth could stop it but then also could stop people visiting shops in Lutterworth therefore killing the town

Representation ID: 3301

SUPPORT Mr Ken Moss

Summary:

Area suitable for development

Representation ID: 3288

SUPPORT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

Scraptoft Parish Council after careful consideration believe this option would be the best contender as this is the only option that could alleviate more traffic problems on the A46 and A6 and at the same time give Lutterworth a new link road between the A4304 and A426 alleviating traffic congestion through the town centre. We also consider that the close proximity of Lutterworth to Magna Park would also address employment within the area.

Representation ID: 3274

SUPPORT Mr Paul Rains

Summary:

The proposed eastern by pass in Lutterworth is a sensible option and we have wanted this for some time now. Placing large scale developments near existing road links such as the M1 and A5 makes much more sense than for example placing it at Kibworth.

Representation ID: 3241

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Lutterworth already has significant congestion

Representation ID: 3198

SUPPORT Dr Janet Riley

Summary:

I think this is the best option to deliver houses and economic growth where there is potential to create a new, well-planned community with good transport links and potential for jobs, therefore securing the economic growth in the west of the district (complementing Market Harborough) and fulfilling sustainability objectives as far as possible.

Representation ID: 3180

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Character of Lutterworth has already suffered from the imposition of nearby wind farms, the addition of so many houses and M1 services would further detract from its character, thus conflicting with the Vision and Objectives.

Representation ID: 3178

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Character of Lutterworth has already suffered from the imposition of nearby wind farms, the addition of so many houses and M1 services would further detract from its character, thus conflicting with the Vision and Objectives.

Representation ID: 3168

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Character of Lutterworth has already suffered from the imposition of nearby wind farms, the addition of so many houses and M1 services would further detract from its character, thus conflicting with the Vision and Objectives.

Representation ID: 3160

SUPPORT Mr Peter Witting

Summary:

The proposed future developments in the vicinity of Magna Park, coupled with the 10 Hectares of employment land in this plan, make this a preferred option. It would match new housing with new employment, minimising stresses on the existing highway network.

Representation ID: 3138

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

no joined up thinking on lutterworth growth plan, not convinced by-pass would reduce town centre traffic. this is critical to any success. must enable more amenities and retail in town centre otherwise 2 split communities. not aligning to sustainable vision / targets. existing lutterworth residents may move out. a426 will be over capacity.

Representation ID: 3129

SUPPORT Mrs Joanna Richter

Summary:

I support this option largely based on feedback I read from residents in Lutterworth.
It appears they are in real demand of a relief road, and placing large scale developments near existing road links such as the M1 and A5 makes much more sense than for example placing it at Kibworth which is totally congested and doesn't have the infrastructure to support and more houses, let alone 1200.

Together with the Core Strategy option I support the Lutterworth SDA.

Representation ID: 3102

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: 3098

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: 3094

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: 3093

SUPPORT mr MARK sutton

Summary:

build for the future

Representation ID: 3083

SUPPORT Mrs Karen Hunt

Summary:

This is a more suitable plan utilising the existing facilities of the a town. Although Market Harborough should take some of the development suggested for Lutterworth

Representation ID: 3081

SUPPORT Mr David Hunt

Summary:

This would be amore suitable plan as it is utilising the facilities of an existing town. Although it would be fairer to split the housing so that Market Harborough takes a proportion from Lutterworth

Representation ID: 3059

SUPPORT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

Lutterworth and Market Harborough are the areas in the best position in terms of being towns with a better infrastructure to take the new houses

Representation ID: 3003

SUPPORT Mrs Susan walter

Summary:

Lutterworth is situated near motorways and therefore has good transport links. It has a hospital and shops and is far more suitable for development.

Representation ID: 3001

SUPPORT Mr Dan Pedley

Summary:

Lutterworth is a town ideally positioned within the road network for commuter development. There are numerous routes out to Leicester, Hinckley, the M1, Rugby, the M6 allowing you to trtavel in virtually any direction via a fast road link, even without additional road building. The town already has additional infrastructure when compared to more rural locations, making it far better equipped to cope with further development. It is already a town, it already has extensive shopping, schooling and leisure facilities and it is a town used to development, therefore better able to cope.

Representation ID: 2998

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

The proposed development of Magna Park would indicate the need for local housing to be made available for the work force. Depending on the size of the proposed Magna Park development - this would be a positive strategic plan.

