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 7: Scraptoft / Thurnby SDA and Kibworth SDA

Representation ID: 5146

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: 5092

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.
 A6 London Road corridor, Leicester
 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.
 Public Transport improvements which increase services to Leicester city centre should consider demand for kerb space and improvements as necessary.

Representation ID: 5014

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: 4995

OBJECT Mr &Mrs D Giles and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4987

OBJECT Mr R Mackness

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4934

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Education Comments:
Kibworth SDA; support the principle from an education perspective of providing a school, maybe an issue at secondary level: and
Scraptoft/ Thurnby SDA; support the principle from an education perspective as the proposal is large enough to provide a new school.

Representation ID: 4933

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transport Comments
* Option 7 Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA and Kibworth SDA: Please see comments in respect of Option 4 and Option 5. Additionally, the relative paucity of strategic transport infrastructure on the south east side of the PUA, especially in terms of orbital highway capacity, could mean that it would be extremely difficult to mitigate any over-lapping traffic impacts arising from these two areas of growth.

Representation ID: 4892

OBJECT Ms Susan Letts

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4884

OBJECT Grace Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

Object to option 7. 2 SDAs could restrict housing supply elsewhere in the district, potentially preventing other locations from benefitting from additional housing.

Representation ID: 4866

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4832

OBJECT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4819

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Malpass

Summary:

Object to option 7. The main reasons are that further development will significantly increase traffic through the village & on the A6 which is highly congested at present. Also that the schools in Kibworth are near to capacity which will mean fewer places for children from new developments.
The Kibworth Neighbourhood Plan is currently in the process of production. Decisions on this scale should not be taken before the Neighbourhood Plan is complete.

Representation ID: 4812

OBJECT Mrs Jane McDoanld

Summary:

Object to option 7 for the following reasons:
- Kibworth has had a huge amount of new housing in the past few years, in fact I would say more than its fair share.
- The village is losing its village identity.
- The schools and doctors are completely overwhelmed.
- The traffic through the village is a nightmare and the situation is becoming dangerous.
- Access onto the A6 is virtually impossible at times and the potential for a serious accident is huge.
- Further housing will make all the above even worse.

Representation ID: 4809

OBJECT Ms Christine Spinks

Summary:

Object to option 7:
Kibworth is currently overstretched for resources such as schools, doctors and traffic flow through the village. The infrastructure of the village could not cope with the additional buildings proposed. Air pollution is currently just below the acceptable levels and any proposed house building would push these into dangerous levels.
The current efforts of builders to push through plans before the Neighbourhood Plan can be implimented is totally unacceptable. Bearing in mind the building already taking place and the plans already submitted totalling approximately 500 plus dwellings these comments ae reasonable and justified.

Representation ID: 4801

OBJECT Mrs Sarah Mettrick

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4794

OBJECT B Moffat

Summary:

Object to option 7: I have lived in Kibworth for about thirteen years now and moved into a friendly community that was very safe and well provided for. Since then, the new build has blighted our village and still you want to build more houses.
We feel that we are near to breaking point as it is. Traffic, schooling, sewage issues, shops are all under pressure.
The plans are turning a village we were proud of into a much larger town, but without the facilities.

Representation ID: 4791

OBJECT Mr Ron Moore

Summary:

I wish to register the strongest objection to proposals 7. The Kibworths have been swamped with big new housing developments in very recent years, and the village is already at full stretch. New building should be shared evenly across the region, avoiding the stresses that go with over-rapid expansion in a single place.

Representation ID: 4787

OBJECT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4759

OBJECT Mr Ian Verrall

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4756

OBJECT Miss Claire Orton

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4753

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Packer

Summary:

Object to option 7.

Representation ID: 4746

OBJECT Brian Newman

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4736

OBJECT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4726

OBJECT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4717

OBJECT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4708

OBJECT Janet Lount

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4698

OBJECT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4689

OBJECT P. Panham

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4681

OBJECT Mrs Pankhania

Summary:

Object to option 7.

Representation ID: 4659

OBJECT Ms Pauline Pearce

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4652

OBJECT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4643

OBJECT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4633

OBJECT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4625

OBJECT Ms Brenda Reid

Summary:

I object most strongly to the proposals 5,7 and 9 which would see a major development in Kibworth which is not acceptable. If it were to go ahead it would more or less double the current population of Kibworth. It would also have a major impact on schools and doctors surgeries in the village. The schools are already near to capacity and there would be very few places for children from any new housing developments. Increased housing will also result in increased traffic through the village (already problematic) and along the A6.

Representation ID: 4618

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4610

OBJECT Mr Stephen Butt

Summary:

I oppose Option 5 which would involve a considerable amount of new housing in the Kibworth area for the following reasons:
- Existing schools are at capacity;
- Educating young children outside their community is against all concepts of community wellbeing, which is a major component of the NPPF;
- An increase in housing in Kibworth of up to 1200 homes will result in 1000-2000 more vehicles attempting to access the A6 from village streets. A bypass is not the solution as it would only move the pinchpoints to different locations;
- Existing health services arrangements are at copacity.

Representation ID: 4605

OBJECT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4596

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4587

OBJECT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4569

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Option 7 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: 4557

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4549

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4539

OBJECT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4531

OBJECT Mr Terry Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4526

OBJECT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4518

SUPPORT Merton College Oxford represented by Savills (Mr Roger Smith)

Summary:

Strongly support option 7. Of the two SDA proposals set out in respect of 'The Kibworths', it is only the Merton College / Leicester Diocesan Board of Finance scheme that can deliver the strategic infrastructure associated with the relief of existing pressures to the A6. Pressures on this route and implications on movement in The Kibworths is well documented in press articles and we understand that a bypass is a long standing ambition of the local community.

Representation ID: 4512

OBJECT Mrs Hazel Taylor

Summary:

Object to 1200 houses for Kibworth. An astonishing and alarming figure. Primary school is at capacity with no room to expand on its present site. It is increasingly difficult to see one's GP not to mention the amount of traffic going through the village. No development has yet taken place Airfield Farm. Perhaps further development in Kibworth is a more urgent proposition in case the Neighbourhood Plan currently being compiled may hinder a more lucrative return on their investment. Kibworth is still seen as an attractive place to live but this may not be the case if development is not sympathetic to its semi-rural nature.

Representation ID: 4506

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. 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.
Kibworth is a modest sized Rural Centre and to suggest a further 1,200 dwellings can be accommodated without overwhelming the vilage is unfathomable. The level of development proposed for both areas is completely unjustifiable as it is not creating a balance live/work community.

Representation ID: 4500

OBJECT mr anthony taylor

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4497

OBJECT Barbara Taylor

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4494

OBJECT Mr Mick Underwood

Summary:

After reading about future developments proposed for the Kibworths I find the numbers proposed to be propostuos as there is not the sufficient infrastructure in place.The school's are already full and trying to drive through the Village is a nightmare.After reading the form from the Parrish council l strongly oppose option no 7 (5 and 9).

Representation ID: 4490

OBJECT Mr and Mrs R Thomas and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 7: Scraptoft/Thurnby already has too many homes with planning permission. The facilities such as schools and leisure could not cope with any more.

Representation ID: 4487

OBJECT Mrs C Thompson

Summary:

Object to option 7. 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: 4483

OBJECT Ms Rosanne Lane

Summary:

More housing equals traffic gridlock. We already have a huge development of 650 assorted housing being built on the Warwick Road.

Representation ID: 4474

OBJECT S Knott

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4465

OBJECT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

Object to option 7: 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: 4459

OBJECT Ms Kate Wood

Summary:

* Schools and Medical Services are already at maximum capacity
* Transport links are totally inadequate for the number of homes being considered - exit roads are overloaded and the A6 is dangerous.
* There is little prospect of employment within the village so future residents will always have to travel elsewhere - and therefore spend their income elsewhere so Kibworth will not benefit in any way.
* The passage of traffic through the village centre is already frequently at a standstill so more vehicles will aggravate this situation.

