Represen Name of Support/ Summary of response tation ID

Representation ID

Name of respondent/organisation

Support/Object

Summary of response

2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 4157

Pegasus Planning Group Ltd on behalf of Wilson Bowden with landholding at Sawley Crossroad

Object

Question 2 Objective SO7 does not go far enough. Important that objectives actively promote economic development. This includes diversifying the base and continuing to attract development. Must continue to promote the Locational attributes of the District. Para 8.20 Agree that the HMA employment Land Study indicates that 20-25 ha should be developed as part of the SUE. However it also suggests 50ha for strategy warehousing in the District and this should also be referred to. Question 3 Object to Para 8.13 which indicates that out of Coalville, rural towns and sustainable villages, development elsewhere should meet local needs. However this is not the case for strategic distribution development. Government advice has acknowledged that the locational requirement of strategic distribution is not always the same as other types of development. For example, good access to transport infrastructure but not within large populated areas. Therefore does not fit in with the proposed development strategy. Wilson Bowden are freeholders of land at Sawley Crossroad – one of the potential identified Strategic Distribution Sites. The Core Strategy needs to clarify this matter as it cannot be in a position whereby it identifies land for strategic distribution use but its location is not supported by its own locational strategy. Question 6 Core Strategy will need to be flexible to accommodate any change in the amount of development needed following the review of the Regional Plan. Also needs to be recognition that development schemes are not governed by timescales of the Development Plan.

Object Support Support

In the case of strategic distribution any significant development is likely to be built over a number of years and involve probably more than one RSS and Core Strategy period. Whilst indications are that District needs to provide 50ha it is not to say that further strategic distribution will not be required over the coming years as the plan is reviewed. Core Strategy needs to be worded in such a way to allow this flexibility. Question 8 Object that the strategy fails to include reference to 50ha of land for strategic distribution use. The Locational requirements do not easily fit into the Council’s favoured development strategy. The development strategy should include a further layer to include strategic distribution so that the location of the eventual allocation is supported. Question 12 Support the identification in the Core Strategy of strategic sites. The emerging Core Strategy has identified three potential sites for strategic distribution with a view to including an allocation in the final document. This will be of Regional significance and should not be left to the Site Allocations DPD. Question 13 Suggested that 1 ha is arguably too small to be defined as a strategic site for employment uses. PPS12 advises that the progress on the Core Strategy should not be held up by the inclusion of non-strategic sites. Including sites of less than 1 ha may increase the number involved and amount of supporters/objectors with a risk that the process becomes lengthy and protracted. Question 39 Support the Council’s approach to address the issue of strategic distribution and make specific provision for this use. However appears to be reluctance to allocate land for strategic distribution despite evidence that suggests this district is a attractive location. Reference is made to the Regional Freight Study (2000) and the East Midlands Strategic Distribution Study, and an associated forecasting exercise. This identified a need for a further 386 gross ha to be identified with a rail linked logistic site being the priority. The study’s recommendation fed into Policy 21 of the regional Plan.

Object

Although the Regional Plan does not provide a specific location in terms of where strategic distribution should be allocated within the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA the PACEC study acknowledges that Junction 24 of the M1 and the A50 corridor presents a potential area of search for identifying the provision of road/rail strategy distribution centres. The Sawley Crossroads site is within this search area. Document should also make stronger references to promoting economic development, including strategic distribution. An Environmental Compendium was also submitted to provide background information on the site and an introduction to the merits of Sawley Crossroads as a sustainable location for a Strategic Distribution Centre. It demonstrates that the use of the land as such would be sound. Question 40 Object to the preferred site of West of Junction 24 for strategic distribution. It should be replaced by the Sawley Crossroads site as this site better satisfies the requirements of Policy 21 of the Regional Plan. Land at Sawley Crossroad can accommodate a significant area of development. It has excellent access to the strategic highway network, for example, close proximity to the north and south as well as good links to East Midlands Airport, Nottingham, Birmingham and the north west. Access can be arranged to avoid need for traffic to use built up areas. There is the potential to connect the site to the rail network and access to the rail head at East Midlands Distribution Centre. Site is separated from neighbouring communities of Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington and will have reduced impact on amenities. Site has an appropriate relationship with East Midlands Airport. Good supply of quality local labour. Flood work has been undertaken and concludes that the site is suitable for the development proposed. Concerns were listed over the problems with the other identified site:- Lounge: area only extends to just over 30ha. County Council has raised comments over the issues of non-car modes and potential to exacerbate local queuing. Current mineral permission requires removal of existing rail link, therefore tension with the aim to utilise the existing infrastructure for a strategic distribution site. Site at Junction 24: Problems with the alignment of the A453 and M1 and the close proximity of the existing Junction 24 roundabout. Area already experiences significant levels of traffic. Difficulties in accessing this site by rail, e.g. floodplain, financial viability and impact on amenity and surrounding landscape, due to its prominent