Representation ID: 2981

SUPPORT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I support.

Representation ID: 2970

SUPPORT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

Lutterworth has excellent transport links and the centre of the town needs revitalising, this would help.

Representation ID: 2947

SUPPORT Mr J Jackson

Summary:

Strongly agree. Lutterworth has a good road network of the A5 and M1 & M6 motorways allowing new residents to benefit from excellent and existing transport links across the county and region.

Representation ID: 2943

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Pedley

Summary:

Lutterworth is best placed for significant housing development as it is already an urban area, is well positioned in terms of major roads and motorways and has more employment opportunities than any of the rural villages.

Representation ID: 2940

SUPPORT Dr Matthew Clarke

Summary:

The amenities and infrastructure in Lutterworth would be well served by this development option, it would serve to support the growth of business and wealth in the area while keeping the essentially rural nature of the rest of Harborough.

Representation ID: 2883

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: 2874

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: 2856

SUPPORT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

The infrastructure is already in place, transport links are much better. Overall a much more strategically sound proposal.

Representation ID: 2825

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

Contradicts draft consultation objectives particularly regarding transport, env. impact, town/village centres and natural environment.
There is no reassurance in this consultation that the Lutterworth SDA is aligned with a strategic growth plan for Lutterworth, to meet needs of potential new population (50% bigger than current town!). e.g. comparable increases in retail / requirements for pedestrianisation etc...
No reassurances that relief road will reduce traffic (Lutterworth needs to be acces only & relief road dual).
Severe risk of 2 separate communities being formed, split by the M1.
Service station simply not required with existing infrastructure for upgrades @J21 and J20 at capacity.

Representation ID: 2814

SUPPORT Mr Ian Wilson

Summary:

This proposal appears to "fit" with current development pressures.

Representation ID: 2791

SUPPORT nicholas fielden

Summary:

This appears to be the best option with far more plus elements delivering housing and economic development where they are most needed and actually benefiting the residents by reducing the traffic flow through the centre of Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 2790

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 approsach . 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: 2741

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Representation already presented. Additional upload attached.

Representation ID: 2740

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: 2728

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2714

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2670

SUPPORT Mr David Jones

Summary:

At a public meeting nearly 30 years ago, I proposed a Lutterworth eastern bypass funded by development east of the M1. Sadly, this was not supported by Leics CC or Harborough DC.

I support a Lutterworth SDA subject to the early completion of an eastern bypass. Lutterworth crucially needs this road which will allow for traffic
restrictions in the town centre including a 7.5 ton limit which will re-invigorate Lutterworth.

Otherwise, Lutterworth town centre will suffer ever higher air pollution, noise & vibration from HGV and other traffic.

Representation ID: 2668

OBJECT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is not supported as it would require the largest number of new dwelling to be provided in Lutterworth which would put an unnecessary strain on local services and infrastructure when Market Harborough is much better placed to take a higher proportion of new dwellings.

Representation ID: 2601

SUPPORT Mr Alec Brewin

Summary:

Strongly support. Lutterworth has the greatest need and support for this development due to expansion of magna park

Representation ID: 2571

SUPPORT Hugh Woolley

Summary:

I support.

Representation ID: 2558

SUPPORT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Good access to M1 and M6 and proximity of Magna Park give good employment opportunities.
Number of houses will fund infrastructure development.
Worth a serious investigation.

Representation ID: 2556

SUPPORT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Seems to provide potential jobs near the development sites and concentrates the houses to allow funding for new roads and schools.
Certainly worth serious consideration

Representation ID: 2544

SUPPORT Mr Mark Prescod

Summary:

This uses the best current resources and also respects the countryside.

Representation ID: 2536

SUPPORT Mrs Rachael Morris

Summary:

I believe Lutterworth to be a suitable location for significant new housing developments given the higher employment prospects in the area & better transport links

Representation ID: 2533

SUPPORT Mr Mark Prescod

Summary:

This plan best considers the existing countryside and resources.

Representation ID: 2526

SUPPORT Miss J Moffat

Summary:

Sustainable development.

Representation ID: 2516

SUPPORT Mrs Helen Heath

Summary:

It is better to expand with careful planning and thought than the current piecemeal lead development that does not come with the supporting infrastructure.

