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 9: Lutterworth SDA and Kibworth SDA

Representation ID: 5145

COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Nick Wakefield)

Summary:

From a flooding prepective, in line with NPPF, sites located within Flood Zone 1 would be our preferred location for growth in the District. Sites located within FZ3b is not permitted for residential development and would only be appropriate for a very limited type of employment development. Sites in FZ 3a and 2 must be sequentially tested from a flooding perspective and whenever possible development should also be steered away from these locations.
The River Swift flows through the southern part of Lutterworth and is a tributary of the River Avon. The river has a history of flooding in Lutterworth, most recently in 2008. Housing development of the scale proposed in Options 6, 8 and 9 would significantly increase the surface water run off into the River Swift and its tributaries. It will be necessary for this to be managed at source so that flood risk is not increased further downstream in Rugby.
The Plan should include policies which support the inclusion of space for wildlife and water in all new development in the District. Policies which promote sustainable drainage solutions to water managment (swales, ponds)can provide habitat for wildlife as measures to promote the naturalisations of water courses

Representation ID: 5094

COMMENT Leicester City Council (Mr Fabian D'Costa)

Summary:

Leicester City Council Transport Strategy team: Mitigation measures on the existing transport network in Leicester to support new growth may be required for any adverse impacts identified based on the findings of robust transport modelling. These areas may include:
 The A426 Lutterworth Road, A5460 Narborough Road and the A563 Outer Ring Road (Palmerston Way, Asquith Boulevard, and Soar Valley Way).
 It is important to bear in mind of the impact of the new development will have on air quality. Soar Valley Way / Glenhills Way junction is a declared Air Quality Management Area.
 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: 5035

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

LCC Education Comments:
Kibworth SDA; support the principle from an education perspective of providing a school, maybe an issue at secondary level.
Lutterworth SDA: support the principle from an education perspective as scope for growth at Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 5010

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

Summary:

Object to option 9.

Representation ID: 5001

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: 4997

SUPPORT Mr &Mrs D Giles and 1 other

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4989

SUPPORT Mr R Mackness

Summary:

Support option 9.

Representation ID: 4940

COMMENT 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: 4938

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transportation Comments
Lutterworth SDA and Kibworth SDA: Please see comments in respect of Option 5 and Option 6. It should also be noted, however, that in comparison with some other options there would appear to be less of a risk of traffic impacts from these two areas of growth over-lapping and causing significant strategic problems.

Representation ID: 4931

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: 4902

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Support Option 9: 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: 4886

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: 4859

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: 4834

OBJECT Kate Gamble

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 4820

OBJECT Mrs Patricia Malpass

Summary:

Object to option 9. 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: 4813

OBJECT Mrs Jane McDoanld

Summary:

Object to option 9 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: 4810

OBJECT Ms Christine Spinks

Summary:

Object to option 9:
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: 4802

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: 4797

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: 4795

OBJECT B Moffat

Summary:

Object to Option 9: 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: 4792

OBJECT Mr Ron Moore

Summary:

I wish to register the strongest objection to proposal 9. 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: 4789

SUPPORT Mr Mullins

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4767

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: 4748

SUPPORT Brian Newman

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4738

SUPPORT Mohamed Muster

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4728

SUPPORT Jean Mitchell

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4719

SUPPORT Mary Bailess

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4710

SUPPORT Janet Lount

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4700

OBJECT Mrs I Orzel

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 4691

SUPPORT P. Panham

Summary:

Support option 9.

Representation ID: 4661

SUPPORT Ms Pauline Pearce

Summary:

Support option 9.

Representation ID: 4654

SUPPORT Mr R Taylor

Summary:

Support option 9.

Representation ID: 4645

OBJECT Mr R. Orzel

Summary:

Object to option 9

Representation ID: 4635

SUPPORT Mr Roger Sharman

Summary:

Support option 9.

