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 8: Scraptoft / Thurnby SDA and Lutterworth SDA

Representation ID: 5144

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

From a flooding prepective, in line with NPPF, sites located within Flood Zone 1 would be our preferred location for growth in the District. Sites located within FZ3b is not permitted for residential development and would only be appropriate for a very limited type of employment development. Sites in FZ 3a and 2 must be sequentially tested from a flooding perspective and whenever possible development should also be steered away from these locations.
The River Swift flows through the southern part of Lutterworth and is a tributary of the River Avon. The river has a history of flooding in Lutterworth, most recently in 2008. Housing development of the scale proposed in Options 6, 8 and 9 would significantly increase the surface water run off into the River Swift and its tributaries. It will be necessary for this to be managed at source so that flood risk is not increased further downstream in Rugby.
The 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 wter courses.

Representation ID: 5093

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: 5015

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: 5000

OBJECT Mr John McDermott

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4996

OBJECT Mr &Mrs D Giles and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 8.

Representation ID: 4988

OBJECT Mr R Mackness

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4937

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4936

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Education Comments
Scraptoft/ Thurnby SDA; support the principle from an education perspective as the proposal is large enough to provide a new school.
Lutterworth SDA; support the principle from an education perspective as scope for growth at Lutterworth and Fleckney.

Representation ID: 4935

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transport Comments
Option 8 Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA and Lutterworth SDA: Please see comments in respect of Option 4 and Option 6. It should also be noted, however, that in comparison with some other options there would appear to be much less of a risk of traffic impacts from these two areas of growth over-lapping and causing significant strategic problems.

Representation ID: 4930

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4901

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Support Option 8: Delivery of an SDA at Lutterworth is strongly supported. This SDA allocation would make a significant contribution to housing numbers and has the potential to deliver substantial economic and environmental benefits to the town. It would provide housing to support any future extension to the strategic distribution site at Magna Park. Lutterworth SDA, a site capacity in excess of 2500 dwellings together with an employment allocation, has the potential to deliver any shortfall in housing numbers within the period to 2031 or alternatively provide housing at a sustainable location into the next plan period.

Representation ID: 4893

OBJECT Ms Susan Letts

Summary:

Object to option 8.

Representation ID: 4885

OBJECT Grace Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

Object to option 8. Two SDAs could restrict housing supply elsewhere in the district, potentially preventing other locations from benefitting from additional housing.

Representation ID: 4858

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Support this option.
Employment - The Lutterworth east proposal that includes 10 ha of employment land straight of the M1 at junction 20, could be increased and would meet future requirements. This is in a much better strategic and advantageous position for the development of economic growth.

Representation ID: 4833

SUPPORT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Support Option 8

Representation ID: 4807

SUPPORT Mrs Sarah Mettrick

Summary:

Support optio 8.

Representation ID: 4798

COMMENT MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council (Cathy Walsh)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4788

OBJECT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4766

COMMENT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4760

OBJECT Mr Ian Verrall

Summary:

Object to option 8.

Representation ID: 4757

OBJECT Miss Claire Orton

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4754

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Packer

Summary:

Object to option 8.

Representation ID: 4747

OBJECT Brian Newman

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4737

OBJECT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4727

OBJECT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4718

OBJECT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4709

OBJECT Janet Lount

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4699

OBJECT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4690

OBJECT P. Panham

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4682

OBJECT Mrs Pankhania

Summary:

Object to option 8.

Representation ID: 4664

SUPPORT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

I appreciate the district has got to deliver housing growth. In order to protect our rural villages from future large scale development without any infrastructure, Option 8 will secure major infrastructure and a by-pass for Lutterworth having a future positive impact on the town and surrounding villages. It will protect the rural way of life, bring economic growth and tourism to the area without compromising the rural ideal.
More housing growth and employment land in Scraptoft and Great Glen is required to meet the need of urban spread.
Sustainable urban extensions are the way forward to deliver sustainable housing opportunities.Transport, job creation and other infrastructure is already in situ.