Representation ID: 2444

OBJECT Mr Simon Howes

Summary:

More pressure on surrounding infrastructure, already burdened by Magna Park especially A426.
Contradicts consultation suggested vision on sustainable transport & reducing car usage.
Divides the community, resulting in a sterile environment separated by M1.
By-pass may not be built for some time resulting in no benefit for Lutterworth for a long time.

Representation ID: 2440

OBJECT Mr Ian Madeley

Summary:

- Even greater pressure on surrounding infrastructure that is being burdened by Magna Park, in particular A426.

- Directly contradicts consultation's suggested vision on sustainable transport and reducing car usage - Lutterworth is currently a vehicle oriented town.

- Divides the community and results in a sterile environment separated by the M1.

- By-pass may not be built for some time resulting in no benefit for Lutterworth for a long time.

Representation ID: 2422

SUPPORT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 2410

OBJECT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

I would query why the village of Houghton on the Hill, with poor infrastructure no opportunity for employment and a poor public transport system has been singled out to receive the highest number of houses (by a substantial margin) with the exception of the towns of Mkt Harborough, Kibworth and Lutterworth. I strongly object.

Representation ID: 2384

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

OK

Representation ID: 2366

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Housing and employment in one area

Representation ID: 2350

SUPPORT Mr Ian Harris

Summary:

Would allow Lutterworth tho have a bypass.

Representation ID: 2339

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

This is an acceptable option because it provides for both business and housing growth along with infrastructure in an area that has already got reasonable transport links. Employment area that could also address the National requirement for more warehousing. Links beyond the district towards the A 5 and M6 and by rail from Rugby can also be made. However this option allocates too much growth for Market Harborough in addition to the already allocated SDA.

Representation ID: 2328

SUPPORT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

There are more job opportunities this side of the County and good road links to the motorways

Representation ID: 2319

SUPPORT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 2306

SUPPORT Mr Michael Brooks

Summary:

Best option, concentrating the housing east of Lutterworth near to the motorway and providing welcome relief for the town centre.

Representation ID: 2279

OBJECT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Too much focus into single area, impact overall economic and social development of the district.

Representation ID: 2265

SUPPORT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

Infrastructure in Lutterworth already exists

Representation ID: 2258

SUPPORT Mr John Turner

Summary:

Given its strategic location, further significant housing & commercial development in Lutterworth is inevitable. Its designation as a Strategic development Area should, therefore, be welcomed. It provides the opportunity to address in a coherent rather than piecemeal way the issues that currently threaten the ongoing health of the community. Principal amongst these are the various impacts of traffic through the centre of town together with a lack of 'critical mass' to attract a broader range of retail services.

Representation ID: 2251

SUPPORT Mr Peter Francis

Summary:

Lutterworth is the obvious location for housing, infrastructure, employment and transport needs

Representation ID: 2242

SUPPORT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

Should enhance Lutterworth, the infrastructure already exists

Representation ID: 2223

SUPPORT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

By choosing this plan Lutterworth would get a much needed by pass

Representation ID: 2220

SUPPORT Prof. Penelope Allison

Summary:

This option focuses development in Lutterworth which is a major urban centre and has the capacity to provide suitable transport, employment and other facilities.

Representation ID: 2203

SUPPORT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Good option. Lutterworth needs the development and has the employment opportunities and infrastructure to cope - including easy access to M1 motorway.

Representation ID: 2196

SUPPORT K Patel

Summary:

Lutterworth has the employment opportunities and infrastructure to cope

Representation ID: 2182

SUPPORT Mr. Edward Campton

Summary:

This development is the most viable because of the local highway management and easy access to busy roads.

Representation ID: 2174

SUPPORT mr John Goldby

Summary:

The logical choice of development with schools, doctors, police and social care plus good shopping on the doorstep of new residents. Also good access to motorway for commuters. this is the best option by far.. Main access roads already in place, and will create less of a traffic problem then in smaller communities like scraptoft or thurnby.

Representation ID: 2161

OBJECT mrs linda atkinson

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2145

SUPPORT Dick Hosie

Summary:

Best option. Lutterworth has the infrastructure and traffic links are good.

Representation ID: 2127

SUPPORT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

Increases an urban area, lots of employment area

Representation ID: 2115

OBJECT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Strain on resources and loss of character.