Representation ID: 4626

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: 4620

OBJECT Mr Robertson

Summary:

Object to option 9

Representation ID: 4611

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: 4607

SUPPORT Ms Susan Sharman

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4598

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs T Shaw and 1 other

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4589

OBJECT Ms Laura Stanford

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 4571

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Option 9 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: 4559

OBJECT Jayne Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 9

Representation ID: 4550

OBJECT Mr Graham Sturgess

Summary:

Object to option 9

Representation ID: 4541

SUPPORT Mr T Bailess

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4532

SUPPORT Mr Terry Johnson

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4528

SUPPORT Mr Tim Martin

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4519

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

Summary:

Strongly support option 9. 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: 4513

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: 4508

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

Summary:

Object due to allocation of 1,200 dwellings suggested for Kibworth. This is a modest sized Rural Centre which through the previous Local Plan incorporated a large residential allocation, resulting in approval of more than 700 houses which are still being built out. To suggest a further 1,200 dwellings can be accommodated at Kibworth without overwhelming the village is unfathomable. Unless it is intended that Kibworth is elevated to town status and have other commitments to increase community facilities and employment opportunities to an equivalent level, then this level of development is completely unjustifiable as it is not creating a balance live/work community.

Representation ID: 4495

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 9 (5 and 7).

Representation ID: 4492

SUPPORT Mr and Mrs R Thomas and 1 other

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4485

SUPPORT Mrs C Thompson

Summary:

Support Option 9.

Representation ID: 4484

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: 4476

SUPPORT S Knott

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4468

SUPPORT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4461

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: 4453

SUPPORT Mrs R Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4444

SUPPORT L Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4430

SUPPORT Ms Jo Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4419

SUPPORT Mrs Julia Tyres

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4408

SUPPORT Terry & Jan Johnson

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4404

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: 4401

SUPPORT Mr C Tyres

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 4398

OBJECT Mr John Hooley

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 4379

SUPPORT Mr J Illsley

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4370

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: 4367

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs R Hill

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4358

SUPPORT Mr Braden Hill

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4346

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: 4339

SUPPORT Ms Siegfried Headley

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4329

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

Summary:

Option 9 is inapproriate in terms of landscape impact at Kibworth.

Representation ID: 4324

SUPPORT Mr Paul Hart

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4313

SUPPORT Susan Hart

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4299

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs Haines

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4285

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: 4282

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: 4279

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: 4263

SUPPORT Mr Michael Glover

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4254

SUPPORT Ms Davena Glover

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4200

SUPPORT J Frisby

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4190

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: 4179

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: 4176

SUPPORT Ms Sarah Field

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4171

SUPPORT Mrs June Field

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4166

SUPPORT Mr John Field

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4161

OBJECT Valerie Moore

Summary:

Object to option 9. 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: 4159

SUPPORT Mrs Frances Bailess

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4148

OBJECT Mr Andrew Walling

Summary:

Object to option 9

Representation ID: 4134

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 9.

Representation ID: 4131

SUPPORT M Earl

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4130

OBJECT Mr Brian Williams

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 4120

SUPPORT Ms Elaine Howorth

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4098

SUPPORT J Dilks

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4086

SUPPORT N Dean

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4084

OBJECT Mr Brian Williams

Summary:

Object to option 9.

Representation ID: 4074

SUPPORT Ms Gill Dean

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4053

OBJECT KIBWORTH BEAUCHAMP Parish Council (Mr Chris Wood)

Summary:

Object to Option 9. 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: 4045

OBJECT Mrs Alison Cryer

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 4035

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs D Crofts

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 4033

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

Summary:

Option 9 is wholly inappropriate for the District.

Representation ID: 4017

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: 4010

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: 4006

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: 4002

SUPPORT Mr Michael Cole

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 3992

SUPPORT Ms Pamela Cole

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 3982

OBJECT Ms Susan Clarke

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 3972

OBJECT Mrs Sally Champion

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 3959

OBJECT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 3951

SUPPORT S Canham

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 3944

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: 3941

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: 3938

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: 3924

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: 3921

SUPPORT Mrs Helen Brackenbury

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 3915

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: 3912

SUPPORT Dr Bhaumik

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 3906

OBJECT Ms Carole Beretta

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 3897

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: 3894

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs D Barratt

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 3886

SUPPORT Mr M Bailey

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 3874

SUPPORT Mrs Brenda Newman

Summary:

Support option 9

Representation ID: 3865

OBJECT Ms Barbara Hooley

Summary:

Object to this option.

Representation ID: 3856

OBJECT Mrs Cynthia Armitage

Summary:

Having lived in Kibworth for over 30 years I wish to object to option 9.

Representation ID: 3851

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: 3842

SUPPORT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Support this option.