Representation ID: 4451

OBJECT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4442

OBJECT L Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4434

OBJECT K. J. Tutt

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4427

OBJECT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4418

OBJECT Mr Scott Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4415

OBJECT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4406

OBJECT Terry & Jan Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4403

OBJECT Mrs Jane Jackson

Summary:

Kibworth doesn't have the infrastructure, the A6 is like the M1 there is no room for anymore houses, we do not have the classrooms or the surgeries, we need to concentrate on the roads first before any houses can be considered.

Representation ID: 4399

OBJECT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4395

OBJECT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4382

OBJECT Ms Jade Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4377

OBJECT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4369

OBJECT Mrs Andrea Houlihan

Summary:

I struggle to get a GP's appointment which can be quite a frightening experience.

Schools in Kibworth are near on saturated with Kibworth High School needing to expand for when they have their first Year 11's next year, let alone admitting more children from new housing estates.

Trying to get onto the A6, not only at rush hour, is very difficult as it is with the sheer volume of traffic through our Village. More traffic will bring
along a serious consideration for road infrastructure improvements in the area to ensure a satisfactory level of road safety is maintained.

Representation ID: 4365

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4356

OBJECT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4348

OBJECT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

Object to Option 7: 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. Also much of the land identifed is within the separation area.

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.

Representation ID: 4345

OBJECT Mrs Joy Hill

Summary:

The current infrastructure cannot cope with further large development, the A6 cannot withstand even greater numbers of traffic, not to mention the poor air quality as it is now. Schools and health centres are at breaking point.

Representation ID: 4341

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: 4337

OBJECT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4331

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

Summary:

Option 7 is inapproriate in terms of landscape impact at Kibworth and imapct on separation between settlements and landscape at Scraptoft /Thurnby.

Representation ID: 4321

OBJECT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4311

OBJECT Susan Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4297

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4287

OBJECT Mr H Brindley

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4284

OBJECT Ms Judith Greening

Summary:

Existing services are already stretched to capacity ie education, (the primary school has already reached its maximum intake); medical; roads, (extra time has to be factored into journeys at peak times to allow access to the A6). There is not even a newsagents for the new estates at the far end of the village on Warwick road, and not everyone has access to a vehicle during the day, which must make life for young mothers very difficult, especially in bad weather with toddlers in tow.

Representation ID: 4281

OBJECT Mr Stephen Gould

Summary:

I believe The Kibworths are in danger of being encircled and besieged with new building. In my opinion, there is insufficient infrastructure in the villages as it is and the pressure on the A.6 and adjoining roads would be intolerable.

Representation ID: 4278

OBJECT Ms Sarah Gould

Summary:

The current infrastructure of the Kibworths is already under strain and the village roads are already choked with traffic. Access to and from the A6 takes longer every day.

The Kibworths are in great danger of being inundated by new building, bolted on to the perimeter of the village, with the consequent loss of many acres of greenfield land and habitat.

People who come to live in such estates cannot rely on village facilities which are already over stretched and so will commute in and out, adding to traffic problems, without ever being part of village life or community.

Representation ID: 4261

OBJECT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4252

OBJECT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4198

OBJECT J Frisby

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4189

OBJECT Ms Mary Franks

Summary:

The A6 through Kibworth causes daily delays and frustration, with further crossings needed.
The primary school is at capacity, with little room to expand, and with Smeeton Road also congested at peak times of day.
Both villages maintain a rural feel away from the A6, however Kibworth Meadows is not intergrated. Further development will appeal to commuters only.

Representation ID: 4178

OBJECT Mr Marc Fielding

Summary:

Already in Kibworth the facilities are thread bare. It is impossible to book an appointment at the doctors, the school is already at captivity and it is becoming unsafe in the playgrounds due to the fact there are so many pupils. Furthermore portakabins are only a temporary solution to the overflowing children.

In short with out a drastic increase in public funds going into the local services within Kibworth e.g new schools, doctors, infrastructure etc it isn't viable to build anymore house. In short we are against all proposed development in and around Kibwoth Harcourt and Kibworth Beauchamp.

Representation ID: 4174

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: 4169

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: 4164

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: 4160

OBJECT Valerie Moore

Summary:

Object to option 7. Kibworth has taken a very big scale of development in very recent years, and our facilities and roads are at breaking point. WE have done our bit, taken our share, and really can't cope with more. Development needs to be shared fairly around the Region.

Representation ID: 4157

OBJECT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4146

OBJECT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4139

SUPPORT Mr Romuald Wasik

Summary:

I feel that option 7 (or 5) would be more feasible than the Lutterworth SDA option.

Representation ID: 4133

OBJECT R and N Whiteway and 1 other

Summary:

In view of the fact that Kibworth will have accomodated some 700 houses already on the David Wilson site the proposal to add 1200 more is not acceptable. Fill-in developments can be assimilated easily but more large increases such as those proposed will overload existing facilities such as schools and sewerage. We object to option 7.

Representation ID: 4128

OBJECT Mr Brian Williams

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4127

OBJECT M Earl

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4118

OBJECT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4096

OBJECT J Dilks

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4088

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: 4083

OBJECT N Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4081

OBJECT Mr Brian Williams

Summary:

Object to option 7.

Representation ID: 4072

OBJECT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4064

OBJECT Ms Judith Windley

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4058

OBJECT Mr Brian Windley

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 4052

OBJECT KIBWORTH BEAUCHAMP Parish Council (Mr Chris Wood)

Summary:

Object to Option 7. It will have an overbearing impact on the local community and will overstretch resources.
* I am concerned that:
Any further development in Kibworth will mean a significant increase in traffic through village streets and on the A6.
* Kibworth's schools are near to capacity There will be few places for children from new developments.

Representation ID: 4043

OBJECT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4031

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

Summary:

Option 7 is wholly inappropriate for the District.

Representation ID: 4025

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: 4015

OBJECT Mr Martin Crofts

Summary:

The outcome of KB1 has meant 660 new houses in the village, resulting in a thousand more cars, with the consequent pressure on schools, health centres and the local road network.

Representation ID: 4012

OBJECT Mr M Cooper

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 4009

OBJECT Mrs Sarah Condon

Summary:

With no by-pass coming, and the thought of potentially up to 2400 more cars (or more) added to the mix, the existing residents will be GRID LOCKED - accidents WILL happen.

The queues in the Post Office are unacceptable

Lack of funding and county budget re-thinks have put our local fire station under threat

The library is under threat of closure

Parking in the village makes traffic flow increasingly slow and dangerous

Exit and entry to Co-op supermarket has become very dangerous

Residential streets are jammed up with cars parking illegally.

Our primary school is already at maximum capacity

Representation ID: 4005

OBJECT Ms Sarah Collins

Summary:

Kibworth has already become far too big for the current existing infrastructures.....schools, doctors etc are almost full to capacity. The current roads are unable to cope with the existing amount of traffic using them on a daily basis, particularly during peak periods. Access onto the A6 towards Harborough in the morning rush hour is extremely difficult.

Representation ID: 4000

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: 3990

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: 3980

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3970

OBJECT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3943

OBJECT KIBWORTH BEAUCHAMP Parish Council (Maria Smith)

Summary:

The existing community and amenity infrastructure including village roads, the A6, local schools and health provision, would not cope with such development. No mitigating proposals have been offered to address these issues.

The well-being of the Kibworth community, a key element of the NPPF, will be damaged by any further expansion of housing in the area. This Parish Council calls upon Harborough District Council to honour its previous Local Plan commitment not to impose further damaging major development on Kibworth.

Representation ID: 3940

OBJECT Leicestershire Archaeological And Historical Society (Mr S Butt)

Summary:

* The existing schools in Kibworth will be unable to accommodate the additional number of children.
* Educating young children outside their community is against all concepts of community wellbeing, which is a major component of the NPPF.
* An increase in housing in Kibworth of up to 1200 homes will result in 1000-2000 more vehicles attempting to access the A6 from village streets. The access points (New Road, Church Road and Wistow Road) are already at capacity resulting in long queues at peak times.
* The existing health service arrangements in Kibworth are also at capacity.