Object

location, visual impact and proximity of neighbouring settlements. Question 44 Support that the favoured economic strategy includes making provision for strategic distribution in the north of the district. Evidence exists that supports this use in the District and in the area of the A50 corridor/Junction24. The district has strengths to offer the strategic distribution market. Question 46 Agree that Option 1 should not be the favoured approach for development at and around East Midlands Airport. However do not agree with the favoured approach Option 2 as it fails to recognise the Regional Plan’s position of resisting the urbanisation of the area around the airport. The favoured approach could allow unlimited non-noise sensitive development adjacent to the Airport which would have an urbanising effect on the surrounding area. Development in the immediate vicinity of the Airport should be restricted to prevent an urbanisation effect. Question 47 Regional Plan seeks to avoid the adverse impact of urbanising the area around the Airport. Previous consultation responses from the Airport company also advises that they consider development at and adjoining the Airport should be restricted to that which is necessary for the operation of the Airport. Non-operational airport development, such as warehousing, shops, hotels and offices, should be avoided on land adjoining the Airport, as these can have an urbanising effect. Question 53 Correct to promote use of alternatives to the car but should also recognise that locational needs of strategy distribution ate not necessarily the same as other uses. Sawley Crossroad has benefit of being adjacent to existing public transport provision, beneficial to employees, and good location to utilise the rail network for the movement of freight. Also important to have good access to the road network and such sites are not located within existing urban centres and this is generally one of the differences from other forms of development. Question 61

Object

Core Strategy should not attempt to increase the target in the emerging RSS for 10% of energy in developments exceeding 1000sqm floorspace from decentralised and renewable or low carbon sources. The RSS figure has been arrived at following the EIP and evidence submitted, and reflects the transitional move to alternative forms of energy. The target should remain as that set out in the RSS.

2014 Nigel Kilby

Refer to Representation 1964

2015 No representation recorded under this number.

2016 Mrs M Davis

Object

Question 14 Like Ravenstone for its village environment. However have now had to live with open cast mining, prospect of a traveller site and now three new housing developments and a traveller site again. Council is trying to ruin a village community which is on the edge pf the National Forest, an area that has been heavily invested in. Result in loss of outlook and loss of property value. Has the cost of supporting infrastructure been considered? For example, school places, doctors, roads, policing and healthcare provision.

2017 Councillor N C Seddon

Object Object

Question 8 Support the Ravenstone with Snibston Parish Council comments. Ravenstone has taken a precautionary view of the future that takes account of climate change, altered economic prospects, insecure energy supply etc. Believe that rural communities need to be increasingly self reliant and cohesive. Over the last three decades Ravenstone housing has doubled in size but unfortunately most of this development has been on the periphery of the village. This has eroded the village’s identity. Village volunteers organise community activities to restore and enhance village integrity. This work is ongoing, long term and far from easy in the context of the village’s present constitution and size. It is at is optimal size. Question 15 The proposal for 692 houses on the eastern boundary of Ravenstone would merge Coalville with Ravenstone. It would result in the loss of the village’s individuality, identity and integrity. Villagers object to this and will resist it.

2018 John Holmes, Holmes-Antill on

John Holmes from Holmes-Antill on behalf of Parkridge Land Ltd A Site Assessment and Site Plans were submitted with the representation.

behalf of Steve Ferris Parkridge Land Ltd

Support

Issue 1 They recognise and appreciate the Council’s approach to the importance of business in a strong community; how it will encourage innovation and help to maintain the Districts diverse business base. Particularly supported is the vision statement that refers to the unique geographic location of NWL and a strong business sector in and around the Airport. Question 40 The Core Strategy and its proposal to allocate this site is supported. It is considered that land west of M1, J24 and north of EMA represents the best and most appropriate strategic location for a rail freight interchange in the sub-region. It is wholly appropriate that the Core Strategy recognises the importance of the proposal in terms of the economy, both locally and regionally. The proposal can be delivered with the support of Network Rail and the Highways Agency. Impacts from the development can be satisfactorily mitigated. Keys Pointes referred to:

• The importance of the logistics industry to the East Midlands Region, as acknowledged in the RSS, however it is under threat due to a failure to meet recognised demand which could lead to other neighbouring regions �enefiting at the East Midlands expense. This would be short-sighted not least because both productivity and earnings in logistics are above the economy-wide average and such developments as proposed at J24/EMA tend to generate more and better jobs than traditional B8 uses.

• The RSS endorses the Regional Freight Strategy’s target of an additional 30 freight trains per day into the Region by 2026 which also suggests that 308Ha of rail connected strategic distribution site should be brought forward

• By definition, Strategic Rail Freight sites must have direct connections to fright rail routes and the national road network. Infrastructure requirements are necessarily high. There is, therefore, a critical mass which needs to be achieved in order to:

(i) generate sufficient demand for freight train services to and from a number of locations (ii) be capable of delivering infrastructure to accommodate, for example,

• Inter-modal terminals • 750m long trains • Warehousing space • Access routes which avoid impact on local roads

• Whilst not being prescriptive on site size, the RSS is clear on the nature of the component parts of a Strategic Distribution facility.

• The proposed site meets the criteria • The PACEC report takes up the theme of the RSS in terms of rail freight. It notes that the District Council

“will be able to identify potential sites for assessment against the criteria in policy 21. Junction 24 of the M1 and the A50 corridor present a potential area of search”.

• It promotes 50Ha of new rail-linked strategic warehousing and the independence of the report strengthens the value of its recommendations.

• It is considered that there are four fundamental components of the SRFI proposal at M1, J24. (i) demand from occupiers, which is confidently predicted to be strong (ii) Need for the rail freight facility and the superiority of this location over others in the sub-region (iii) Transportation and access (iv) Environmental issues In order to support this representation attached is documentary material which will help to justify the identification of the site in the Core Strategy. In this regard:

• The promoters of the scheme have commissioned ‘Intermodality’ to examine the regional context for SFRI and to assess the potential locations. There draft report was attached and their conclusions point to the J24 location as the most appropriate for development.