Representation ID: 3825

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Diana Cook)

Summary:

less impact on rural villages and infrastructure -particularly highways to support the growth

Representation ID: 3824

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: 3815

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

More research needed

Representation ID: 3807

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: 3797

OBJECT Mr Christopher Long

Summary:

As per comments on 5 and 6

Representation ID: 3776

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: 3772

OBJECT Mrs Melanie Provis

Summary:

Before any more houses are built in the Kibworth area, the infrastructure needs to be developed.
The schools are already full and huge ( 500+ children in a village primary!)
The High Street can't cope with any more traffic.
The A6 struggles during rush hours.
The doctor s surgeries are excellent but struggling to cope. With the amount of existing residents.

Representation ID: 3753

SUPPORT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

support

Representation ID: 3745

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: 3732

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: 3697

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: 3687

OBJECT Mr Kevin Butler

Summary:

I object to any development on a green field site.

Representation ID: 3686

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

suport

Representation ID: 3684

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: 3667

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: 3659

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

i support

Representation ID: 3642

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: 3631

OBJECT Laura Tanner

Summary:

No new primary school = no qualification for the building of new homes in Kibworth. Simple.

Representation ID: 3630

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 a partial erosion of the predominantly rural character of the District as a whole.

Representation ID: 3629

OBJECT Joanna Jordan

Summary:

Kibworth is bursting at the seams already - any more pressure on our facilities and services is unsustainabe

Representation ID: 3618

SUPPORT mrs ami benning

Summary:

go ahead

Representation ID: 3611

OBJECT Mr Andrew Craig

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3602

OBJECT Mr Vincent Brown

Summary:

I strongly object to this proposal.

Representation ID: 3598

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: 3594

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: 3590

SUPPORT Dr Ian Flanagan

Summary:

I support

Representation ID: 3580

OBJECT Mr Ian Jameson

Summary:

No infrastructure

Representation ID: 3573

OBJECT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

The housing requirement for Kibworth is too high, and Harborough could cope with some additional housing, but it does keep the character of rural villages by maintaining only modest housing needs for them.

Representation ID: 3512

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: 3481

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 third 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: 3479

SUPPORT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

This would secure an eastern bypass for Lutterworth, which is desirable.

Representation ID: 3458

OBJECT Mrs Janet Hastings

Summary:

I strongly object to this Option. Some Kibworth residents are considering moving out because it is becoming so 'unworkable'.

Representation ID: 3452

COMMENT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

LEL would refer the Council to its previous representations in respect of Options 5 and 6.

Representation ID: 3427

SUPPORT Mr John David Edmonds

Summary:

If we need to comply with national guidelines this option would seem to create the least difficulty with transport and the least affect on rural village life.

Lutterworth itself would not be directly affected by a development on the other side of the motorway.
Kibworth is already large enough to be relatively unscathed by the addition being of town size anyway.

The much smaller numbers affecting the numerous smaller villages would threaten their village status in the long term with further building but not destroy them now, as dozens of even hundreds of additional houses would inevitably do under other options.

Representation ID: 3423

OBJECT mr martyn rest

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3399

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

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3391

SUPPORT nicholas fielden

Summary:

If the new dwellings are located by employment land then this is sensible and will hopefully mean that people will not have to travel significant distances to work, Lutterworth in particular would benefit from expansion that includes steering traffic away from its present main road. The needs of the new residents, in terms of services such as education and medical as well as recreational should be addressed and met.as part of the overall development of the area.. This needs to be ENFORCED by Harborough as too many times developers fail to deliver the promised infrastructure.

Representation ID: 3383

SUPPORT Mr David Mee represented by Mr David Mee

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 3376

OBJECT Mr Gilbert Young

Summary:

See my comments at proposal 5

Representation ID: 3369

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: 3366

COMMENT Mr David Nance

Summary:

This may mean significantly less houses for my village and many others but does not benefit the district and more even distribution across main Urban towns/larger villages is needed

Representation ID: 3360

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: 3335

SUPPORT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

again though lacking footpaths to encourage foot passengers for shops and for highs school reasons. Disagree for the mention of Magna Park however in every single option as that should not be part of the consultation in every section.

Representation ID: 3286

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: 3276

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: 3251

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. Lutterworth too has had a large number of houses built recently. The roads around Kibworth can't take the extra traffic, the schools are full and the 2 doctors surgeries are full.