Representation ID: 3937

OBJECT Ms Linda Butt

Summary:

1) The Primary School in Kibworth has reached capacity and cannot expand
2) The Health Centres and other services in Kibworth are at capacity.
3) Illegal and nuisance car parking in Kibworth is a growing issue.
4) Egress from the village onto the A6, especially during rush hours, has been difficult for many years, but is now a serious problem.

Representation ID: 3933

OBJECT T Bull

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3930

OBJECT Mrs H Brindley

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3923

OBJECT Mrs Susan Bradburn

Summary:

The 'village' of Kibworth does not have the infrastructure to support such a massive building programme - the roads are already jammed up with traffic, it is very difficult to get a doctor's appointment already, and the schools are at bursting point as it is. The Primary School, for instance, is already the largest in the county and does not occupy site which can be further developed.

Representation ID: 3919

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: 3914

OBJECT Ms Linda Bickley

Summary:

My concerns revolve around the lack of infrastructure to cater for more houses and traffic congestion within the village and on the A6. I have lived in the village for over 20 years and have seen the village grow and the facilities including schools and health service struggle to cope to a point where the service to existing dwellers is greatly compromised.

Representation ID: 3910

OBJECT Dr Bhaumik

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3904

OBJECT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3896

OBJECT Mr Andrew Bartlett

Summary:

1) The A6 is already stretched and there is no prospect of a bypass for Kibworth in the foreseeable future unless developers are forced to build it (which rather defeats the object)
2) The village roads were built many years ago and already have difficulty in accommodating the Kibworth Meadows traffic
3) Schools and health facilities could not cope
4) We are constantly being told there is a housing shortage but we are never given figures to substantiate these claims.

Representation ID: 3892

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D Barratt

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3884

OBJECT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 3872

OBJECT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Object to option 7

Representation ID: 3863

OBJECT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3855

OBJECT Mrs Cynthia Armitage

Summary:

Having lived in Kibworth for over 30 years I wish to object to option 7.

Representation ID: 3850

COMMENT Anglian Water Services Ltd (Mr Stewart Patience)

Summary:

Options 5 (Kibworth SDA), 7 (Scraptoft, Thurby and Kibworth) and 9 (Kibworth and Lutterworth) include Kibworth as a strategic development area for 1200 dwellings.

In relation to the key allocation sites we are able to respond as follows:
* Kibworth: The development of either of the proposed housing allocations (AB/KB/MXD/22 and AB/KB/MXD/27) is expected to require improvements to the foul sewerage network and sewage treatment enhancements.

Representation ID: 3840

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3832

OBJECT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

Thunby and Bushby Parish Council object to Option 7.

Representation ID: 3823

OBJECT Mr Robert Tripp

Summary:

I am a resident of the Kibworths having arrived in the early days of KB1. It is apparent to me that those living within the newer developments are not integrated, on the whole, into the community, but instead are dependant upon employment and social activity elsewhere. The Kibworths, under these proposals, are to become mere dormitory villages; the infra-structure of businesses and entertainment to create a greater community is not here; let alone the inadequacy of education facilities. Children commuting, as well as their parents, will overload the A6 and joining roads, and the bypass is not considered!

Representation ID: 3814

OBJECT Ullesthorpe Parish Council (Mrs Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

More housing growth and employment land in Scraptoft and Great Glen
Great Glen .
Employment
The Lutterworth east proposal includes 10 ha of employment land straight at the M1 junction 20
This could be increased and would meet future requirements .
This is in a better strategic , advantageous position far better than Magna Park
There is a further identified option at Shawell near junction 19 which is also acceptable .

Representation ID: 3790

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

Kibworth may not have core assets needed

Representation ID: 3775

OBJECT Mr Simon Holder

Summary:

I object to the scale of development in Kibworth as the villages have recently experienced significant growth and the infrastructure cannot cope (i.e. Schools, health care, traffic). In addition any further expansion will result in them losing their rural character

Representation ID: 3773

OBJECT Mrs Melanie Provis

Summary:

Before any more residential dwellings are built , a plan needs to be put in place for a better infrastructure in and around the VILLAGE of Kibworth.

Representation ID: 3751

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3728

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: 3696

OBJECT MR ANDREW EMMINS

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3685

OBJECT Mr Kevin Butler

Summary:

I object to any development on a green field site

Representation ID: 3681

OBJECT MRS ROSANNA EMMINS

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3665

OBJECT Mrs Jane Swift

Summary:

The services within the village are already under immense strain. An over burdened road system is frustrating and at times dangerous to local residents. The options based around further expansion in Kibworth seem unviable. With little thought for the infra-structures that a community need in place it seems mindless to build more houses. With the quite possible closure of the local fire station this is more evidence of a village which will have limited services for what will be a large population. It will become the size of a town with the services and infra-structure of a small village.

Representation ID: 3657

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i object

Representation ID: 3644

OBJECT Ms Melanie Alderson

Summary:

Too much development in Kibworth for infrastructure already. Development should be spread around county fairly not large developments in villages.

Representation ID: 3638

OBJECT Ms Melanie Alderson

Summary:

Too much development for infrastructure already. Development should be spread around county fairly not large developments in villages.

Representation ID: 3633

OBJECT Laura Tanner

Summary:

No new primary school = no qualification for more new homes in Kibworth. Simple.

Representation ID: 3628

OBJECT Joanna Jordan

Summary:

Kibworth cannot take any more housing - the facilities are so oversubscribed and bursting to the brim.
Pressure on services is unsustainable

Representation ID: 3626

OBJECT Mr David Elton

Summary:

Would result in major change to the character of the Kibworths.

Impact on communities in the Kibworths and surrounding rural settlements.

Impact on landscape surrounding the Kibworths.

Unnecessary erosion of rural wedge between Oadby/Wigston and Market Harborough, resulting in partial erosion of predominantly rural character of the District as a whole.

Representation ID: 3616

OBJECT mrs ami benning

Summary:

this is unsustainable don't do it

Representation ID: 3601

OBJECT Mr Vincent Brown

Summary:

I strongly object to this proposal.

Representation ID: 3597

OBJECT Mr Ian Morris

Summary:

Kibworth already had substantial development and reassured that it would not be subject to further developments outside current limits to development.
Increased pressure on roads not acceptable as road infrastructure is inadequate for number of current users.
Current health and education services and community facilities could not cope with an increase in community needs as already stretched to capacity.
Neighbourhood Plan which is already in progress should be afforded the opportunity to submit evidence before a decision is made by HDC on housing options.

Representation ID: 3593

OBJECT Mrs Samantha Village

Summary:

Kibworth already had substantial development and reassured that it would not be subject to further developments outside current limits to development.
Increased pressure on roads not acceptable as road infrastructure is inadequate for number of current users.
Current health and education services and community facilities could not cope with an increase in community needs as already stretched to capacity.
Neighbourhood Plan which is already in progress should be afforded the opportunity to submit evidence before a decision is made by HDC on housing options.

Representation ID: 3588

OBJECT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I object

Representation ID: 3579

OBJECT Mr Ian Jameson

Summary:

No infrastructure

Representation ID: 3574

OBJECT Mrs Gloria Uhegwu

Summary:

Scraptoft is a small village with little or amenities, as a result the building of 1000 and above dwellings with create major impact on the community, it's environment, transportation, drainage, schools and other local amenities of which there are frankly nonexistent.
So I would gratefully request that you take this concerns into account before making your final decision.