Representation ID: 2099

SUPPORT Mr David Birch

Summary:

No further development of Kibworth and less development of Market Harborough so relatively small increase in traffic on A6 through Kibworth

Representation ID: 2084

COMMENT Mrs Carol Birch

Summary:

Best option in this group as it doesn't affect the rural area so much and will not unduly affect traffic levels on the A6. Lutterworth well located with roads that can take traffic around rather than through the town

Should enhance Lutterworth's facilities.

Representation ID: 2077

SUPPORT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

Potentially good infrastructure. Town already exists.

Representation ID: 2061

SUPPORT Mr Simon Cook

Summary:

Sensible option in an area that can cope and needs the infrastructure improvement.

Representation ID: 2010

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

The suggestion of an extension to Lutterworth on the other side of the M1 is completely ludicrous, and would not work. The proposed road layout, including a new bridge over the M1, would bring even more traffic through residential areas. The services in the town cannot readily be extended, and would cause even more congestion and pollution to a town which is already one of the most polluted in the country.

Representation ID: 1988

SUPPORT Mrs Jessica Canderton

Summary:

If there has to be a large development then it seems Lutterworth has the employment opportunities and infrastructure to cope

Representation ID: 1980

SUPPORT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

Good distribution of new developments

Representation ID: 1966

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1951

OBJECT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Object to 6. This option would result in serious strain on village resources and loss of rural character

Representation ID: 1928

SUPPORT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Support Option 6. Bits all over place no good as no infrastructure to cope. Lutterworth area not IN lutterworth so may help them and with decent 106 monies can make difference. ie doctor, school.

Representation ID: 1923

SUPPORT Mr Peter Harding

Summary:

Additional housing where it can be supported

Representation ID: 1914

SUPPORT haydn Gopsill

Summary:

If part of the submission is a bypass of Lutterworth something the residents have been trying to get for a number of years

Representation ID: 1897

SUPPORT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

This proposal takes full recognition of the fact that that M1 motorway is immediately adjacent ,traffic to Leicester the main employment area in the county would travel down the motorway and not clog up the authorities A and B roads which are already extremely busy

Representation ID: 1895

SUPPORT Mr Sam Hudson

Summary:

Best option, lutterworth needs the development

Representation ID: 1878

SUPPORT Miss Laura Hudson

Summary:

Good option. Lutterworth needs the development

Representation ID: 1866

SUPPORT Mrs Deborah Hudson

Summary:

This is the best option. Lutterworth needs this development

Representation ID: 1849

SUPPORT Mrs Jennifer Sandars

Summary:

Accessibility to the M1 would benefit provision of employment. Housing would be available close to new employment in the Lutterworth area and Magna Park.

Representation ID: 1829

SUPPORT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

Would relieve traffic going through the town itself and open up a better distribution hub around Magna Park. Potential for additional employment in the area and need for housing located nearby minimising environmental impact.

Representation ID: 1801

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

This option makes sense, concentrating new development near the motorway network and minimising the generation of additional traffic elsewhere in the county.

Representation ID: 1773

SUPPORT Mr Donald Urquhart

Summary:

Lutterworth is a good location for development as it already has excellent transport links.

Representation ID: 1756

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

combine with others

Representation ID: 1741

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lord

Summary:

Support the Lutterworth SDA because it would provide a much needed bypass for Lutterworth especially for traffic to and from the motorway.

Representation ID: 1730

SUPPORT Stefan Richter

Summary:

This is my second choice after the option that follows the existing Core Strategy.
It makes sense to place new houses close to existing road links such as the M1 and A5 and also close to major employment such as Magna Park.

If we have to pick one major SDA then the Lutterworth SDA is clearly the most suited. It also shields the 'old' Lutterworth from the new development by having the M1 act as a barrier.

Representation ID: 1712

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

Summary:

Smaller amount of development more suitable in an area that has already seen or will see considerable growth , Hamilton, Scraptoft Thurnby .

Representation ID: 1711

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

Summary:

Smaller amount of development more suitable in an area that has already seen or will see considerable growth , Hamilton, Scraptoft Thurnby .

Representation ID: 1700

SUPPORT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

better provision for employment housing

Representation ID: 1685

SUPPORT LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council (Andrew Ellis)

Summary:

Lutterworth Town Council supports this option contingent on the provision of an eastern bypass and new bridge to be located north of the town.