Representation ID: 4660

OBJECT Ms Pauline Pearce

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4653

OBJECT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4644

OBJECT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4634

OBJECT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 4619

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4606

OBJECT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Object to this option

Representation ID: 4597

OBJECT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4588

SUPPORT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Support option 8

Representation ID: 4570

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Option 8 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: 4558

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4548

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4540

OBJECT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4530

OBJECT Mr Terry Johnson

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4527

OBJECT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4505

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

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4501

OBJECT mr anthony taylor

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4498

OBJECT Barbara Taylor

Summary:

Object to Option 8.

Representation ID: 4491

OBJECT Mr and Mrs R Thomas and 1 other

Summary:

Object to option 8: 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: 4488

OBJECT Mrs C Thompson

Summary:

Object to option 8. 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: 4475

OBJECT S Knott

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4466

OBJECT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4452

OBJECT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4443

OBJECT L Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4435

OBJECT K. J. Tutt

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4429

OBJECT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4420

OBJECT Mr Scott Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4417

OBJECT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4407

OBJECT Terry & Jan Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4400

OBJECT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 4397

SUPPORT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Support Option 8

Representation ID: 4383

OBJECT Ms Jade Johnson

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4378

OBJECT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4366

OBJECT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4357

OBJECT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4351

OBJECT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

Object to Option 8: Scraptoft has had over 450 houses built in the confines of the parish over the last six years with further applications passed for 130 dwellings off Pulford Drive, Scraptoft, 178 dwellings off Beeby Road, Scraptoft with a further application passed for 385 dwellings just over the parish boundary in Thurnby.

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

Representation ID: 4342

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: 4338

OBJECT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4326

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

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 4322

OBJECT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4312

OBJECT Susan Hart

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4298

OBJECT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4288

OBJECT Mr H Brindley

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4262

OBJECT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4253

OBJECT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4199

OBJECT J Frisby

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4175

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: 4170

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: 4165

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: 4158

OBJECT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4147

OBJECT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4129

OBJECT M Earl

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4119

OBJECT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4097

OBJECT J Dilks

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4089

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: 4085

OBJECT N Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4073

OBJECT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4065

OBJECT Ms Judith Windley

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4060

OBJECT Mr Brian Windley

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 4044

OBJECT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4034

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: 4032

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

Summary:

Option 8 is wholly inappropriate for the District.

Representation ID: 4013

OBJECT Mr M Cooper

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 4001

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: 3991

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: 3981

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3971

SUPPORT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Support Option 8

Representation ID: 3958

OBJECT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3950

OBJECT S Canham

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3934

OBJECT T Bull

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3931

OBJECT Mrs H Brindley

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3920

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: 3911

OBJECT Dr Bhaumik

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3905

OBJECT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3893

OBJECT Mr & Mrs D Barratt

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3885

OBJECT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 3873

OBJECT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Object to option 8

Representation ID: 3864

SUPPORT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3841

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3833

OBJECT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

Thurnby and Bushby parish Council Object to Option 8.

Representation ID: 3822

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Diana Cook)

Summary:

Infrastructure available and less impact on rural villages with little or no services

Representation ID: 3812

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

more research

Representation ID: 3805

SUPPORT 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: 3794

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

High focus on Leicester no clear plan for Lutterworth proposed

Representation ID: 3780

SUPPORT Mr Simon Holder

Summary:

Both areas of significant development have good transport links and employment opportunities

Representation ID: 3752

SUPPORT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

suport

Representation ID: 3743

OBJECT Miss Margaret Wild

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3731

SUPPORT Mr Andy Bromley

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3683

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

suport

Representation ID: 3658

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i support

Representation ID: 3635

SUPPORT Mr David Elton

Summary:

Would provide supporting infrastructure in Scraptoft/Thurnby and Lutterworth.

Scraptoft/Thurnby close to employment/services in Leicester.

Employment land alongside housing in Lutterworth.

Improvements to air quality in Lutterworth town centre.

Some separation between Scraptoft and Thurnby maintained but issues regarding maintenance of Misterton as separate community and Flood Zone 3 would need resolving.

Would allow Market Harborough to accommodate substantial growth already planned.