Representation ID: 3571

OBJECT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

This option places too high a housing requirement on Kibworth, which has already expanded considerably in recent years

Representation ID: 3542

OBJECT Dr Andy Uhegwu

Summary:

RE: SCRAPTOFT/THURNBY. THE LAND MASS IS SIMPLY TOO SMALL TO SUSUTAIN SUCH A GRANSDOISE PROJECT. THE IMPACT ON TRANSPORT, DRAINAGE, WASTE GENERATION AND SHOOL PLACES WILL BE ENORMOUS

Representation ID: 3486

OBJECT Mrs Gina McCaffrey

Summary:

We do not think the infrastructure in Thurnby/Bushby can accommodate such a number of houses.

Representation ID: 3478

OBJECT Mr Kenneth Hollinshead

Summary:

1200 will swamp kibworth.Harborough's dirty washing will be dumped on Kibworth. With all the building which has taken place so far no infra structure is contemplated. This is the second of many houses contemplated which will virtually double the size. the roads can't take it, the schools can't take it,the medical structure will be overwhelmed,and what will kibworth get? Mealy mouthed platitudes.

Representation ID: 3472

SUPPORT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

So long as the transport issues are addressed, this could provide a sensible solution.

Representation ID: 3467

COMMENT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Whereas I can see the sense in building more houses nearer the city of Leicester shown by the additional 1,046 homes in Scraptoft, Thurnby & Bushby, I am not convinced Kibworth has the core assets or infrastructure to support another 1,200 homes in Kibworth.
Building homes nearer the city reduces commutes for those people working in Leicester.

Representation ID: 3454

OBJECT Mrs Janet Hastings

Summary:

I strongly object to this Option. Kibworth is still struggling to adjust to 600+ houses at KB/1. The A6, main routes through the village and car parks are already too busy and cannot cope with any more traffic. At peak times, it is extremely difficult to turn onto or off the A6. The A6 takes around 20,000 vehicles daily, and the 'relief' road suggested, in my opinion, would add to congestion due to an increased number of roundabouts on a single carriageway.

Representation ID: 3448

OBJECT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

LEL would refer the Council to its representations in respect of Options 4 and 5 which are not repeated here.

Representation ID: 3421

OBJECT mr martyn rest

Summary:

I object to the plan to allow 1200 new dwelling to be built in or around Kibworth as there is no infrastructure to support those persons who would be buying these dwellings. The current infrastructure cannot cope with anymore dwellings and so I urge Councillors to object to this plan.

Representation ID: 3412

OBJECT Mr John David Edmonds

Summary:

Would again cause chaos on the A47 though Thurnby/Bushby.

Risks erosion of rural land on east of Leicester creating a further extension of Leicester and engulfing of adjacent villages..

Representation ID: 3403

OBJECT nicholas fielden

Summary:

This proposal makes no sense putting the whole strain upon two rural villages whilst making little provision for Lutterworth which could benefit from a SDA. Scraptoft will have doubled its size within almost five years and with no educational or medical facilities cannot cope with any extra amounts of housing. The proposed road would have no impact on the traffic hotspots within the village and would probably create more as commuters from the outlying A47 villages used it as a way to get in to Leicester.

Representation ID: 3402

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: 3381

OBJECT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 3375

OBJECT Mr Gilbert Young

Summary:

See my comments at proposal 5

Representation ID: 3368

OBJECT Mr Roger Garratt

Summary:

The growth of the Kibworths has been extensive and alongwith planning applicaions already granted puts a heavy demand on maintaining the strong sense of community still very evident in the Kibworths.. Such a positive feel is to be encouraged, helping to reduce crime and enhance cooperation. and successful long term neighbourhood stratergies. Steady
housing increase is to be welcomed - and this to be shared equally throughout the district.

Representation ID: 3361

OBJECT Mr David Nance

Summary:

Too little for Market Harborough and Lutterworth supporting employment in Leicester rather than our own employment areas

Representation ID: 3357

OBJECT Mrs Elaine Moss

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3300

OBJECT Mr Ken Moss

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3290

OBJECT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

Scraptoft Parish Council's objection comments sent separately by email

Representation ID: 3275

OBJECT Mr Geoff Mortimer

Summary:

As a resident of Kibworth Beauchamp for many years we have seen considerable building which has been predominantly infill. The roads are now extremely busy as so many households have more than two cars (view KB1).
The proposal to the North and East at least makes sense as this is against the main A6 unlike the other schemes. However for this, make the road capable of taking the volumes of traffic and place a roundabout just to the north of the railway bridge.
Further to the roads, the schools and surgery are at capacity already.

Representation ID: 3252

SUPPORT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

A good mix

Representation ID: 3249

OBJECT Juliet Mortimer

Summary:

Kibworth has already had a large number of houses built recently on open countryside as well as in fill. I believe the need for more housing should be fairly distributed throughout the district. The roads can't take the extra traffic, the schools are full and the 2 doctors surgeries are full.

Representation ID: 3243

SUPPORT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

This is a good mix of large strategic sites and some spread

Representation ID: 3202

OBJECT Dr Janet Riley

Summary:

I strongly object to this option due to its lack of sustainability. The jobs are not in Kibworth and still won't be even with the addition of another business park. The transport system is already severely under strain with commuters passing up and down the A6. Community facilities are already stretched. I do not think that 1200 houses has the potential to deliver the needed relief road, school, surgery, etc along with the houses. Please direct development where there is realistic opportunity for jobs/ economic growth, good transport links and sustainable communities with good facilities.

Representation ID: 3194

OBJECT Mr Jonathan Fisher

Summary:

Kibworth cannot cope with another 1200 houses, this is a simple plan by the developers to get planning agreed before the strategic planning process identifies actual proper planning.

Representation ID: 3191

OBJECT mr jonjo Elliott

Summary:

Our schools are already full, our roads are already full, our air quality will be damaged, noise pollution will rise, incoming traffic will increase the risk of accidents.

Representation ID: 3182

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Kibworth has already taken too much development and this has had a detrimental effect on the country roads to the west, through Wistow, ruining a beautiful area of countryside. Inconsistent with vision and objectives

Representation ID: 3179

OBJECT Maria Petillon

Summary:

I strongly object to any more large scale housing in Kibworth. Policy 17 of the Core Strategy promised Kibworth a settling in period before further large scale developments would be considered and Options 5, 7 and 9 is a complete departure from policy. A Kibworth SDA should not even be considered and would reek of unsustainability. Where are the up to date housing needs assessment, community infrastructure plan and existing developments impact review?

Representation ID: 3170

OBJECT Mrs Margaret Wright

Summary:

Kibworth has already taken too much development and this has had a detrimental effect on the country roads to the west, through Wistow, ruining a beautiful area of countryside. Inconsistent with vision and objectives

Representation ID: 3150

OBJECT Mr Ray Petillon

Summary:

I strongly object to any more large scale housing in Kibworth.. We need time to adjust to KB1.

Representation ID: 3144

SUPPORT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

2nd most sustainable options based on infrastructure / existing assets

Representation ID: 3127

OBJECT Mrs Joanna Richter

Summary:

Strongly object. There is no local demand for this amount of housing in Kibworth.
Improvements to infrastructure were made on previous occasions (read the KB/1 planning permission which talks of train station, more parking in the village, a sports hall - nothing of this materialised). As a result Kibworth cannot cope with even 100 or 200 more houses, let alone 1200.

This is a ridiculous option and still leaves a question mark on a bypass which would not be publicly funded.

I strongly oppose this option.

Representation ID: 3121

SUPPORT Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong) represented by Armstrong Rigg Planning (Mr Geoff Armstrong)

Summary:

Manor Oak Homes( the promoter of the proposed western SDA) support this option.

This SDA represents a suitable, available, achievable and therefore deliverable location, which would integrate well with the existing settlement ensuring development takes place on the least sensitive side of the settlement and in a manner consistent with the recent movement westwards of the focus of the settlement. It offers the opportunity to deliver a comprehensively planned strategic extension, which would minimise harm to interests of acknowledged importance.