• Similarly significant progress has been made with Network Rail with whom GRIP stage 3 has been reached, confirming the deliverability of the freight rail access. Work has also progressed with regard to the layout and design of a light rail link from the new East Midlands Parkway Station to the site.

• The two types of rail access being pursued have the potential to extend into the adjacent Airport, both for freight and passengers, consistent with the ambitions set out in the RSS.

• The nature of the highway access is similarly well advanced. There is currently congestion at Junction 24, caused primarily by an nw-se (A50-M1 south) traffic movement. The solution devised effectively removes the traffic from the junction, freeing up capacity.

• Importantly, all traffic from the development will have to access the site from motorway and trunk road network. There will be no use of local roads by HGVs.

• An environmental audit of the site has been carried out. There are no insurmountable issues and it is considered that all impacts, visual, landscape, acoustic etc can be satisfactorily mitigated.

• In order to meet the requirements of rail-freight, the policy established by the SRA in 2004 explains a hierarchy of sites where “strategic” facilities will have a “likely site size” of between 100 and 400Ha.

The proposals at J24 fits into the lower end of this range at 110Ha, but due to its extremely effective layout and use of land, it is able to accommodate about 600,000 sq m of floor space, an intermodal terminal and ancillary accommodation to support the overall operation. The site therefore represents about 30% of the Regional Freight Strategy’s anticipated requirement up to 2026, providing for up to 15 trains a day newly arriving into the Region. This will save about 500,000 HGV movements a year on the motorway network.

• It is considered that the ground modelling proposed means that the buildings and associated activity will be substantially screened from view from north, south and west. The efficiency of the layout allows the intermodal container handling to take place “within” the body of the development effectively screened by the buildings.



2021 J Fleming

Object

Question 10 Object to building on the Green Wedge which is used as agricultural land as well as providing for health and recreation needs, a short distance from Coalville. Thornborough Road has suffered from increased traffic, noise and pollution due to new housing and Stephenson College. Vehicle speeds have increased as have the number of accidents. There is also a longstanding drainage problem. These problems would be exacerbated if new houses were built. Development would result in the loss of cultivated land that supports our food production. Potential problem with overpopulation and ability to feed ourselves. The more we produce means we reduce our carbon footprint. More housing results in greater emissions, reduced air quality, increase on traffic congestion (no rail service), and inability of infrastructure to cope with a lack of schools and hospitals. Empty houses should be used for general housing and social housing. Building will have an adverse impact on the rich and varied wildlife. There is no industry in Coalville to support an increase in population with little new industry since the demise of mining and quarry development. The town centre is in a poor state with high rent and rates with the market hall failing due to the introduction of parking fees. Money should be saved and made to work for the existing population, for example, traffic calming measure in Thringstone. Developers are only here to make money and is concerned that the district will end up with poor quality and poorly designed developments. Coalville and surrounding villages are unique and if development on the scale proposed goes ahead, this would make the district just an overspill for Leicester or a dormitory fro the M42

Object

corridor. Question 35 Object to the provision of gypsy and traveller sites. Do not currently use allocated sites.

2022 Mrs and Mr Heister

Object Object Object

Question 8 Object to all of the options. But if an option must be chosen would choose the option that builds the least number of houses. The area will be urbanised and concreted over and the countryside and wildlife would be spoilt. The Council only want Option 1 so that the town centre can be regenerated. Do not want all the homes that were going to be built in Penbury and the small villages should be kept. Question 10 Keep the Green Wedge Question 35 Do not want traveller sites.

2023 Philippa Kreuser, CT Planning On behalf of Mr J Adkin

The representation is made by Pilippa Kreuser of CT Planning on behalf of Mr J Adkin who owns land to the east of Thornborough Road, Coalville Question 10 The representation supports the proposed re-development of the central green wedge area for residential development. It is advised the site should be brought forward for some 500 dwellings with associated landscaping, open space and play space and the provision of public access routes through the site. The consultants have instructed a firm of highway consultants to undertake a transport and access appraisal for the site. This should be completed around mid-April 2009 and they hope to be in a position to submit a Master Plan in late April/early May 2009 which will provide an indicative layout for the development of the site.

2024 (See 2513)

Councillor Felix Fenning

Accept that if a high proportion of housing growth does not go to Coalville Town Centre, then lose the possibility of re-development and co-ordinated restructuring. Community distinction needs to be embedded in the plan and green wedges must remain. Infrastructure needs to be in place in advance of development or at least at the same time as development. Must be evidence that a proportion of employment sites are available within 3-5

miles of housing growth areas. Question 8 Favour the Option 1 Coalville focus with modifications. The distinction and separation between established communities and green wedge is maintained. Redevelopment of Coalville must also occur. Specifying sites is not necessary when housing growth in a sustainable community is less than 5% over the next 20 year. Infrastructure development time scales match housing growth. It must not just follow. Certain sites should be excluded as they are on the edge of settlements, including North of Stephenson Way, Land adjoining Greenhill Farm, Packington Nook, Money Hill, North of Park Lane, Land Rear of Upton Close, sites in Ibstock and all sites in Kegworth and Measham. Question 23 Ibstock has had significant growth over the last 15 years. There is significant growth going on at Old Wilsons Garage site on Leicester Road and there is also significant planned housing at the old Fowkes Garage Site. A period of slower growth is needed. There are not enough places available at schools, doctors and dentists. The preferred option at Leicester Road should not be specified. No area in Ibstock should be designated for a lump sum of housing as 100+ houses can be accommodated piecemeal over 20 years. A link road from Leicester Road should be investigated to give access to and encourage job creation in the Spring Road area. The area from The Redlands to Miners Welfare and the new link road should be specified for leisure and community development.