Modest rather than high levels of housing in Fleckney would reduce impact on landscape.

Overall, would help to minimise impact on landscapes across the District, enabling it to retain its identity as a predominantly rural area.

Representation ID: 3617

OBJECT mrs ami benning

Summary:

this is terrible don't do it

Representation ID: 3610

OBJECT Mr Andrew Craig

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3589

OBJECT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I object

Representation ID: 3572

SUPPORT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

This option is the best one, providing some additional housing requirement for Harborough, and focussing developing on Lutterworth and Scraptoft/Thurnby, which both have better transport links (M1 and A47), whilst maintaining modest housing requirement for rural villages

Representation ID: 3569

OBJECT Mrs Gloria Uhegwu

Summary:

The number of housing unit proposed for Scraptoft is rather too much and would creat a lot of congestion, which we are already countering on a daily basis. Moreover, there are not enough to local amenities to accommodate such large scale housing.
The transport facility is currently in dire straits and to had more dwelling would cause untold amount to problem.

Representation ID: 3545

OBJECT Dr Andy Uhegwu

Summary:

THE ONLY ROAD PROPOSED WILL BE SO CONGESTED THAT ENTERING AND EXITING HOMES WILL BE A NIGHTMARE. GOING LATE TO WORK WITH THE PROSPECT OF LOSING ONE'S JOB IS A POSSIBLE REALITY. WHAT ABOUT RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, TRANSPORT, SCHOOL PLACES, SEWAGE AND DRAINAGE,? THE GOOD LORD HAVE MERCY!!!

Representation ID: 3511

OBJECT Dr Stuart Rimmington

Summary:

Directly contradicts consultation's suggested vision on sustainable transport and reducing car usage - Lutterworth is currently a vehicle oriented town.
 Divides the community and results in a sterile environment separated by the M1.
 By-pass may not be built for some time resulting in no benefit for Lutterworth for a long time

Representation ID: 3488

OBJECT Mrs Gina McCaffrey

Summary:

We dont feel that the infrastructure in Thurnby/Bushby area can accommodate so many houses.

Representation ID: 3482

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3477

SUPPORT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

This would enable Lutterworth to secure an eastern bypass and allow the infrastructure to be provided to support these residential developments. Consideration to transport problems on the A47, should be addressed if this option is adopted.

Representation ID: 3450

COMMENT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

LEL would refer the Council to its previous representations in respect of Options 4 (Scraptoft/Thurnby SDA is not the most appropriate strategy for the District given the villages respective size, location, characteristics and ability to accommodate growth. Delivery of the SDA is questioned re: highway capacity within the City. SDA is considered likely to adversely impact on the regeneration and development objectives of the City, as well as fail to assist in achieving the economic and growth objectives for Harborough District) and 6 (planning for an SDA with growth in homes/employment together at Lutterworth SDA is most sustainable and appropriate strategy having regard to the alternative options).

Representation ID: 3418

OBJECT Mr John David Edmonds

Summary:

A47 would become imossible to use.

Greater Leciester would spread under this proposal to ruin rural areas and adjacent villages.

Representation ID: 3404

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: 3395

OBJECT nicholas fielden

Summary:

Scraptoft has very little in the way of services - no school or medical centre and has already had over 700 new houses built there which means it has already borne the brunt of development over the past three years. With so little planned for Market Harborough in this option this surely cannot be justified. We have very little faith in any of the proposed benefits materialising and the devastation to the rural locality of the planned expansion would be detrimental to the residents here as the Council themselves recognised only four years ago!

Representation ID: 3382

OBJECT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 3365

OBJECT Mr David Nance

Summary:

Poor distribution and creating too great a change in 2 specific areas that will change the focus of the district entirely. The District is Market Harborough and it quite rightly is the main town in most people's eyes with good transport, schools, shops, access, leisure facilities etc etc

Representation ID: 3359

SUPPORT Mrs Elaine Moss

Summary:

Areas suitable for proposed development

Representation ID: 3297

SUPPORT Mr Ken Moss

Summary:

Areas suitable for development.