Representation ID: 3247

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Lutterworth is already too congested

Representation ID: 3205

OBJECT Dr Janet Riley

Summary:

I strongly object to the Kibworth SDA element of this option due to its lack of sustainability. The jobs are not in Kibworth and still won't be 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: 3197

OBJECT Mr Jonathan Fisher

Summary:

Another 1200 houses is not an option at Kibworth the creaking infrastructure cannot be allowed to be further strained

Representation ID: 3196

OBJECT mr jonjo Elliott

Summary:

Kibworth cannot handle the traffic, lack of school places, air pollution and lack of infrastructure this development will cause. i strongly oppose this development.

Representation ID: 3184

OBJECT Maria Petillon

Summary:

I strongly object to any more large scale housing in Kibworth. 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: 3183

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: 3171

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: 3151

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: 3147

OBJECT Melissa Gillbee

Summary:

as per option 6 comments, contradicts sustainable targets, split community, not adequate retail allocation for lutterworth

Representation ID: 3128

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 object this option.

Representation ID: 3123

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: 3116

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: 3092

SUPPORT mr MARK sutton

Summary:

build for the future

Representation ID: 3080

OBJECT Mr Matt Sibson

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3076

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: 3073

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: 3066

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: 3065

OBJECT Mr Paul Bradfield

Summary:

Kibworth does not have the infrastructure to take anymore houses. It would be disastrous for the village. The area to the east of Lutterworth is the best site for any major development.

Representation ID: 3048

OBJECT Mr graham gosling

Summary:

This amount of new housing for Kibworth cannot be sustained, it will ruin our rural charming village for good.
Practically the infrastructure cannot support this size of development

Representation ID: 3032

OBJECT Ms Helen Sibson

Summary:

Kibworth:
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: 3030

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: 3021

OBJECT Mr Ian Clarke

Summary:

To many houses at Kibworth

Representation ID: 3019

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: 3007

COMMENT Mrs Patricia Horwell

Summary:

Development in Kibworth too big unless better connectivity to Leicester can be established other than a relief road - Magna Park as per previous comments

Representation ID: 2999

OBJECT Mrs Susan walter

Summary:

Kibworth cannot cope with this number of houses, roads, schools are already congested and at capacity.

Representation ID: 2992

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: 2985

SUPPORT Dr Sinead Mooney

Summary:

I support.

Representation ID: 2973

SUPPORT mrs sarah sutton

Summary:

Good use of Lutterworths excellent transport links and will revitalise the area

Representation ID: 2942

SUPPORT Dr Matthew Clarke

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2937

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: 2933

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: 2886

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: 2877

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: 2860

SUPPORT Mrs Janet Capey

Summary:

The ideal place for further development. Lutterworth has the infrastructure already in place and Kibworth needs to share the burden. Very few developments have taken place there. If Market Harborough is viewed as the 'hub'/'strategic centre', of the 'local plan' then the burden of development should be adjacent to that area.

Representation ID: 2850

OBJECT mrs nicole blount

Summary:

Not enough doctors, not enough school space,
too many cars on the roads, too many cars parked on the sides of the roads, access blocked, people taking risks as they try and walk to their local shops etc, what will it take for the powers that be to realise that Kibworth cannot cope with anymore homes.
PLEASE LEAVE OUR VILLAGE A VILLAGE!

Representation ID: 2828

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

as per comments on option 6, not sustainable and no clear plan to support growth.

Representation ID: 2821

OBJECT Mr Ian Wilson

Summary:

The Kibworth portion of this proposal is out of scale with the existing settlement. Promised additional infrastructure would in all probability not be delivered.

Representation ID: 2807

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

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: 2799

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

Concentrating housing development in Urban areas with better infrastructure (i.e. road access, employment opportunities etc) than Billesdon is our strongly preferred option.

Representation ID: 2756

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

As per comments on 5and 6, Kibworth may not have core assets needed and no clear defined strategic plan for Lutterworth proposed.

Representation ID: 2752

OBJECT Mrs Jacqueline Buckley

Summary:

As for options 5 and 7 the proposed extra housing will cause far too many problems for the current population of the Kibworth villages and any new dwellers. We already have severe traffic problems - causing congestion and health problems- eg asthma sufferers being affected.
There is not enough provision in the schools or doctors surgeries for the proposed housing expansion.