2025 No Representation with this reference.

2026 Heaton Planning on behalf of Lafarge Aggregates Ltd

Lafarge Aggregates Ltd (LAL) operate at Lockington Quarry including a Readymix Plant. Their site is located near Junction 24a of the M1 and the existing operations have direct access onto the A50 therefore avoiding the need to pass through any nearby settlements. Main interest is to ensure any new planning allocations/designation do not present a potential constrain to existing and future operations. Satisfied that the proposed approach does not raise any significant issues and therefore raise no objection.

2027 Unknown Object

Question 8 The Strategic Plan is based on the hypothesis that an aging population plus falling birth rate equals an increasing

Object

population. This may be the case in the short term but will not be the case in the long term and renders the need for such a magnitude of housing unnecessary. However more clarification is needed on migration and immigration. More discussion is also needed on the district’s role as an ‘overspill’ area for the three city authorities of Leicester, Derby and Nottingham. It would appear that the developers have undertaken little investigation into what utilities would be required to support the development. These issues do not appear to have been addressed and sewage and drainage issues are of particular concern. The officer denied that the district was being considered as an appropriate location for Penbury, however this is contrary to comments contained within a letter quoted from by David Taylor. It was also stated that there were no elected councillors in the room when there were. Millers were introduced as the owners of a potential development site when they only have an option to buy. Question 10 It was stated that the need for the Green Wedge has been reviewed and this study concluded that the green wedge was no longer needed. This process needs to be repeated, more openly and transparently. The size of Whitwick village has increased in size fourfold over the last sixty years. Whitwick was mentioned in the Domesday Book and should not become part of ‘Greater Coalville’.

2028 Clark Robinson

Identification of an area of land of 0.5ha to the south of Grange Road, Hugglescote (identified on submitted map). The land can be made available for development and request that it is included as part of the South East Coalville SUE. It is adjacent to another piece if land that has been identified in the housing land background paper.

2029 P Hickling Object Object

Question 23 Object to all of the sites identified in Ibstock apart from the site at Leicester Road. The country cannot feed itself and any land taken out of food production is folly. However favour the site at Leicester Road although it is contaminated and would need to be cleaned up before it is developed for housing. Question 35 Do not agree with the need to provide sites for travellers as there are already two illegal sites, one at Bagworth and one at Ellistown.

2030 A Brown Object

Question 1 Do not support the Vision because Whitwick being part of the National Forest should retain its Green Wedge. Question 2 Strategic Objective 13 - need to protect open spaces and not build more urban settlements. Question 4 Whitwick should be a Sustainable Village as it meets all the criteria under Para 8.6. Question 10 Do not support the infill of Western and Central Green Wedges. These need to be protected for future generations. The need to grow local produce should be a far higher priority than building another Supermarket or shopping centre.

2031 Peter Burnett

Object Object

Question 8 Totally object to the proposals for up to 9,800 houses in the Coalville area. Coalville is heart of the National Forest and implementation of such an amount of housing, would make a mockery of this. There is no infrastructure to support the proposals. The demographic changes which might have been forecast are no longer accurate and have changed. The recession will affect the district to an extent that jobs will be lost, population will shift and building projects reduced. The data that these projections have been based on is now no longer valid. Coalville has been subject to considerable expansion over the last 10 years. However the town centre has not changed. To assume that such vast additional housing will change this is not only naive but also unsupported by historical evidence. There are sites within the district that have been allocated as housing land in the Local Plan, such as Park Lane, Castle Donington, Wentworth Road and Grange Road, Coalville. These are all still undeveloped. Suggest that once this plan is fully implemented, a complete reassessment of future need should then be undertaken. Question 15 Do not agree that the ‘South West Coalville’ site has no ecological value. Any proposal which suggests an access road onto Highfield Street is preposterous. Short of flattening a number of houses, this street is quite incapable of absorbing any future traffic.

Object

Question 35 Do not agree that concession or provisions should be made for Travellers

2032 Mrs J Brown C. G. L. I

Object

Question 23 and 24 Object to the development on the identified site ‘South of Ashby Road’, Ibstock. It would result in loss of privacy and devaluation of property. Devastation to the natural environment of Sence Park, the countryside and wildlife. Services are already overstretched particularly the schools. Development in Ibstock would create traffic problems, particularly at the proposed access points on Ashby Road, close to the access to Parkdale. There would be an adverse impact on highway safety. Suggest that a preferential site would be the site at Leicester Road/Ravenstone Road.

2033 Dr K L Smith

Object Refer to Representation 1341

2034 David Baxter

Object Object

Question 35 Do not favour extra provision for gypsy and traveller sites. Question 8 and 38 Obvious that 12,200 houses are not required for local people. There are no local employment opportunities for the people who would accommodate these houses. Development should be for local people and without urban sprawl joining up local villages and encroaching on green land in this National Forest area.