Representation ID: 3292

OBJECT SCRAPTOFT Parish Council (Sally Skyrme)

Summary:

Scraptoft Parish Council's objection comments sent separately by email

Representation ID: 3244

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Luetterworth is already too congested

Representation ID: 3222

OBJECT mr robert bellamy

Summary:

I strongly object to any further housing in Kibworth

Representation ID: 3169

SUPPORT Miss Elizabeth Howe

Summary:

Both areas are able to provide required space ,are near to employment and able to develop purpose built communities and infrastructure

Representation ID: 3165

SUPPORT Mr Peter Witting

Summary:

The proposed future developments in the vicinity of Magna Park, coupled with the 10 Hectares of employment land in this plan, would match new housing with new employment, minimising stresses on the existing highway network. The other major development to the east of Leicester would also minimise the stresses on the rural highway network.

Representation ID: 3146

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

as per comments in option 6 - split community in lutterworth, not sustainable, lacks growth plan and retail allocation

Representation ID: 3091

OBJECT mr MARK sutton

Summary:

schools
highways
support serices

Representation ID: 3064

SUPPORT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

The key areas of Lutterworth and sraptoft will be able to take these developments unlike Kibworth which is almost at breaking point.

Representation ID: 3034

COMMENT Mrs Sarah Wilkinson

Summary:

Option 8 is my preferred option as it spreads the development across different parts of the district- see my comments under option 7 which were meant for option 8. I do not believe that Kibworth, a very small place, can cope with large numbers of new houses. It does not have the infrastructure and would lose it's existing sense of identity.

Representation ID: 3020

SUPPORT Mr Ian Clarke

Summary:

Puts development where resources and infrastructure is. or can be developed.

Representation ID: 3006

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

Development of Magna Park and requirement for Housing for workers in a local area - Housing in close proximity of Leicester give easy access to the city = again is rail infrastructure development or tram rail an option

Representation ID: 3005

SUPPORT Mrs Susan walter

Summary:

Lutterworth and scraptoft are better suited to development due to good transport links and better infrastructure.

Representation ID: 2983

OBJECT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I object.

Representation ID: 2930

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: 2885

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: 2876

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: 2858

OBJECT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

There is already massive development in Scraptoft/Thurnby. The infrastructure can not take more development. The roads are terrible.

Representation ID: 2827

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

still significant enough growth in Lutterworth to justify strategic growth plan for lutterworth, yet no evidence of this.
As per comments in option 6, continues to contradict draft consultation objectives.

Representation ID: 2802

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2797

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2754

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

As per comments on 4 and 6, high focus on Leicester and no clear defined plan for lutterworth proposed.

Representation ID: 2748

OBJECT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2733

SUPPORT mike webster

Summary:

HOUSING WHERE IT IS NEEDED NEAR THE M1

Representation ID: 2724

SUPPORT mrs angela pearce-smith

Summary:

good for harborough and kibworth and also best for medbourne,

Representation ID: 2718

SUPPORT mike webster

Summary:

HOUSING IS PROVIDED WHERE IT IS NEEDED THEMOST

Representation ID: 2678

OBJECT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is not supported because of the large numbers of new dwellings proposed for Lutterworth and Scraptoft, Thurnby and Busby. If the provision of new housing is to have an urban focus Market Harborough is best placed to take the largest number of new dwellings and this should be reflected in the distribution.

Representation ID: 2672

SUPPORT Mr David Jones

Summary:

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

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

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

Representation ID: 2655

SUPPORT GREAT GLEN Parish Council (Lesley Sanderson)

Summary:

The Parish Council in their meeting of 13th October 2015 voted to suport Option 8 where the majority of housing would be placed where the facilites were already in place or coud b in place to supprt it. IE roads, schools etc.
The Great Glen Housing needs report received 29.10.15 supports the need for only a few houses in great glen which basiclly will/can be acheived with small scale infill. See attached.

Representation ID: 2628

OBJECT Mrs Marie Galton

Summary:

I object to this option for the same reasons I am opposed to option 4 but also because it concentrates excessive amounts of development in 2 locations and will not provide a balance and choice of housing across the district. I also doubt it is realistic to attempt to limit housing growth in other places if this approach was adopted.