Due to the scale of the supporting documents these have been sent direct to the council

Representation ID: 3115

OBJECT Miss Louise Weston

Summary:

I strongly object to any more large scale housing in Kibworth.. We need time to adjust to KB1.

Representation ID: 3090

OBJECT mr MARK sutton

Summary:

not enough support services
highways

Representation ID: 3079

OBJECT Mr Matt Sibson

Summary:

I object to this. Kibworth will lose its character. Extra housing is going to cause a strain on doctors, schools & local amenities. Traffic on High Street, Kibworth, is already dangerous & this will make the situation much worse. I have children and overpopulation worries me for their future.

Representation ID: 3075

OBJECT Mr Alexander Hunt

Summary:

The infrastructure of Kibworth is not designed to allow for an additional 1200 houses. The schools, doctors and local road network would not adequately cope with the additional population and traffic. Getting a timely appointment at the doctors is very difficult. Kibworth is a village not a town. The traffic is already far too great not just on the A6 but also through the village of Kibworth Beauchamp. More importantly it desperately needs a bypass and the bridge on Warwick Road should be widened. Kibworth has already taken a large number of new housing and is already under strain.

Representation ID: 3072

OBJECT Miss Alicia Hunt

Summary:

The infrastructure of Kibworth is not designed to allow for an additional 1200 houses. The schools, doctors and local road network would not adequately cope with the additional population and traffic. Getting a timely appointment at the doctors is very difficult. Kibworth is a village not a town. The traffic is already far too great not just on the A6 but also through the village of Kibworth Beauchamp. More importantly it desperately needs a bypass and the bridge on Warwick Road should be widened. Kibworth has already taken a large number of new housing and is already under strain.

Representation ID: 3070

OBJECT Miss Georgina Hunt

Summary:

The infrastructure of Kibworth is not designed to allow for an additional 1200 houses. The schools, doctors and local road network would not adequately cope with the additional population and traffic. Getting a timely appointment at the doctors is very difficult. Kibworth is a village not a town. The traffic is already far too great not just on the A6 but also through the village of Kibworth Beauchamp. More importantly it desperately needs a bypass and the bridge on Warwick Road should be widened. Kibworth has already taken a large number of new housing and is already under strain.

Representation ID: 3061

OBJECT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

Kibworth's infrastructure cannot take anymore new houses. 1200 houses would be disastrous for the village

Representation ID: 3028

OBJECT Mrs Karen Hunt

Summary:

The infrastructure of Kibworth is not designed to allow for an additional 1200 houses. The schools, doctors and local road network would not adequately cope with the additional population and traffic. Getting a timely appointment at the doctors is very difficult. Kibworth is a village not a town. The traffic is already far too great not just on the A6 but also through the village of Kibworth Beauchamp. More importantly it desperately needs a bypass and the bridge on Warwick Road should be widened. Kibworth has already taken a large number of new housing and is already under strain.

Representation ID: 3027

OBJECT Ms Helen Sibson

Summary:

1) Roads can't cope
2) schools can't cope
3) high street can't cope
4) gp's can't cope
5) rural character will be lost
6) quality of life for existing residents will be reduced.

Representation ID: 3017

OBJECT Mr David Hunt

Summary:

The infrastructure of Kibworth is not designed to allow for an additional 1200 houses. The schools, doctors and local road network would not adequately cope with the additional population and traffic. Getting a timely appointment at the doctors is very difficult. Kibworth is a village not a town. The traffic is already far too great not just on the A6 but also through the village of Kibworth Beauchamp. More importantly it desperately needs a bypass and the bridge on Warwick Road should be widened. Kibworth has already taken a large number of new housing and is already under strain.

Representation ID: 3012

COMMENT Mrs Sarah Wilkinson

Summary:

I believe option 7 to be the best of all the proposals. Lutterworth has excellent road links to the M1 which would be of great benefit to any new settlement. Option 7 provides housing for this area but prevents it becoming overwhelmed by sharing the development with Thurlston and Scraptoft. I do not feel that further development of Market Harborough is appropriate. Market Harborough has already absorbed substantial building of homes and risks losing character should more be approved. Further homes would place further strain on a road system in the centre of town which already struggles with traffic.

Representation ID: 3010

OBJECT Mrs Susan walter

Summary:

No more houses in Kibworth due to over congested roads, full schools and lack of transport links, the village is miles away from the nearest motorway. It has no bypass and little in the way of leisure facilities or amenities. It is not suitable for this level of development.

Representation ID: 3002

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

Size of development in Kibworth too big as per previous comments.

Representation ID: 2995

OBJECT Mr Dan Pedley

Summary:

Kibworth is a beautiful rural village, which is already extremely busy. Cars regularly mount the pavement in the village centre causing danger to children. It really is bursting at the seams. The schools are full, the doctors are really busy, but it just manages to maintain its rural character. To build 1200 houses would turn Kibworth into a town. A by pass would not help. This development would turn a beautiful village into a town unable to cope with its additional residents. This is not just expanding a village, its turning an historic village into a sprawling town.

Representation ID: 2982

OBJECT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I object.

Representation ID: 2972

SUPPORT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

This spreads the development around the district rather than being Harborough centric

Representation ID: 2936

OBJECT Mrs Alison Pedley

Summary:

object to this option as it will significantly change the dynamics of Kibworth, going from rural village to town. Many people of Kibworth, chose to live here due to it being a rural village, and paid a premium to do so. 1200 new houses would basically change the essence of Kibworth which has already seen large housing development and infrastructure is at capacity already, including roads / traffic, schools, doctors etc. I feel Lutterworth is a better option as it is already a town which also has far better positioning in terms of major roads.

Representation ID: 2929

OBJECT MRs Louise Stanley

Summary:

Existing congestion in Kibworth on the local roads
Small school with limited space & capacity
Infrastructure not set up for a large town
Poor pavements
Using too much beautiful countryside
Already the A6 is congested and can,t cope with the vehicle flow through kibworth
Lowering property value with lots of affordable housing
Increase in crim,e and violence in the village, already vandalism is on the increase.

Representation ID: 2928

OBJECT Dr Matthew Clarke

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2884

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: 2875

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: 2857

OBJECT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

The burden needs to be shared.

Representation ID: 2849

OBJECT mrs nicole blount

Summary:

No doctors appointments, parking in highly dangerous places around the village, people dodging cars to get across seriously busy roads. School at bursting point, lack of facilities for the older people already and you want more housing!!! This is madness, what carnage do we have to witness before someone can see that this village is at bursting point!!

Representation ID: 2847

SUPPORT Mr John Ellerker

Summary:

Modest equitable additions to local villages.
Lutterworth is already increasing in size and with all the additional warehouses & housing in Rugby etc, the roads around Lutterworth cannot cope with any large urban or industrial expansion.

Representation ID: 2842

SUPPORT Mrs Janet Ellerker

Summary:

Lutterworth and it's surrounding roads are at near saturation point, so only modest developments should be allowed around this area.

Representation ID: 2826

SUPPORT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

most sustainable options after mkt harborough

Representation ID: 2818

OBJECT Mr Ian Wilson

Summary:

Strongly object. Kibworth proposal out of scale with existing settlement. Thurnby/Scraptoft would lead to city swallowing the areas.

Representation ID: 2793

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

The Billesdon Neighbourhood Plan is only 12 months old. Local facilities are already stretched with inadequate infrastructure to support a significant increase in housing over and above that in the Plan. Concentrating housing development in Urban areas is our strongly preferred option.

Representation ID: 2755

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: 2747

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

As per comments on 4 and 5, high focus on Kibworth/Leicester may not have core assets needed

Representation ID: 2746

OBJECT Mrs Jacqueline Buckley

Summary:

There is simply not enough provision for the necessary schooling or local medical provision in our doctors surgeries to cater for this many new people. It would ruin our village and totally choke up the roads in and around the Kibworth villages.