Representation ID: 2751

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: 2750

OBJECT Cathy Bishop

Summary:

The congestion on the A6 and traffic already too much.

Representation ID: 2734

SUPPORT mike webster

Summary:

HOUSING WHERE IT IS NEEDED NEAR THE M1

Representation ID: 2719

SUPPORT mike webster

Summary:

HOUSING IS PROVIDED WHERE IT IS NEEDED THE MOST

Representation ID: 2692

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, at that time it was not supported by Leics CC or Harborough District Council.
I support a Lutterworth SDA subject to early completion of an eastern bypass which Lutterworth crucially needs. This bypass will allow for traffic restrictions including a 7.5 tonne limit which will re-invigorate Lutterworth.
Otherwise, Lutterworth town centre will continue to suffer from ever higher severe air pollution noise & vibration from HGV and other traffic.

Representation ID: 2689

OBJECT Mrs Carole Craig

Summary:

Traffic problems would be huge. Where do the children go to school? Extra housing should be shared - not used to ruin one place.

Representation ID: 2679

OBJECT FLECKNEY Parish Council (Mr J Flower)

Summary:

This option is not supported because it will provide the majority of new dwellings in Kibworth and Lutterworth. The proposal for Kibworth will fundamentally change the character and rural nature of the Village and will have a significant impact on services. The number of new dwellings in Lutterworth is excessive when considering Market Harborough is best placed to take a much higher number of new dwelling having the greatest range of services and facilities and good transport links.

Representation ID: 2645

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: 2643

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: 2621

OBJECT MRS PAT FOOTMAN

Summary:

not enough infrastructure to support any further housing developments

Representation ID: 2608

COMMENT Landmark Planning Ltd (P Wilkinson)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2607

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: 2602

SUPPORT Mr Alec Brewin

Summary:

Both lutterworth and Kibworth need and could accommodate the level of development being proposed

Representation ID: 2591

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: 2559

OBJECT Mr Keith Holyoake

Summary:

Requires too much expenditure on access roads

Representation ID: 2557

OBJECT Mr Mark Prescod

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2548

OBJECT Mr Andrew Hamilton

Summary:

Object!

Representation ID: 2539

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: 2529

SUPPORT Mr Richard .J. Sutton

Summary:

This option is acceptable as the majority of the development will be away from Market Harborough. No more planning permission should be granted in Market Harborough until Airfield farm is fully developed.

Representation ID: 2523

OBJECT Miss J Moffat

Summary:

This is disproportionate extension of a village into a town - Kibworth. The infrastructure cannot cope with this huge increase of population and traffic - the roads are already only at single lane use, main A6 crawls at peak time through the village and the healthcare and schools at capacity. Kibworth cannot cope with this!

Representation ID: 2518

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: 2489

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: 2475

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: 2446

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: 2443

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: 2433

SUPPORT Mrs Pam Edmonds

Summary:

I support but with reservations. It is logical that Lutterworth should be a major development with promise of by-pass, access to the motorway system and good provision of employment. However, more concerned about Kibworth which has already seen mass development. is the road system adequatei would prefer to see more of an even share of housing between Kibworth and Mkt Harborough. Pleased to see that the A47 has been given some breathing space!

Representation ID: 2427

SUPPORT Mrs Iris Norman

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 2387

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

OK

Representation ID: 2372

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

This option comes closest to the wishes of residents as expressed in our emerging Neighbourhood Plan which has undergone considerable consultation and is now out for consultation in draft form. It also concentrates both housing and employment growth in an area where there are already good transport links both locally and to cities e.g London and Birmingham

Representation ID: 2346

SUPPORT Mr Ian Harris

Summary:

Would still allow a bypass for Lutterworth and restrict growth by other villages into Leicester.

Representation ID: 2345

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

This option provides employment growth alongside housing growth with good access to transport links and links to healthcare in the case of Scraptoft / Thurnby. It does not put undue pressure on the smaller settlements. This option fits best with the emerging Lubenham Neighbourhood Plan which is currently out for consultation. It is unclear however why some Rural centres (considered to be sustainable settlements) have considerably larger growth amounts than others yet selected rural villages with less infrastructure have higher numbers.