Representation ID: 2610

COMMENT Landmark Planning Ltd (P Wilkinson)

Summary:

My client has substantial land in the area and has serious reservations about the proposal for the Lutterworth SDA.

Representation ID: 2599

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: 2580

SUPPORT Elizabeth Thomas

Summary:

I support this option because it offers some hope of infrastructure improvement.. Scraptoft/ Thurnby and Lutterworth have access to majorr routes and employment prospects in and beyond the district.

Market Harborough and areas immediately surrounding it (including Kibworth) are already creaking under the weight of development. With no apparent plans for town centre relief, traffic diversion, or infrastructure improvement it cannot support substantial development much beyond that already committed.

Representation ID: 2573

OBJECT Hugh Woolley

Summary:

I strongly object.

Representation ID: 2528

SUPPORT Mr Richard .J. Sutton

Summary:

This is the best option - Lutterworth needs the re-development. No more development should take place in Market Harborough until the Airfield farm site has been fully developed.

Representation ID: 2525

SUPPORT Miss J Moffat

Summary:

Sustainable development.

Representation ID: 2517

SUPPORT Mrs Helen Heath

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2510

SUPPORT Jo Brodrick

Summary:

Close to motorway and/or Leicester City
Available land and opportunity to develop in a holistic way

Representation ID: 2445

OBJECT Mr Simon Howes

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2441

OBJECT Mr Ian Madeley

Summary:

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

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

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

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

Representation ID: 2438

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: 2426

OBJECT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 2421

OBJECT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

The same argument: that A47 is already a very busy, dangerous road and the number of houses on this corridor would exacerbate an already very difficult situation. Practically all the traffic would feed on to the A47 at around the Station Lane/ Uppingham Rd junction.
Very great danger that Thurnby would join up with the eastern villages - creating Greater Leicester.

Representation ID: 2386

OBJECT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Not OK

Representation ID: 2369

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Prefer this option to others

Representation ID: 2357

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: 2348

OBJECT Mr Ian Harris

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2347

OBJECT Mr Ian Harris

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2342

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

This is an acceptable option as in the response to Option 7 can we assume that the same infrastructure is available in Scraptoft/Thurnby as in Option 4. This option also satisfied growth and transport links as detailed in Option 6

Representation ID: 2335

OBJECT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

Too many houses in Scraptoft/Thurnby. A.47 could not cope

Representation ID: 2322

OBJECT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Objection

Representation ID: 2299

OBJECT Mr Michael Brooks

Summary:

Too many houses already planned for the Thurnby area.

Representation ID: 2281

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Whilst the option would most likely maintain the character of the district, there is a risk that too much development is the north and west would reduce facilities in central and eastern areas

Representation ID: 2270

SUPPORT Mr John Turner

Summary:

Support Lutterworth being designated as a strategic Development Area. This is a sensible way to address the long standing threats to the health of Lutterworth as a vibrant, sustainable and forward looking community.

Representation ID: 2267

OBJECT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure in an already overdeveloped area. Uneven spread of development throughout the county

Representation ID: 2255

SUPPORT Mr Peter Francis

Summary:

Lutterworth and Thurnby/Scraptoft will address infrastructure needs as well as housing needs. Urban focus is clearly the way forward.

Representation ID: 2252

OBJECT 1975 KETAN JETHWA

Summary:

Scraptoft/Thurnby and Busby cannot sustain this level of housing without destroying countryside. Also there is no clear infrastructure to support this mass development of housing !!

Representation ID: 2244

OBJECT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure on an over developed area.

Representation ID: 2233

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 significant 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: 2228

OBJECT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

Object due to the amount of housing in Thurnby/Scraptoft/Bushby

Representation ID: 2225

OBJECT Prof. Penelope Allison

Summary:

This number of houses in the Scraptoft area is likely to be unsustainable given the poor transport facilities and the lack of available land that is not good agricultural land.

Representation ID: 2207

OBJECT K Patel

Summary:

Bad option. Massive urban extension causing real damage to the countryside and wildlife.