2035 B and M Elliott


Question 8 Object to the proposal to build over 11,000 houses in the district and the plans to build Penbury eco town in the district. The amount of development will destroy valuable green wedge land and result in Coalville and the surrounding villages becoming one large town. Will more schools and doctors surgeries be provided to go with all this new development? There are no local jobs for the people who will live in these houses. Question 10 Building on the Green Wedge will destroy wildlife and trees. There are brown field sites that could be built on instead. Question 35 The favoured approach is not supported and queries the figures for the number of pitches.


2037 Wayne McDermott

Object Object

Question 8 Why are so many new homes needed? Where are all the jobs for the new residents? New building should be spread out and built on brown field sites. Roads and services cannot cope with the planned build. The need for such a large number of houses is not there, with the current economic climate, and never will be. Question 10 Object to building on the Green Wedge. Development should be built on Brownfield sites. Village identity should be preserved. Question 35 Object to the provision of traveller sites.

2038 Ellistown and Battleflat Parish Council

Question 10 The Green Wedge should be preserved Question 14 Ellistown has already seen a significant increase in population and houses. This has led to increased traffic but no increase in facilities i.e. recreation, community centre, health facilities, the local schools have seen an increase in children and are at full capacity. Question 35 The Ellistown area has a high number of travellers and they have generally caused problems within the area and the Parish Council sees no need for legal travellers sites Question 38 The Parish Council are generally opposed to the volume of houses being suggested and feel our village identity is important and they don’t want to become ‘South-East Coalville’.

2039 Amanda Heffer

Object

Question 15 Object to the proposed housing development in the Standard Hill area. This would result in the loss of beautiful countryside and areas of recreation used by many locals for walking. It will also join together Coalville and Ravenstone. Adjacent occupants on Highfield Street will have their views of the countryside destroyed and traffic congestion will get heavier along this road. There are areas in Coalville, including the town centre that could

have housing development. There are also many derelict houses that could be renovated for habitation. Old houses should not be demolished and replaced with modern and characterless buildings.

2040 J Hiscocks Object

Question 15 Object to the proposed development of 600 houses at South West Coalville at Donington-le-Heath. This is a hamlet of only about 200 dwellings and to be included as part of this urban sprawl will change its character forever. Development would also greatly increase the district’s carbon footprint as people will have to commute to work in their cars. Accept that there is a need for housing but the density proposed in this location is unsustainable. Development would be better located at Ashby with its better links to arterial roads. The roads through Hugglescote and Ellistown are constantly busy and traffic is hampered by on-street parking due to the proliferation of terraced houses in the area.

2041 Kathy Stanisforth

Question 10 and Question 14 Question the need for such a large number of houses. New housing should be spread out evenly across the district and do not agree with the link between the need for a large number of houses and the redevelopment of Coalville town centre. The Green Wedges should be kept in their current form to maintain the separate identity of the surrounding villages. Building on this open space would have an adverse impact on the environment, visual amenity and result in the permananrt loss of footpaths, flora and fauna. New cycle routes will not be able to replace these losses. Where is the employment going to go for the new households? Local roads will not be able to cope with the additional traffic and roads are already overloaded. Other infrastructure and services will also not be able to cope such as drainage and sewerage and potential flooding issues.

2042 Abigale Wileman


2043 Mr & Mrs M Hardy

Question 24 Object to the housing allocation at Leicester Road, Ibstock. The site is well used and provides a recreational area for local people and a valuable wildlife habitat. There is a legal requirement for this site to be surveyed for

wildlife before it can be allocated for housing. The site suffers from heavy contamination. Ibstock should remain as a village and not joined up with neighbouring villages to become one urban sprawl. Its identify should be kept.

2044 Mr & Mrs F & C F Parker


2045 Mr J Spencer

Object

Question 15 Object to the proposed housing development on the ‘South West Coalville’ site to the rear of property. During the 1980s there was an attempt to develop this site but the old mine workings made the site unsafe. The residents of these houses would have to commute to work, as there are no local jobs. Traffic is impossible on Highfield Street as there is no safe off road parking therefore most cars are double parked making access for emergency vehicles difficult. Who is going to buy the houses given the credit crunch? Local property will lose value due to credit crunch and that views of fields will be replaced by views into somebody else’s houses.

2046 Steve Johnson

Object

Question 8 Although the words ‘sustainability’ and ‘biodiversity’ are used a lot within the Core Strategy consultation document, cannot see how creating a huge commuter town will either be sustainable or biodiversity. It will actually result in a fragmentation of habitats and an increase in CO2 emissions due to additional traffic. The district may also end up with an eco town. New houses will not be filled by local people as according to the Council’s figures, there are more empty properties than there are people on the housing list. People from large urban centre looking for cheaper housing will commute miles to work everyday. This will cause social problems. There has been enough infilling and garden grabbing.

2047 Mrs S Leaver

Object

Question 8 Object to the proposed building of new homes in the Coalville area. The amount proposed is not necessarily against the natural growth of the area. Concerned regarding the amenities (roads, schools, GPs) and that they may be overstretched by the new intake of residents. Need green spaces to breath – not more houses, people and overcrowding.