Representation ID: 2744

SUPPORT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

We fully support Figure 26 at Appendix B, Strategic Development Area to the west and north of Kibworth for 1,200 houses. Kibworth is a highly sustainable settlement with a good range of facilities and amenities. The proposal for 1,200 additional homes fully supports Kibworths position in the Settlement Hierarchy, promoting a rural focus and planning positively to support future growth in rural areas.
Policies must allow a degree of flexibility to ensure development can be delivered effectively and efficiently.

Representation ID: 2742

OBJECT Cathy Bishop

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2730

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2717

OBJECT mike webster

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2688

OBJECT Mrs Carole Craig

Summary:

insufficient infrastructure for additional people eg school places, doctors surgeries, childrens clubs etc.
Extra traffic would cause gridlock - its not far off that now.

Representation ID: 2673

OBJECT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is not supported because it will provide the largest number of new dwelling in Kibworth and will fundamentally change the character and nature of the Village. Other options have a much more fairer distribution between the urban centres and rural areas and will provide a more sustainable and acceptable solution.

Representation ID: 2644

OBJECT Dr John Malpass

Summary:

Further development in the Kibworths must not be allowed until the current Neighbourhood Planning Excercise has been completed.
Further development will exacerbate the following:
1. Traffic levels on the A6 through the Kibworths is already at an unacceptably high level.
2. Schools in Kibworth are already at capacity. Primary class sizes are unacceptably high.
3. GP services are strained with major practices already looking to relocate and expand.
Any future development in the Kibworths must be fully sustainable and take account of local consultation via the NP.
This is an opportunistic and cynical attempt to pre-empt proper local consultation and the District Council must resist.

Representation ID: 2642

OBJECT Mr Laurance Bird

Summary:

Kibworth does not have the infrastructure to support an increase of almost a third in housing. There is no school capacity at primary or secondary levels.
Traffic levels will increase and accidents will become the norm on the High Street and at the two exits onto the very busy A6 at New Road and Coach and Horses.
Can our primary services of water supply and sewerage handle this housing increase ?
Wildlife habitat will be lost for ever - we only have one planet and one village - neither are ours to destroy.

Representation ID: 2624

OBJECT Mrs Marie Galton

Summary:

The issues and concerns I have highlighted about an SDA in Scraptoft and Thurnby (option 4) apply to this option as well.

Representation ID: 2620

OBJECT MRS PAT FOOTMAN

Summary:

not enough infrastructure to support any further housing developments. New bypass would be more important to local people, not new houses

Representation ID: 2597

OBJECT Mr Alec Brewin

Summary:

This is option is so unsuitable. Re Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby they have 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: 2590

OBJECT Mr Matthew Canderton

Summary:

Kibworth is at full capacity, full schools, full roads and full health centre. Even more development will ruin the character of this village

Representation ID: 2576

OBJECT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

This plan does not appear to make sense suggesting that additional employment will be available in the south but building of homes takes place in the north. This will cause even more traffic congestion along the A6 route. Scraptoft has received more than its fair share of building of new homes over the past three years and has received no benefit from such despite promises made by developers - no GP surgery, community centre, sports hall etc so why should we believe these proposals will benefit our community in any way?

Representation ID: 2572

OBJECT Hugh Woolley

Summary:

I strongly object.

Representation ID: 2561

OBJECT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Kibworth SdA has poor transport links.
The A6 is already very congested at peak times and in addition to a Kibworth bypass would need further extension to the rather short stretch of dual carriageway.
Seems very expensive

Representation ID: 2555

OBJECT Mr Mark Prescod

Summary:

This option is not viable as it will put too much strain on Kibworth's infrastructure

Representation ID: 2546

OBJECT Mr Andrew Hamilton

Summary:

Object!

Representation ID: 2538

OBJECT Mrs Rachael Morris

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2521

OBJECT Miss J Moffat

Summary:

This is a disproportionate extension of Kibworth village, doubling the housing population, increasing traffic along roads already only able to take single lane use and adding to the chaos of an already overloaded A6. Schools and healthcare already at capacity.
Kibworth is a village - this would not preserve its sense of village community as it would turn it into a town.

Representation ID: 2488

OBJECT Mrs Barbara Witting

Summary:

Kibworth will no longer be a village with thousands of extra houses. the traffic increase it will make it more difficult than at present .The surgeries and schools are already full. It will cause road safety issues for residents, more air pollution ,affecting health. Delays to traffic on existing roads and junctions.

Representation ID: 2472

OBJECT Mr Peter Witting

Summary:

1200 houses would change the nature of the village of Kibworth, requiring major new infrastructure in a rural area, increasing traffic levels probably in breach of EU air quality levels. It would increase the danger to vulnerable road users especially cyclists. It would therefore be in breach of the policies of our County Council's Local Transport Policy3 (LTP3). Totally unacceptable.

Representation ID: 2437

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: 2436

OBJECT Mr craig sands

Summary:

Already massive amount of building being done in this area need to spread the development around the region.

Representation ID: 2425

OBJECT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2412

OBJECT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

Far too much housing on the A47 corridor.(the A47 would struggle to cope with this amount of additional traffic). whilst Lutterworth with the possibility of a by-pass, proximity to the motorway system and good employment opportunities has a relatively small number.

Representation ID: 2385

OBJECT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Not OK

Representation ID: 2368

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Too much development in Rural villages

Representation ID: 2367

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Too Many dwellings in rural villages

Representation ID: 2354

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: 2341

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

This option does not state infrastructure to be provided in the case of the Strategic areas - it also does not address the employment sites as well for the strategic growth areas. This would perhaps appear to be an omission in the text rather than a lack of opportunity in these areas as we would assume that 1,000 dwellings in Scraptoft / Thurnby in option 7 attracts the same infrastructure as 1,000 in option 4

Representation ID: 2329

OBJECT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

For this amount of houses, major road improvements would need to be made as well as other infrastructure needs

Representation ID: 2321

OBJECT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Objection

Representation ID: 2298

OBJECT Mr Michael Brooks

Summary:

Too many houses already planned for Thurnby area.

Representation ID: 2280

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

I strongly support this option since it offers a good geographic spread of development into existing urban areas thus maintaining the overall rural character of the district. It allows for limited development in the villages to maintain their viability without impacting their overall cultural, landscape and natural character.

Representation ID: 2266

OBJECT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

Scraptoft/Thurnby area has already been overdeveloped. Lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2247

OBJECT 1975 KETAN JETHWA

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Busby cannot sustain this level of housing in the area without destroying countryside.

Representation ID: 2243

OBJECT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure on an already overdeveloped area.

Representation ID: 2232

SUPPORT Mrs Louise Pilkington

Summary:

I support the spread of development between a couple of strategic areas. The delivery of a good amount of employment land to accompany the new dwellings is sensible and will hopefully mean that people will not have to travel long distances to work, By focusing housing in set areas, hopefully the needs of the new residents, in terms of services, recreational needs, education needs etc can be addressed and met.as part of the overall development of the area.

Representation ID: 2226

OBJECT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

Object strongly due to lack of facilities, transport structure, and poor road links into Leicester

Representation ID: 2224

OBJECT Prof. Penelope Allison

Summary:

This number of houses in the Scraptoft area is likely to be sustainable given the poor transport, in this area.

Representation ID: 2204

OBJECT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby already arguably overdeveloped. Green wedges, existing natural separation between villages are systematically coming under threat of erosion. It makes more sense to target locations where the existing infrastructure is strong enough to support development - would suggest that further development should take place close to the motorway network, within areas offering employment opportunities or within areas close to mainline train stations.

Representation ID: 2198

OBJECT K Patel

Summary:

Not a good option

Representation ID: 2184

OBJECT MRS Rosalea Gibson

Summary:

i feel that all the local services are already over subscribed and that traffic conditions could become dangerous

Representation ID: 2180

OBJECT Miss Julie Beall

Summary:

Scraptoft can not stand this amount of development on top of what has been built.