Representation ID: 2336

SUPPORT Mrs Wendy Murrell

Summary:

This option would be acceptable

Representation ID: 2324

SUPPORT Mr Colin Archard

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 2282

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Would provide a good balance between geographic spread of development and a focus on predominantly urban development with limited additional development in rural areas

Representation ID: 2272

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: 2268

SUPPORT Mrs Susan Terrington

Summary:

Best option

Representation ID: 2245

SUPPORT mr Colin Griffiths

Summary:

A good option, lutterworth and its infrastructure can cope with the development

Representation ID: 2229

SUPPORT Mr Nigel Garner

Summary:

Good for employment

Representation ID: 2227

SUPPORT Prof. Penelope Allison

Summary:

This plan focuses the growth in the main urban areas which have good facilities and employment opportunities and limits growth in the rural villages that have poor transport, lack of amenities and lack of employment opportunities.

Representation ID: 2209

SUPPORT K Patel

Summary:

The best and the most sustainable option

Representation ID: 2208

SUPPORT K Patel

Summary:

The best and the most sustainable option

Representation ID: 2206

SUPPORT Miss Anita Davies

Summary:

Most viable, sustainable option! Puts development where sustainable resources, infrastructure and transport links are in place

Representation ID: 2186

SUPPORT mr John Goldby

Summary:

As main urban infrastructure is in place Lutterworth is the prime area for development. Brown areas are available which would cause less disruption to the rural areas, also social needs can be met i.e. Schools, chemists, doctors and social care. Also local police, road access to M1 and M6 is also a valuable asset allowing for commuters to travel quickly and.freely. Kibworth as a secondary site has some of these facilities which are not available in Scraptoft or thurnby.

Representation ID: 2181

SUPPORT Mr John Cotton

Summary:

Larger towns can get improved transport links and have more facilities than the smaller villages

Representation ID: 2172

SUPPORT mrs linda atkinson

Summary:

it would appear that this particular proposal would in fact fulfil the requirements with the least disruptive impact on scraptoft not only on current residents but also to the countryside.and traffic.
the proposed build at lutterworth would appear to have less impact on lutterworth, being away from lutterworth itself on the other side of the motorway.

Representation ID: 2163

SUPPORT Mr Peter Hales

Summary:

This is a possibility as it centres areas where there is real possibility of employment and sustainability

Representation ID: 2133

SUPPORT mr simon rodak

Summary:

Lutterworth seems to me to be the only true area that seem to be making any clear sense. A by-pass has already been provided and a new link road to divert traffic away from the center is provided, Lutterworth is close to any motorway links to prevent areas of congestion within the boundaries. This would be a complete new area being developed and the only one that takes into account any traffic issues.

Representation ID: 2130

SUPPORT Consultant Simon Thodey

Summary:

Centralised larger areas are much better than a broad spread

Representation ID: 2118

SUPPORT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Puts development where resources and infrastructure is.

Representation ID: 2091

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: 2073

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: 2064

SUPPORT Mr Simon Cook

Summary:

Most viable option

Representation ID: 2013

OBJECT Mr Sam Weller

Summary:

The worst option of all - the Lutterworth Strategic Development Area on the other side of the M1 is ludicrous, and Kibworth cannot cope with any further development

Representation ID: 1998

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: 1986

COMMENT Mr Mark Fitt

Summary:

Don't know affected areas well enough to object/agree.

Representation ID: 1969

SUPPORT MRS JANE FAIRCLIFFE

Summary:

provides bypass for lutterworth and kibworth

Representation ID: 1954

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: 1929

SUPPORT Mr Ian Ball

Summary:

Support Option 9.

Representation ID: 1926

SUPPORT Mr Peter Harding

Summary:

Housing is where there are already major roads that can cope and space for the new housing

Representation ID: 1901

OBJECT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

This proposal as in option 1,2,3,5and 7 will generate traffic jams along the A6 at Kibworth.

Representation ID: 1896

SUPPORT Mr Sam Hudson

Summary:

Good option, kibworth and Lutterworth need the development

Representation ID: 1883

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: 1879

SUPPORT Miss Laura Hudson

Summary:

Good option. Lutterworth needs the development

Representation ID: 1867

SUPPORT Mrs Deborah Hudson

Summary:

This is the best option. Lutterworth needs the development due to needs of magna park

Representation ID: 1836

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: 1833

COMMENT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

This proposal looks unrealistic without Market Harborough having additional housing needs met

Representation ID: 1804

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: 1777

SUPPORT Mr Donald Urquhart

Summary:

This would be acceptable.