Representation ID: 2205

OBJECT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Not a good option. The green space around Scraptoft and Thurnby needs to be preserved. Green wedges, existing natural separation between villages are systematically coming under threat of erosion. Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby are already arguably overdeveloped!

Representation ID: 2188

OBJECT Miss Julie Beall

Summary:

Too many houses already been passed in Scraptoft.

Representation ID: 2187

OBJECT MRS Rosalea Gibson

Summary:

local services are already overstretched and that traffic conditions would become dangerous and overcrowded

Representation ID: 2183

OBJECT mr John Goldby

Summary:

Lack of social facilities within Scraptoft and Thurnby, i.e. doctors, chemist, schools, shopping would create major problems. Road access is also poor. Lutterworth already has the infrastructure and access plus brown areas which could be developed without being detrimental to the rural environment.

Representation ID: 2171

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: 2166

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. there is no infrastructure to support such huge numbers for scraptoft, e.g. no doctors no dentist no extra shops , very small amount of parking in village, I could go on.

Representation ID: 2155

SUPPORT Mr Peter Hales

Summary:

This option concentrates on sustainability and employment

Representation ID: 2132

OBJECT mr simon rodak

Summary:

My Objection is against any more building to the areas of Thurnby or Scraptoft due to the 4 large developments we have given into. The area is at capacity with outdated flood defenses and traffic congestion is at an alarming level. Infrastructure into the City is at capacity with traffic at peak times heavy and standing due to Market Harboroughs, Kibworths, Great Glen most recent large housing developments. Local schooling in the area is full, doctors surgeries care has been reduced to zero, as is the care of the general area being on the boundaries of the City.

Representation ID: 2129

OBJECT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

Too many houses in Leicester area

Representation ID: 2117

SUPPORT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Puts development where resources and infrastructure is.

Representation ID: 2100

SUPPORT Mr David Birch

Summary:

Most acceptable - minimal development of both Kibworth and Market Harborough

Representation ID: 2090

COMMENT Mrs Carol Birch

Summary:

Generally support this but think too much development in Fleckney will have a bad effect on the surrounding road network.

Representation ID: 2082

OBJECT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure in Scraptoft / Thurnby

Representation ID: 2081

OBJECT Mr RON YOUNG

Summary:

Lack of infrastructure in Scraptoft Thurnby area

Representation ID: 2063

OBJECT Mr Simon Cook

Summary:

Already too many houses given planning permission in the last few years for Scraptoft/Thurnby. From the last plan 80% of the houses have been approved that were needed by 2029.

Representation ID: 2012

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

The Lutterworth Strategic Development Area on the other side of the M1 is ludicrous

Representation ID: 1991

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 will use Station Road. The junction of Station Rd and A47 by Coles Nursery will be dreadful.
The planned primary school opposite the farm entrance would be unacceptable.
Covert Lane would have to be 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: 1985

OBJECT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

New development not spread equally.
Issues with A47 capability

Representation ID: 1968

SUPPORT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

provides bypass for lutterworth and housing near leicester

Representation ID: 1953

SUPPORT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

This option puts development where facilities, infrastructure and transport links are in place and are the most sustainable.

Representation ID: 1940

SUPPORT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Support 8 These options put development where facilities, infrastructure and transport links are in place and are the most sustainable

Representation ID: 1935

OBJECT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Object to Option 8.

Representation ID: 1925

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.

Local area will not cope with additional housing transport etc

Representation ID: 1916

OBJECT haydn Gopsill

Summary:

Based on 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: 1900

SUPPORT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

Minimises traffic on the authorities A and B roads and gives easy access to well supported and existing road ,school and medical facilities.

Representation ID: 1889

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: 1873

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 a rat run.

Representation ID: 1870

OBJECT mr stephen pratt

Summary:

No more housing in Scraptoft area

Representation ID: 1861

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: 1851

SUPPORT Mrs Jennifer Sandars

Summary:

New housing would be close to the ring road and accessibility to M1 and benefit from employment created by new businesses being able to take advantage of the road network.