Representation ID: 2175

OBJECT mr John Goldby

Summary:

main development should take place in lutterworth where road access, schools, doctors, shopping are already in place. kibworth should only have smaller development if required. Scraptoft and thurnby have poor commuter access and lack of social facilities

Representation ID: 2170

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: 2162

OBJECT mrs linda atkinson

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2131

OBJECT mr simon rodak

Summary:

My main Objection is to the Thurnby areas being that 4 very large developments have already been given the go ahead. The area is congested with traffic both into and out of the City. Flooding is high on the list as well as the out dated flood defenses that run from Thurnby through the City and along the route of the A47. Wildlife is striking to look at being on the edge of the Green Field belt. The culture and History around the local area is being destroyed by developments being sold off to private building.

Representation ID: 2128

OBJECT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

Too many houses in Leicester area

Representation ID: 2116

OBJECT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Strain on resources and loss of character.

Representation ID: 2089

OBJECT Mrs Carol Birch

Summary:

Kibworth would be totally changed by this much development, facilities unable to cope, and increased traffic on roads into Kibworth, which are already very heavily used, would be dangerous. The extra traffic on the A6 would be chaotic without extra roundabouts and/or lights. It is already chaotic when there are any roadworks. An A6 bypass would obviously help but could divert all 106 money away from infrastucture needs, which would be considerable.

Representation ID: 2080

OBJECT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure

Representation ID: 2071

OBJECT Mr David Birch

Summary:

Totally unaccceptable because it would result in a 50% increase in the number of dwellings in Kibworth. It would completely alter the nature of the village and would result in a huge increase in traffic along the A6 which also gives unacceptable traffic flows from 7.30 to 9am and from 4.30 to 7.00pm

Representation ID: 2062

OBJECT Mr Simon Cook

Summary:

Not a good option for too many areas

Representation ID: 2011

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

Kibworth cannot cope with any further development without ruining the village

Representation ID: 1996

OBJECT Mr Clive Palmer

Summary:

Before further housing be committed to the Kibworth parish a full amenities programme should be undertaken, i.e. increase to school facilities, doctors, shops, open spaces, pubs, etc.. Also an increase in traffic will require major traffic management to the A6 through the village and its connecting roadways. At present it is virtually impossible to enter the flow of traffic on the A6 during high capacity periods; extra traffic will case severe logjams.

Representation ID: 1990

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 residents wanting to travel to Leicester. They'll 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 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: 1982

OBJECT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

New developments not spread equally around area.
A47 not capable of handling new growth.

Representation ID: 1967

OBJECT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1946

OBJECT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Object to 7. This option would result in serious strain on village resources and loss of rural character

Representation ID: 1934

OBJECT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Object to Option 7.

Representation ID: 1924

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.

Area cannot cope with this many extra houses with the extra cars it involves etc

Representation ID: 1915

OBJECT haydn Gopsill

Summary:

Again assumes non-achievable benefits of a relief road. 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: 1899

OBJECT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

See comments made on options 1,2,3,5. Traffic jams /air pollution very damaging with possible legal action under E.U. AIR POLLUTION LEGISLATION.

Representation ID: 1898

OBJECT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

This proposal like 1.2.3.and 5 would generate traffic jams in the kibworths villages see previous comments on options 1,2,3,5.

Representation ID: 1888

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: 1882

OBJECT Mr Jonathan Parsons

Summary:

This proposed SDA should not be considered until the commitments given when KB1 was built are met.

As a result of these failures, the primary school is no longer able to accommodate the number of pupils in the village, the road infrastructure has become dangerous, the health service provision is inadequate and the character of the village has become irreversibly damaged.

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

Representation ID: 1872

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: 1869

OBJECT mr stephen pratt

Summary:

No more housing in Scraptoft area

Representation ID: 1860

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: 1843

OBJECT mr Terry Woodhouse

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1835

OBJECT Dick Hosie

Summary:

The Kibworth villages infrastructure cannot sustain an increase in population which will result in higher traffic flows and too much pressure on school places.

Representation ID: 1824

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: 1821

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.

Representation ID: 1802

OBJECT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

Kibworth has already had more than its fair share of development, the schools and doctors surgeries are over capacity. The A6, main routes through the village and car parks are already too busy and can't cope with any more traffic. At peak times, it is extremely difficult to turn onto or off the A6 becuase of the volume of traffic. When KB1 was permitted, HDC assured Kibworth that it would be protected from further development in the remaining plan period to 2031. A Kibworth SDA should not even be considered.

Representation ID: 1797

OBJECT Mr Rodney Gibson

Summary:

The Thurnby-Bushby area is already overcrowded when it comes to school places and Doctors surgery facilities. The road are too congested and dangerous at present during school times and rush hour periods.

Representation ID: 1795

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: 1792

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: 1774

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: 1761

OBJECT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

This is completely inappropriate for Kibworth. It would destroy the identity of Kibworth. There is insufficient infrastructure and employment opportunities. Development to the north and east including a possible relief road would destroy the surrounding area of particularly attractive countryside.

Representation ID: 1758

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1742

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: 1721

OBJECT Mrs Jessica Canderton

Summary:

Kibworth has seen huge development over the last few years to the extent the schools are full and the roads are impossible to navigate. To put another massive development into the village would lose all the village character and the financial input to boost the infrastructure to a level where it would cope would be counterproductive. Development needs to be either spread proportionally amongst the district or needs to concentrate on the urban areas. This would ruin Kibworth.

Representation ID: 1713

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

Summary:

Too many homes in an area that has already seen or will see major developments

Representation ID: 1701

OBJECT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

overloading of area and services

Representation ID: 1684

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: 1672

OBJECT Mr James Hudson

Summary:

STRONGLY OBJECT. Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby cannot and should not have to accommodate an additional 1000+ 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: 1664

OBJECT Mr james hodson

Summary:

Roads cannot cope as it is already. flow of traffic from both leic to harb vise versa is far too heavy for a small village. It is difficult and almost dangerous trying to get out on to the A6 from both new rd and church street nr coach and horses. Schools already near full and local amenities ie docs are already difficult to get an appt. getting through kibworth village is already a concern to pedestrians. Roads in the village just aren't built/designed for heavy traffic flow.

Representation ID: 1660

OBJECT Mrs Lorraine Hodson

Summary:

Kibworth: Roads cannot cope
Village cannot cope
Schools bursting

Representation ID: 1655

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: 1647

OBJECT Mr philip colver

Summary:

Too many near A6 and at harboro

Representation ID: 1631

OBJECT Mr Ross McMinn

Summary:

Kibworth not an appropriate option. New village centre, shops, schools, services, transport links and community resources would be required as a bare minimum. Existing business park/potential business premises vastly underused already so no evidence of a demand by business to move here. Regardless would destroy the character of Kibworth.

Representation ID: 1625

OBJECT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

Does not address the blindingly obvious A6 and A47

Representation ID: 1612

OBJECT Emma Lee

Summary:

There is no infrastructure to support the levels of proposed housing in the Scraptoft/Thurnby area. Transports links between this area and Market Harborough are poor. Public transport provision is poor too.

Representation ID: 1599

SUPPORT Neil Heptonstall

Summary:

Because spreading any significant expansion of housing in small communities without facilities is wrong.

Representation ID: 1589

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: 1580

SUPPORT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner.
This is the most practical solution on offer. Scraptoft/Thurby SDA is closest to Leicester and is most likely to be attractive to the Leicester employment hub and will therefore minimise traffic from the south of the county. Kibworth has at least got connectivity to the rail network (if they bothered to re-open the station) and would get a bypass if the plans went ahead which help to ensure it still retained a "village" environment.

Representation ID: 1571

OBJECT Mr Peter Coombs

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1563

OBJECT ANDREW WHITEHOUSE

Summary:

I 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.