Representation ID: 1765

SUPPORT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

This would provide a bypass for both communities. There should be no mention of Magna Park expansion. It is not a proper part of this option and is a link which should not be made.

Representation ID: 1762

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: 1722

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: 1715

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

Summary:

Homes and employment together makes sense.

Representation ID: 1703

SUPPORT Mr Alan Mitchell

Summary:

road network supports this area

Representation ID: 1687

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: 1677

SUPPORT Mr Steve Walton

Summary:

Accessibility, close to motorway.

Representation ID: 1676

SUPPORT Mr James Hudson

Summary:

Support, Lutterworth needs the growth

Representation ID: 1665

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: 1661

OBJECT Mrs Lorraine Hodson

Summary:

Kibworth: Roads cannot cope
Village cannot cope
Schools bursting

Representation ID: 1657

SUPPORT Ms Hazel Newitt

Summary:

Lutterworth would be a suitable area for this development due to its close proximity to the motorway network and potential for building

Representation ID: 1648

OBJECT Mr philip colver

Summary:

Unbalanced

Representation ID: 1632

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: 1627

OBJECT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

object purely on the Kibworth element.

Representation ID: 1614

SUPPORT Emma Lee

Summary:

This proposal supports the planned expansion at Magna Park and offers an opportunity for improved links with the M1 from the south Harborough district.

Representation ID: 1601

SUPPORT Neil Heptonstall

Summary:

It is the best

Representation ID: 1582

OBJECT mr Peter Mellalieu

Summary:

MH Homeowner.

Representation ID: 1573

SUPPORT Mr Peter Coombs

Summary:

This option is the only one which can save Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby from more development in the future.

Representation ID: 1559

OBJECT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1546

SUPPORT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

PERFECT SOLUTION -

REMOVES ALL VEHICLES FROM THE SCRAPTOFT AREA - WE ARE ALREADY UNDER PRESSURE WITH TRAFFIC CONGESTION

Representation ID: 1530

SUPPORT Mr Harjit Dosanjh

Summary:

Have resources and infrastructure to handle growth

Representation ID: 1512

OBJECT Mrs Diane Miles

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 1498

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: 1492

SUPPORT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Good road network around Lutterworth already.

Representation ID: 1491

SUPPORT Ms Shaveen Akhtar

Summary:

Kibworth can accommodate growth. Lutterworth has great roads for economic growth.

Representation ID: 1470

SUPPORT Robin Childs

Summary:

good use of available land

Representation ID: 1434

SUPPORT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 1422

SUPPORT Mr Ian Pilon

Summary:

This option would be the better choice. More balance towards lutterworth as it has an established town base, bus routes, main trunk roads and close to the M1

Representation ID: 1420

SUPPORT Mrs Mary Moore

Summary:

Support

Representation ID: 1400

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. Any plan which does not allocate any housing to Market Harborough, one of the settlements best equipped to take it, should not be considered viable.

Representation ID: 1399

OBJECT mrs mhairi leach

Summary:

Kibworth does not have the road infrastructure. The A6 is over capacity already and apparently no plans for a bypass to accompany an expansion of this scale. Also doctors surgery is practically impossible to get appointments.

Representation ID: 1392

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: 1385

OBJECT Mrs michelle Woolston

Summary:

Kibworth has 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.. 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. Market Harborough has the infrastructure to take major development unlike the villages.

Representation ID: 1378

OBJECT Mr James O'Hare

Summary:

Object to Option 9

Representation ID: 1365

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: 1325

SUPPORT Professor Alan Wells

Summary:

The most sustainable of the options offered in terms of transport links, traffic loading, proximity of housing development to new employment centres. Lowest carbon footprint and least impact on traffic congestion. Least damaging to rural environment and village infrastructure.

Representation ID: 1310

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: 1301

SUPPORT Mrs Glenise McBean

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 1289

SUPPORT J Mee

Summary:

Support Option 9

Representation ID: 1287

SUPPORT Mr Barry Barker

Summary:

See previous comments. Scraptoft is a small community and needs improved facilities and no further building should be allowed until the needs are meet. No further building until community centre is built.