By locating development on the eastern side of the town, it is felt that the area of separation between Lutterworth / Magna Park and Lutterworth / Bitteswell on the western side can be better safeguarded. It is also considered that by accepting larger scale development on the eastern side will bring with it an increased vitality of service provision and facilities that would otherwise not be the case if development was accepted in a piecemeal approach.

Representation ID: 1675

SUPPORT Mr James Hudson

Summary:

STRONGLY SUPPORT Lutterworth needs the growth to accommodate requirement of employment growth, particularly Magna park

Representation ID: 1654

SUPPORT Ms Hazel Newitt

Summary:

Lutterworth would be an appropriate area to build the development and would also benefit from the proposed link road

Representation ID: 1646

OBJECT Mr philip colver

Summary:

Object on grounds of increased traffic problems and assimilating new residents into the community. It becomes more likely that Houghton will be joined with Thurnby and Bushby.

Representation ID: 1624

SUPPORT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

The proposal is of sufficient size to bring a comprehensive infrastructure package and sits comfortably with job creation/road network from Magna Park.

Representation ID: 1610

SUPPORT Emma Lee

Summary:

With the proposed expansion at Magna Park near Lutterworth and potential for improvements with the link to the M1, this represents the best option.

Representation ID: 1579

OBJECT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner

Representation ID: 1570

OBJECT Mr Peter Coombs

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby have already suffered a hugely 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: 1557

OBJECT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

Having seen this plan for effectively a new settlement next to Lutterworth I feel I must object on their behalf. New,residents would be isolated on the other side of the M1.

Representation ID: 1543

SUPPORT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

PLEASE DO THIS - IT IS PERFECT!

YOU WILL HAVE THE BENEFIT OF MUCH NEEDED MOBILE LABOUR WHICH REQUIRES THE MOTORWAY -

Representation ID: 1526

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 more homes

Representation ID: 1509

OBJECT Mrs Diane Miles

Summary:

The village cannot sustain an increase in population, resulting in increased traffic and parking problems and pressure on school numbers.

Representation ID: 1496

OBJECT Mrs Karen Farnsworth

Summary:

Not to support the Lutterworth SDA due to:
Pressure to Infrastructure
Limited options for sustainable travel methods
An 'at capacity' economic and retail area in Lutterworth
1950 homes adjacent to Lutterworth would not boost local ameneties but require new ones that could risk long-term potential for the town
Scraptoft more suitable for SDA

Representation ID: 1488

SUPPORT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Better link roads to m1 to commute and encourage growth economically.

Representation ID: 1465

SUPPORT Robin Childs

Summary:

area in need of redevelopment - low impact on existing services

Representation ID: 1431

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 1416

SUPPORT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 1413

SUPPORT Mr Ian Pilon

Summary:

This plan would be a more reasonable expectation for new housing lutterworth would be the better option due to space, roads and infrastructure

Representation ID: 1375

OBJECT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Object to Option 6

Representation ID: 1369

OBJECT Mr John Coombs

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1353

SUPPORT STOUGHTON Parish Council (Karen Giddens)

Summary:

Option 6 has been considered to be the most favourable option. Lutterworth has already infrastructure in place with good transport links and employment opportunities nearby that could be built on with the view to support a large sustainable housing development. This minimise housing developments in our small villages that hardly have any infrastructure to support any new
housing developments.

Representation ID: 1298

SUPPORT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 1288

SUPPORT J Mee

Summary:

Support Option 6

Representation ID: 1284

SUPPORT Mr Barry Barker

Summary:

See previous comments

Representation ID: 1251

OBJECT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1233

SUPPORT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

This option allows development of an area already well served by transport links & offers best future employment opportunities due to proximity of Magna Park

Representation ID: 1138

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

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1103

SUPPORT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

Less numbers of houses in Swinford and Lutterworth eastern relief road

Representation ID: 1088

SUPPORT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

Would encourage development of more shops and related facilities, better public transport etc.