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: 1551

SUPPORT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

With more houses I would support this proposal as long as Kibworth secured its bypass to the north. I travel from Fleckney along Warwick road, developing this section would lead to a huge amount of increased traffic to the roundabout with the A6. Kibworth is already a nightmare if something has happened on the A6.

Representation ID: 1544

OBJECT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

PLEASE MOVE THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE MOTORWAY AND LEAVE OUR TRANQUIL VILLAGE ALONE -

WE HAVE HAD TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT ALREADY

Representation ID: 1533

OBJECT Mr rajesh kumar

Summary:

Thurnby and Scraptoft have already undergone expansions with more housing at Scraptoft Hall and Pulford Drive.NO MORE!

Representation ID: 1532

OBJECT Mr rajesh kumar

Summary:

Already houses being bulit in the Thurnby area(Pulford Drive) and Scraptoft area(Scraptoft hall) with permission granted for more...Do you want the next generation to see ANY green areas???

Representation ID: 1527

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 more homes

Representation ID: 1510

OBJECT Mrs Diane Miles

Summary:

The village (Great Bowden) cannot sustain an increase in housing, resulting in traffic and parking problems together with pressure on school numbers,
.

Representation ID: 1489

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Scraptoft saturated with homes and developments.

Representation ID: 1466

OBJECT Robin Childs

Summary:

immense impact on existing services and extension of Leicester city into the countryside

Representation ID: 1432

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 1418

OBJECT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 1417

OBJECT Mr Ian Pilon

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1401

OBJECT Mr Richard Chambers

Summary:

1200 new houses in Kibworth would have a hugely detrimental effect on the character of the towns and cause peak time chaos on the A6, relief road or not.

Representation ID: 1394

OBJECT mrs mhairi leach

Summary:

The A6 in Kibworth is not currently fit for the amount of traffic daily passing through it and village expansion should not be considered unless a bypass is in the plans. The doctors are extremely difficult to get appointments. Increasing population of the village without infrastructure and transport plans is not viable. Discussions about roundabouts and traffic easing on the current A6 is just a sticking plaster and would cause bottlenecks.

Representation ID: 1391

OBJECT Mr Alex Boddy

Summary:

The addition of 1200 homes in the Kibworths would change the character of the villages beyond recognition. The environmental impact would be significantly greater than options that concentrate accommodation in areas where significant employment is easily reachable

Representation ID: 1376

OBJECT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 1366

OBJECT Mr John Coombs

Summary:

Local amenities (schools, doctors, roads, parking, leisure facilities) are stretched all over the district. We need to have 2 SDAs to provide new facilities not only to serve the new SDA but also to take the overspill from surrounding areas, but option 8 is preferable in spreading the housing load across the district.

Representation ID: 1351

OBJECT STOUGHTON Parish Council (Karen Giddens)

Summary:

We object strongly to options 7 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: 1314

OBJECT Professor Alan Wells

Summary:

This proposal locates the bulk of new housing in the Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA whilst bulk employment growth centres on Harborough, Fleckney and Lutterworth. 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: 1309

OBJECT Mrs Joanne Hirst

Summary:

Kibworth is already a large village and those of us who live here came here for the village environment. It is much fairer to distribute the houses amongst the villages so that no one village takes such a huge change in size. Even with the improved infrastructure the sense of community would be lost.

Representation ID: 1299

OBJECT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

Object to Option 7

Representation ID: 1285

OBJECT Mr Barry Barker

Summary:

See previous comments, no further building until community centre is built.

Representation ID: 1279

OBJECT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1276

OBJECT Mrs michelle Woolston

Summary:

Kibworth has already had more than its fair share of development, the schools and doctors surgeries are over capacity. The A6, main routes through the village and car parks are already too busy and can't cope with any more traffic. At peak times, it is extremely difficult to turn onto or off the A6 becuase of the volume of traffic. When KB1 was permitted, HDC assured Kibworth that it would be protected from further development in the remaining plan period to 2031. A Kibworth SDA should not even be considered.

Representation ID: 1252

OBJECT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1237

OBJECT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

Same objections as in option 5 above. Mind you, offers fairer Lutterwoth/Thurnby distribution

Representation ID: 1139

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

Summary:

The proposed scale of development in Kibworth (1200 dwellings) is endorsed although concern is expressed over their location in Kibworth and delivery, in the form of 2 potential SDAs. Smaller scale development on the edge of The Kibworths (ie schemes of approximately 100 dwellings) appears to be ruled out under this particular Option which could be more sustainable and deliverable.

Representation ID: 1104

OBJECT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

No Lutterworth relief road

Representation ID: 1089

OBJECT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

Growth of Scraptoft /Thurnby would reduce the green wedge east of these settlements and risk transfer into Leicester City.
No objection to development of the Kibworths

Representation ID: 1049

OBJECT Mr Paul Copson

Summary:

Comments same as option 5

Representation ID: 1043

OBJECT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

Housing volumes needs to be shared with the southern part of the district

Representation ID: 1016

OBJECT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

Premature, too high level of housing and employment has been included for the Kibworths; the draft Neighbourhood Plan is best able to provide relevant policies on housing needs for the settlement. Where is an up to date housing needs assessment? Where is the 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: 1003

OBJECT Mrs Maggie Stocks

Summary:

If this proposal goes ahead, Kibworth will become a town with children commuting to schools out of the village, not enough health provision, not enough shopping facilities, not enough infrastructure, not enough policing, not to mention the threat of the fire station closure.
Market Harborough is an existing town, with all the aforementioned facilities and adequate public transport facilities, including the train station, and is an area that could support the additional housing that needs to be accommodated in order to fulfil the HDC Local Plan.

Representation ID: 967

COMMENT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

See comment at option 3 - applies to options 1 to 9:

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: 957

SUPPORT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

This looks like the most reasonable plan, with the infrastructure in these areas more able to accept this level of development.

Representation ID: 951

OBJECT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

Undue reliance on a few areas 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: 937

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: 909

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

This is proportional and fair.

Representation ID: 897

SUPPORT Samantha Hamer

Summary:

Preferred option

Representation ID: 829

OBJECT Stefan Richter

Summary:

Reiterating previous comments: Kibworth's is already over capacity as far as traffic is concerned, and even a bypass would not solve this. How HDC can even consider a further 1200 houses in Kibworth is impossible to comprehend.
The infrastructure required to support this amount of houses in addition to the over 600 already in progress would be immense. It would destroy the character of the village, almost doubling its size.
The Core Strategy promised no further large scale development - this proposal is an absolute departure from policies that until very recently were considered up to date and sensible.

Representation ID: 826

OBJECT Mrs Barbara Strevens

Summary:

Kibworth cannot cope with this level of expansion. We do not have the infrastructure and even if we had a bigger school more GP surgeries. The impact of the traffic alone would be detrimental to the village the noise and pollution would be damaging to the local community and bring potential fatal incidents. Look at the main roads through the village these are unsuitable for the existing traffic with room for one vehicle with two way traffic. Please consider the opinions of existing residents as the future residents will experience the same issues.

Representation ID: 821

OBJECT Mrs Alison Oldridge

Summary:

1200 houses could mean an extra 4,800 residents in the village with 2,000 extra cars! Such a large development would be unsustainable and have a very real adverse impact on the village. The schools are full and unable to expand and the village would not be able to provide the infrastructure necessary for the increase in traffic and residents. There would be a massive loss of open countryside with loss of wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Once agricultural land is taken for building it is gone for ever!

Representation ID: 805

OBJECT Mrs Melissa Goodwin

Summary:

The infrastructure in Kibworth cannot accommodate any more housing. Already issues with criminal activity and public nuisance offences.

Representation ID: 800

OBJECT Mrs Susan Hamilton-Martin

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 691

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

Representation ID: 655

SUPPORT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

This option gives a more realistic figure for housing in Market Harborough

Representation ID: 558

SUPPORT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

But disagree with any expansion of Magna Park due - not needed and significant adverse impact on environment

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

Powered by OpusConsult