Representation ID: 1280

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: 1254

SUPPORT Mrs Dorothy Ward

Summary:

Sustainable. Infrastructure exists.

Representation ID: 1243

OBJECT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

error - previous statement should read 87%

Representation ID: 1242

OBJECT mr philip bothwell

Summary:

An option that delivers 87% of all HDC needs in effectively two places is ridiculous . This is SHLAA driven & gives little thought to sustainability

Representation ID: 1157

SUPPORT Mr Lewis Freeman

Summary:

I can only comment on the Lutterworth proposal BUT I feel this is the best solution as it allows all parts of the plan to be enabled. It's scale will allow for the requirements of differing housing, new schools, medical facilities not possible under other proposals. They are too small without the infrastructure to cope with small increases in the local population.
My only concern is with the 'relief' road which is shown running through the residential areas and the community parks. Could become a 'rat run' at a later date.

Representation ID: 1141

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

Summary:

The proposed scale of development in Kibworth is welcomed although concern is expressed over their location 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: 1118

OBJECT Mr Ian Duffield

Summary:

I object to this proposal as there is sufficent infrastructure to support it, thus the housing development would require other development as well creating further negitive impact. Number such as these would mean more schools, roads, doctors and shops. Will these be available and of sufficient standard?
Travel options in these areas are currently an issue and the building of new houses will not result in sufficient change to improve this situation.
Building at Scraptoft would seem more appropriate to me as it offers more suitable travel options and is better placed to support growth of this type.

Representation ID: 1108

SUPPORT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

Lower levels of housing in Swinford were identified as being important to villagers in Swinford as evidenced in the recent village survey (see attached) People cited parking issues, lack of infrastructure , services ans facilities. The density propose by SHLAA for the 4 proposed sites is contrary to character of the village as it currently exists.

Representation ID: 1091

SUPPORT Mr Peter Lutman

Summary:

Would enable services to be improved in Lutterworth and the Kibworths, both resonably served by public transport

Representation ID: 1050

OBJECT Mr Paul Copson

Summary:

Comments same as options 5 and 7

Representation ID: 1045

OBJECT Mr John Rowley

Summary:

The spread id too centralised.

Representation ID: 1035

SUPPORT Mr John Biggin

Summary:

Would make sense to put housing near to areas of employment, rather than accross lots of small villages where people would need to commute by car.

Representation ID: 1018

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 the 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: 1004

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: 995

OBJECT Mr Stephen Willcox

Summary:

Pressure to Lutterworth infrastructure

Representation ID: 974

SUPPORT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

But oppose any development of Magna Park

Representation ID: 970

SUPPORT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

But as stated previously the bias of housing development away from Harborough must be addressed. As must the bias favouring development at Magna Park. This is unacceptable, particularly in the face of the current planning applications.

Representation ID: 969

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: 939

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: 911

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

This is proportional and fair

Representation ID: 885

OBJECT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

Pressure to infrastructure
Limited options for sustainable travel methods
An "at capacity" economic and retail area in Lutterworth
1,950 homes adjacent to Lutterworth would not boost local amenities but require new, competing ones that could risk long-term potential for Lutterworth town
If a SDA is needed, Scraptoft is more suitable as there are more growth, economic and sustainable travel opportunities in Leicester

Representation ID: 884

OBJECT Susan Sharpe

Summary:

Pressure of infrastructure
Limited options for sustainable travel methods
Too much agricultural farm land being used
Green belts being destroyed
Lack of care of wildlife and the environment
1,950 homes adjacent to Lutterworth would not boost local amenities but require new, competing ones that would risk long term potential for Lutterworth Town

Representation ID: 837

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: 831

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: 827

OBJECT Mrs Barbara Strevens

Summary:

Kibworth cannot cope with this many houses. We are struggling with traffic, noise and pollution. We have both schools and GP surgeries that are over capacity with no plans to expand. Our village will be detrimentally affected with this many homes.

Representation ID: 823

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: 806

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: 801

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: 693

SUPPORT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Like this option

Representation ID: 657

SUPPORT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

We would rank this option second to Option 8. However, should only go forward if absolutely necessary because of Kibworths lack of services and infrastructure.

Representation ID: 648

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 to areas with good road links.

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

Powered by OpusConsult