Representation ID: 1067

SUPPORT Kay Wilson

Summary:

Generally I would support any development where it was large enough to require development of a self contained community (eg a complete new village) Infill is less desirable but all the smaller rural villages need to be able to expand to ensure sustainability.
There is a lot to be said for development close to major roads (particularly motorways), easing transport issues and this delivers on this front. Enlarging Lutterworth would mean its services would be developed and provide more options for the immediate hinterland of rural villages

Representation ID: 1053

SUPPORT Tony Hipgrave

Summary:

The multiple solutions will not be able to accommodate fully the infrastructure requirements, especially regarding roads and other traffic/road safety measures, which would make those solutions comfortable for residents. By contrast the existing infrastructure around Lutterworth, plus importantly plans to by pass the Town make this area the most suitable to provide a set of infrastructure measures which could make the growth less intrusive and more comfortable to existing residents.

Representation ID: 1052

OBJECT Mr Ian Duffield

Summary:

I object on the basis that Lutterworth could not sustain a development as proposed without significant adverse affect on the area, it amenities and infrastructure. Travel in the area will become an issue. A development of this sort would become a justification for even more development, roads, shops etc.

Representation ID: 1046

SUPPORT Mrs Jill Duval

Summary:

As this proposal is adjacent to the motorway, it will have less impact on the housing already on the other side and leave many other villages untouched. Roads and services are already in place; new residents will have easy access to the motorway and benefit from all that comes with a development of this size ie. school(s), new roads, shops, employment etc. This proposal would have all the disruption in one place rather than being spread over the Harborough district.

Representation ID: 1042

SUPPORT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

There is good transport connections in the area and work opportunities.

Representation ID: 1031

SUPPORT Mr John Biggin

Summary:

Magna park is one of the largest industrial estates in Europe and it would make sense to me to put houses where there is local employment. Expanding villages will only lead to more car jouneys , congestion and damage to the environment. Lutterworth has a greater need for employment than Market Harborough.

Representation ID: 1015

SUPPORT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 993

OBJECT Mr Stephen Willcox

Summary:

Pressure to infrastructure
Limited options for sustainable travel methods

Representation ID: 985

SUPPORT Mr Alastair Willis

Summary:

There are many advantages to this proposal. Lutterworth has excellent transport links, and expanding employment opportunities nearby.

Representation ID: 966

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: 950

OBJECT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

Undue reliance on one area and will take too long to deliver. Not flexible enough to cope with market and other potential variations over the plan period.

Too little support for the villages - danger of a loss of key services and genuinely local level organic growth.

Representation ID: 936

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: 908

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

This fairer and proportional

Representation ID: 898

OBJECT Samantha Hamer

Summary:

The transport links will not support this option.

Representation ID: 892

OBJECT Mr Ian Madeley

Summary:

Pressure on schools/doctors, infrastructure generally.

Lutterworth already pretty much at capacity.

Representation ID: 881

OBJECT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

Pressure to infrastructure
Limited options for sustainable travel methods
An "at capacity" economic and retail area in Lutterworth
1950 homes adjacent to Lutterworth would not boost local amenities but require new, competing ones that could risk long term potential for Lutterworth Town
If a SDA is needed, Scraptoft is more suitable as there are more growth, economic and sustainable travel opportunities in Leicester.

Representation ID: 835

OBJECT Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Summary:

New settlement across the motorway from Lutterworth will create -
Competition for amenitied with no-one benefitting;
Traffic congeston on Whittle roundabout;
Traffic back-up on A426 because of increased HGV on that route from new motorway arrangements and developments in Rugby;
Increase in air pollution (Lutterworth already highest reading in country);

Representation ID: 825

SUPPORT Mrs Barbara Strevens

Summary:

The infatsructure already in place with some expansion will surely make this option more viable than others. Transport links and being a town surely leads towards additional homes being accommodate more easily.

Representation ID: 820

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Oldridge

Summary:

I support this option with no further building of houses in Kibworth

Representation ID: 690

SUPPORT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Like this option

Representation ID: 680

OBJECT Mrs Joy Burgoine

Summary:

More homes In Lutterworth would not boost local amenities but require new ones to also be built, i.e. new schools, new medical centre etc. Also it would exacerbate the traffic problems in the town, where the pollution is at a premium already. This morning at 7.30 am it too me 20 minutes to drive from the town down to the Whittle Island. In my opinion Scraptoft is more suitable as there is more growth and our area is already overcrowded.

Representation ID: 654

SUPPORT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

There are many advantages to this proposal. Lutterworth has excellent transport links, and expanding employment opportunities nearby.This option will give a better balance in Market Harborough though the number of house should still be reduced.

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

Powered by OpusConsult