2048 Mrs Ruth Cox on behalf of

Support

Question 7 Suggest that 1000 dwellings are allocated to the Ibstock area as this would enhance the sustainable rural town and bring growth and strength in this location. Leicester Rd/Ravenstone Rd should be included as part of the

Mrs I m Kosowicz

Core Strategy. Ideal Ibstock location, providing a link road with the main A447 and also relieve the element of traffic flow through the main settlements, yet not encroaching into Donington-le-Heath, Ravenstone or Ellistown. Smaller sites should also be considered, namely the field on Leicester Rd in Ibstock. In-fill land should also be utilised and allocated for growth. There are a number of advantages to allocating sites in Ibstock:- A sustainable rural area. The creation of healthy and strong communities. Utilises area needs whilst protecting the natural and built environment. Promote efficient use of land. Meets government guidelines. Enhances and promotes access to services and facilities by sustainable modes of transport. Motorway accessibility. Access to job opportunities. Provision of affordable housing.

2049 Patrick Noon


Question 1 Much support in this vision. However ‘people’ have disappeared from the ‘sustainability triangle’. If communities are at the heart of the vision, they should be at the heart of this model. Also seek words that capture the ideas of enhancing the quality of life and creating an environment where people can live happy and fulfilled lives. Question 3 Do not support the favoured approach for the Development Strategy. Do not understand why neither Whitwick nor Thringstone are identified as Sustainable Villages when Swannington is. They are clearly delineated from Coalville town not least by the Green Wedge areas. They should therefore be designated as sustainable villages. It is unacceptable to incorporate these two villages into the urban area and is seen as a way to create space for housing development. Question 4 It is quite possible to consider a much more fair distribution of housing development across the District that would see sympathetic developments in all areas. This would allow the essential character of Whitwick and Thringstone and Green Wedges to be retained and to allow for separation. Question5/6 No basis on which to judge what is an appropriate level of development for the District. Need to be able to understand how this figure was derived and what forward demographic projections look lie. Also need to understand the potential consequences. Question 7 All the options are based around the concept of a sole focus on Coalville as the centre of the strategy. Due to this the options offer an inadequate range of choices that do not embrace the potential across the whole district especially in terms of employment opportunities to match housing development. Whilst the desire to regenerate


Coalville town centre is welcome and long overdue it should not come at the expense of a massive featureless urban sprawl. Given the rapid growth of the airport and the huge potential for development at Donington Park, it is difficult to justify why there is only minimal provision for housing development in the north of the district. In addition, Ashby and Measham are attractive areas, with easy access to the motorway, and highly desirable areas with need for affordable homes. Development should be spread across the district. Question 8 Do not support the Development Strategy and the sole focus on the Coalville Urban area. There is no justification for the restrictions on developments on Rural Towns and Sustainable Villages. The strategy should be revised to reflect a more even and fair distribution of development across the District. Question 9 For all of the reasons above the wording of the Development Strategy as unacceptable and inappropriate. Question 10 Reject the favoured approach of deleting reference to the Green Wedge. It is based on an unjustified premise and specious arguments; the whole LDF seems to be based on political expediency and not in the best interest of residents. The vitally important Green Wedge is dismissed in the background paper based on inadequate evaluation and unjustified claims. The Green Wedge was created as a single entity and should be evaluated as such. When viewed as this, the Green Wedge would meet aspects of all four of the criteria thus preserving the status. There is also no explanation or justification for the introduction of a fifth criteria and no mention anywhere else that the Green Wedge should provide a recreational resource. To build on the Green Wedge that separates Whitwick from Coalville would allow this village to be absorbed into a newly created urban sprawl. To allow a Domesday Book village to be swallowed up by a mining town is vandalism and a betrayal to residents. Development on the ‘Eastern Green Wedge’ would destroy the separateness and independence of Whitwick and the distinct and separate qualities and identities of these totally different settlements. The concept of a sensitive and carefully planned development of parts of the Green Wedge in consultation with residents in return for a perpetual preservation of the Green Wedge is in principle an approach that may have some merit. However the current proposals are completely unacceptable. Question 11

Object Object

No motion under the RSS criteria that the Green Wedge should provide amenity value. Why has this now suddenly become important? If an increase in public amenity is sought, this could be negotiated with the landowners or there is always the option of compulsory purchase. This could be carried in partnership with suitable partners such as the Woodland Trust, Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust and CPRE. Question 14 Impossible to opt for any of the scenarios as they all imply the development of the Green Wedge. Question 15 Area of South East Coalville has always seemed to be the most obvious candidate for a sustainable and controlled expansion of Coalville, if required. This however must recognise the needs to maintain areas of separation for existing communities. Question 16 Change the balance of proposal to include a greater amount of development in other areas in the district such as the North, to enable Coalville to make a major contribution to development whilst maintaining the integrity of surrounding villages. Question 34 No frame of reference against which a lay person can judge an appropriate level of affordable housing. Can say that the district needs a substantial volume of affordable housing as the decline of council housing has left the affordable sector (ownership and rent) inadequately provided for. Agree that affordable housing should be spread across the district. Should also provide affordable housing through the regeneration of current council housing. Council houses now seem to be the last resort instead of being the thriving communities that they once were. A new sense of purpose and investment may however makes these properties once again an important contributor to affordable social housing. Question 35 Option 1, including gypsy and travellers sites within housing development sites, limits the search for sites to a small number of areas rather than the whole of the district. It therefore may not integrate these communities but instead concentrate them in a small number of areas with the consequent danger of ghettoisation. If this approach can be achieved it seems sensible to broaden the scope for sites across the whole district. Management of these sites is a critical issue and will a comprehensive plan for how the sites will be proposed, manages, agreed with communities and integrated. Hostility exists between travellers and static communities but the provision of sites will reduce illegal encampments and is a starting point. Provide an opportunity for building