Representation ID: 1844

OBJECT mr Terry Woodhouse

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1831

OBJECT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

This proposal would be detrimental not only to the villages involved but without meeting the housing needs of the larger towns of Market Harborough and Lutterworth

Representation ID: 1825

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: 1822

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: 1803

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

This option recognises that Kibworth and the local road network cannot cope with additional housing.

Representation ID: 1799

OBJECT Mr Rodney Gibson

Summary:

The additional dwellings in the Thurnby/Scraptoft area would create total chaos on the already congested roads. The Doctors surgery would be unable to handle the extra patients and the school is already overcrowded

Representation ID: 1793

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: 1775

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: 1764

SUPPORT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

Gives bypass to Lutterworth and housing on the urban fringe. Some employment land should be provided at Bushby. There should be no reference to Magna Park expansion as part of this option.

Representation ID: 1743

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: 1714

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

Summary:

Although this option allocates fewer homes to Houghton it still puts a lot of new homes in an area that has seen or will see considerable development.

Representation ID: 1702

OBJECT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

Scraptoft and Thurnby already overdeveloped

Representation ID: 1686

SUPPORT LUTTERWORTH TOWN COUNCIL Parish Council (Andrew Ellis)

Summary:

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

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

Representation ID: 1673

OBJECT Mr James Hudson

Summary:

STRONGLY OBJECT. Scraptoft/Thurnby/Bushby cannot and should not have to accommodate an additional 1200 houses when this area has already had substantial housing development recently with still more already agreed and ready to build. The proposed link road is not needed. The already agreed building works will have new link access from A47 anyway. The separation between villages will disappear. There is also flooding issues already that would be made worse.

Representation ID: 1656

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: 1644

SUPPORT Mr philip colver

Summary:

Less houses in harboro and around A6

Representation ID: 1626

COMMENT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

Support the Lutterworth element, but have misgivings over capacity of A47.
The 1000 should be distributed elsewhere.

Representation ID: 1613

OBJECT Emma Lee

Summary:

Transport links between Scraptoft/Thurnby and the proposed employment areas is very poor. Scraptoft/Thurnby does not have the infrastructure to support this level of expansion.

Representation ID: 1600

SUPPORT Neil Heptonstall

Summary:

Because these larger places can be extended by a few metres all round to satisfy needs, rather than over-scale expansion of smaller ones.

Representation ID: 1590

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: 1581

OBJECT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner.
Lutterworth has no direct rail links, therefore all travel is by road and whilst the motorway is close it will only suit those people who use the M1 & M6 corridors.
There is no need for a motorway service area in any plans and the nearest one is only a junction away.

Representation ID: 1572

OBJECT Mr Peter Coombs

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1564

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 and natural wild life.

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: 1558

OBJECT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

As per my comments before about the new settlement this could create, despite the appealing low number of houses for Fleckney.

Representation ID: 1545

OBJECT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

THIS AGAIN PUTS PRESSURE ON OUR VILLAGE WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY AREAS CLOSER TO THE MOTORWAY WHICH WILL CAUSE LESS CONGESTION IN LEICESTER

Representation ID: 1534

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: 1529

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: 1511

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 places.

Representation ID: 1499

SUPPORT MR TIMOTHY GIDLEY WRIGHT

Summary:

I support a strategic approach to large scale development, rather than a blanket approach to increase rural development where there is often insufficient infrastructure to support such growth.

Representation ID: 1497

OBJECT Mrs Karen Farnsworth

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1490

OBJECT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Too much housing and developments in Scraptoft already.

Representation ID: 1469

OBJECT Robin Childs

Summary:

massive impact on local services and infrastructre

Representation ID: 1433

SUPPORT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Support Option 8

Representation ID: 1421

OBJECT Mr Ian Pilon

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1419

OBJECT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Object

Representation ID: 1398

SUPPORT Mr Richard Chambers

Summary:

This option places development where it can best be accommodated, in already developed areas with infrastructure to deal with it.