Deleted: ¶

Support Support Support

relationships. Question 46 Support the approach that balances the needs of the airport as an important regional asset against local environmental needs. Development should be controlled in the public interest as well as in the interests of commercial stakeholders. Question 49 Support plans to revitalise Coalville town centre and make it a principle shopping destination. Support Option 2 although difficult to see how this differs from Option 1. The revitalisation must be in the interests of local residents and not simply developers of retailers. Need the creation of a more attractive, distinct and desirable town centre. Interests of existing shops should also be protected along with the creation of new retail, social and leisure opportunities. Seem to be missing the option of creating urban living. This could assist in the revitalisation of the town centre and could be integrated into proposals. Question 53 Support much of the favoured approach especially requirement for Travel Plans and identification of non-car options. This should not however be an excuse to reduce current levels of car parking in the town centres. This can only be done when there are robust public transport options available and we are far from this scenario. Support the re-opening of the National Forest Railway but realistically this will not happen without large injection of public subsidy, which neither the County no District Council are willing to contemplate. Question 55 Support need to develop and maintain high quality urban and rural landscapes that are well designed and sustainable. Support for new development to meet these standards. Building for Life is admirable but also need high quality architecture. Question 56 Council should expect all developers to achieve the BREEAM excellent rating. Question 57 CIL seems to be a more effective way of ensuring local communities benefit from development and also by securing infrastructure developments which are essential for large scale housing development. Main advantage

over s106 is that they can be used anywhere and not in association with specific developments, giving greater flexibility.

2050 Philip Wileman


2051 May Abbott Object

Question 8 Object to the proposal for housing development in the district. Appreciate the need for housing and to regenerate Coalville, but the preferred option of 9800 houses in Coalville is excessive and destructive. Do not agree with the interpretation and use of the terminology ‘Coalville Urban Area’. The suggestion of absorbing villages such as Ellistown and Ravenstone into the greater conurbation of Coalville would destroy the character of these villages. Previous District Plans took great care to ensure areas off separation between established settlements and villages and urn areas, Concerned about the creapage of housing from Hoo Ash Island towards Sinope. If this happens it will be difficult to resist excessive development in the future.

2052 J K Abbott Question 8 Do not believe any of the proposals are suitable or sympathetic to the environment. To build so many houses in Coalville will impact all local communities, threatening their independence and identity. Villages and communities must be protected and not rolled up into the Coalville Urban Area. Trust that consideration has been given to the provision of housing in the location of the airport where there is to be much more commercial development, Perhaps a new town could be built in its vicinity, either along the M1 of A42. Understand that central government has dictated that the majority of homes are to be built around Coalville contrary to what local people want.

2053 Mr and Mrs Plant

Object

Question 8 Concern over the proposed housing developments for the district. All four options propose the bulk of new development to be in Coalville. Appalled to discover such a level of development is being proposed, particularly as it is part of the National Forest. Oppose the preferred option. There should be a more equitable distribution of housing development throughout the district. This would reduce the unacceptable loss of green belt and Greenfield land, and provide a greater choice for prospective home buyers. Agricultural land needs to be protected. The countryside also supports wildlife and recreational use as well as provides physical separation of villages such as Ravenstone, Hugglescote and Donington le Heath.

Object

Terex Pegson, the largest employer in the region, has announced significant job losses and it is likely that other local employers will follow. Local Plan suggests that employment sites be distributed around the region, with a significant proportion in the vicinity of Ashby and also the airport. Why is the Council not seeking larger amount of housing near these employment sites, resulting in the reduction in road congestion and carbon footprint. Question 15 The sites being considered in and around Ravenstone would more than double the size of the village. Ravenstone would cease to be a village. The spread of urban development would join together Hugglescote and Coalville, destroying our identity as a self-contained village. Would be more sensible to spread development around all the region’s villages as such moderate increases could encourage the provision of additional resources and services. How can 600 houses at Donington le Heath be justified when only 500 houses are proposed for the whole of Ashby. Such a huge increase for a hamlet would destroy its unique, quiet and rural atmosphere. Question 7 Such a number of houses would place huge pressure on the local infrastructure. The road network in Coalville and the surrounding area is unable to cope with existing traffic. Fail to see how the area could absorb such a number of additional cars. The town is busy throughout the day and its layout and geography cannot accommodate additional cars. The Council is being completely unrealistic about the town’s capacity. Plans to make it a regional and shopping centre are totally unachievable. Ravenstone Primary School and Hugglescote School are already oversubscribed. Another 1000 houses in Ravenstone would result in the need for another school leading to further building and a divided community. Other concerns relate to overstretched health care facilities, dental services, waste water management and potential for flooding. These issues should be considered for a development of this size. These issues were investigated as part of the Penbury proposal.

2054 Miss Wileman and Mr Dawson

Object

Question 8 and Question 10 Object to building on and the destruction of local green belt area. Disgusted that building firms are allowed to put personal profit before wildlife. Non green belt areas should be developed instead. There is a danger of losing the country’s natural beauty and green belt areas must be saved. Run down properties, with existing facilities, can be renovated to contribute towards new housing provision New houses should be spread out across the country. Question 7 Object to the proposals for Whitwick lake and the suggested relocation of Whitwick Leisure Centre. Both are highly valued and used by many local residents. Offers outdoor activities and wildlife habitat. Loss to community

and waste of public taxes. Concerned about the impact of these houses on all local facilities, for example, doctors. There is already a shortfall in such provision. Where would a new surgery be built and who would foot the bill for this infrastructure.