Representation ID: 1377

OBJECT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 1360

SUPPORT Mr John Coombs

Summary:

Local amenities (schools, doctors, roads, parking, leisure facilities) are stretched all over the district. Providing new SDAs with their own amenities will avoid a complete overrunning of what we have. By having 2 SDAs, this splits the housing provision, hopefully with less impact on each of the areas concerned.

Representation ID: 1352

OBJECT STOUGHTON Parish Council (Karen Giddens)

Summary:

We object strongly to option 8 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: 1312

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: 1300

OBJECT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

Object to Option 8

Representation ID: 1286

OBJECT Mr Barry Barker

Summary:

See previous comments. No further building until community centre is built.

Representation ID: 1253

SUPPORT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

Sustainable. Infrastructure exists.

Representation ID: 1240

SUPPORT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

offers pretty much same benefits as option 6

Representation ID: 1140

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

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1117

OBJECT Mr Ian Duffield

Summary:

This proposed development option will create significant pressure on the local infrastructure that it is not in a position to support without further adverse development.
The proposal, particularly for Lutterworth does not offer options for sustainable transport options, the most obvious impact being more congestion through additional domestic traffic.
The retail area of the existing town centre in Lutterworth could not support housing development on this scale, thus further out of town development would result, having a negitive impact on the life of the town centre.

Representation ID: 1106

SUPPORT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

Less houses in Swinford and relief road around Lutterworth

Representation ID: 1090

OBJECT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

Expansion of Scraptoft / Thurnby would diminish the green wedge east of these settlements.
No objection to the development of Lutterworth

Representation ID: 1068

SUPPORT Kay Wilson

Summary:

I feel that it is preferable to go for a few major developments rather than small piecemeal efforts in many villages. A major development can be properly provided with required services to ensure sustainability and be properly planned.

Representation ID: 1044

OBJECT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

More emphasis should be made towards the inner parts of the district

Representation ID: 1017

SUPPORT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

The draft Kibworth and Great Glen Neighbourhood Plans will best be able to provide relevant policies on housing and employment needs for the settlements. These will provide a better guide for the levels of housing and employment that the communities agree, together with the key infrastructure and community facilities required to sustain any level of housing. Until that time, largescale housing growth for the Kibworths and Great Glen outside the limits of development should be limited, and any developments must take account of the lack of capacity at the primary school and GP surgeries or A6 access.

Representation ID: 994

OBJECT Mr Stephen Willcox

Summary:

Lutterworth- pressure to infrastructure

Representation ID: 987

SUPPORT Mr Alastair Willis

Summary:

Very strongly support. Of the 9 options this appears to be the most sustainable. Both Lutterworth and Scraptoft/Thurnby have good transport links, local employment opportunities, and proximity to larger urban centres (Rugby and Leicester) with access to railway stations, hospitals, etc. Concentrating development in these 2 places would facilitate the provision of new local community services.. In Lutterworth the proposed development's new road links should also help address town centre traffic congestion.

Representation ID: 973

SUPPORT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 968

SUPPORT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

See comment at option 3 - applies to all 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: 952

OBJECT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

Undue reliance on a few areas and will take too long to deliver. Development of this scale will take a huge time to deliver housing. 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: 938

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: 910

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

This is proportional and fair.

Representation ID: 896

SUPPORT Mr Raymond Godfrey

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 882

OBJECT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

Pressure of infrastructure

Representation ID: 836

OBJECT Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 822

SUPPORT Mrs Alison Oldridge

Summary:

I support this option with no further houses to be built in Kibworth

Representation ID: 692

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

Representation ID: 681

OBJECT Mrs Joy Burgoine

Summary:

If a SDA is needed, Scraptoft is more suitable as there are more economic and sustainable travel opportunities in Leicester

Representation ID: 656

SUPPORT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

SUPPORT
Agree with this option. Lutterworth can accommodate housing given its employment and transport Links.

Thurnby and Scraptoft have better access to services and infrastructure in Leicester than Market Harborough.
Concentating development in these two places would facilitate the provision of new local community services and transport infrastructure. Town Centre traffic congestion in Lutterworth will be addressed.

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

Powered by OpusConsult