2055 Mr and Mrs Heathcote

Object Question 24 Object to the proposed sites in Ibstock. The impact of the additional housing in the area would have a detrimental impact on the lives of local people and the local environment. There would be a massive increase in traffic and local amenities would be overstretched causing problems for existing residents.

2056 Robert and Esther Holmes


2057 Peter and Simon Cox


2058 Jean and Ivor Gimson


2059 Barbara and John Perry


2060 Terence, Mary and Robert Battams


2061 G F and P A Chester


2062 James and Brenda


Vaughan

2063 Glenn and Katie Freeman


2064 Geraldine Andrews


2065 Aubrey Andrews


2066 Mr and Mrs S R Hickling


2067 Mr and Mrs Starkey


2068 Tracy Davis and Garry Astill


2069 Mr and Mrs Washington


2070 D K Allsopp


2071 Peter and Janet Firman


2072 Carol Object Refer to Representation 2055

Culpin and Robert Neville

2073 Richard and Carole Oswin


2074 No Representation with this reference.

2075 M, A and W Price


2076 Dennis and Brenda Parker


2077 Mrs Armstrong


2078 Mrs A Willmott


2079 Penelope Heaton and Graham Fisher


2080 Maurice and Eileen Brooks


2081 Mr and Mrs K E Bishop


2082 David, Gary and Joel Lord


2083 Mrs Paula Lord


2084 Mrs D Bott


2085 Mrs W Stanley


2086 Norman Clamp


2087 Arthur and Gloria Costello


2088 N R and B Bromell


2089 Mr and Mrs Freeman


2090 Mrs J Bakewell


2091 Muriel Gaye and Arthur Hall


2092 Shav and Gail Finney


2093 Mrs N M Shepherd


2094 Mr and Mrs H V Jones


2095 Matthew Vaughan and Madeleine Manchon


2096 Elizabeth Holmes


2097 Tracy, Colin and Anthony Khan


2098 Marion Smith


2099 Mrs S Roe


2100 Miss Ann Shepherd


2101 Mrs E E Shepherd


2102 Mr and Mrs French


2103 Paul and Object Refer to Representation 2055

Karen Williams

2104 D Arnett


2105 B Lees


2106 Andrew and Michelle Coleman


2107 R and J Marriott


2108 Violet Betts


2109 Mr and Mrs Black


2110 Mrs R J Wesson


2111 Sue Pinder


2112 Stephen Coleman


2113 Matthew and Kirsty Geary


2114 Paul Blackman, Louise &


Charlotte Blackman - Reynolds

2115 Ron, Shirley and Robert Maddocks


2116 Susan and Christopher Gallaghan


2117 Jennifer and David Watkins


2118 Kathleen Dowling


2119 Miss F J Geary


2120 Nr D Bogunouic


2121 D and LG Short


2122 Debra and Mark Postins


2123 Lynden, Roy and


Jonnie Lukavec

2124 Mr Carl Storer and Miss Ann Hall


2125 Julie and Craig Upton


2126 Linda and James Moore


2127 R G Wilson


2128 A Holland and J Holland


2129 Mr and Mrs T Shaw


2130 Sharon Emily Beechey


2131 T Talbot


2132 Mr L Newbold


2133 Kevin and Object Refer to Representation 2055

Clair Ottey

2134 Mr J and Mrs M Congrave


2135 Mr and Mrs D Binks


2136 Kevin and Mauree Pollard


2137 Raymond and Brenda Hewitt


2138 Margaret and Daniel Mourne


2139 Averil and Alan Poyser


2140 Mr and Mrs V Harvey


2141 Roy and Pauline Saywell


2142 David Underwood


2143 Stan and Bernice Latchem


2144 Mr and Mrs B Smith


2145 Helen and James Walton


2146 Edgar Downing


2147 John Bird


2148 John Gamble


2149 M and R Lovatt


2150 Sarah Coombes and Family


2151 M and PA Wood


2152 LH and MM Parker


2153 Susan and Terry Seager


2154 Mr J, Mrs J

and Miss J A Steven


2155 Melanie Allsopp


2156 Mrs R Slater


2157 Elsie Wilkins


2158 John Ison


2159 Mr and Mrs Thomas


2160 Valerie Stevens and Arthur Davis


2161 Mrs E M Wood


2162 Hannah and Ruth Fillmore


2163 Mr S Howe


2164 Janet, Jimmy and


Nigel Ward

2165 Lisa Wright


2166 Mr and Mrs Costello


2167 Marjorie, Ernest and Barbara Ball


2168 H M, D J and C M Sansom


2169 Mr and Mrs King and S N Holland


2170 S Gosling


2171 Thomas and Janice Bonser


2172 Mr P M Wilford


2173 Ian and Jennifer Holloway


2174 Mrs M Gray


2175 Mr and Mrs

Sanderson


2176 Bernardette and Keith Cheshire


2177 William and Miriam Humphries


2178 Maureen and Keith Griffiths


2179 Sharon Brewin


2180 Mr Andrew Scholes


2181 Linda and Colin Mould


2182 Andrew & Joanne Taylor and Dale Fessey


2183 Mr and Mrs Hamlin


2184 Rosemary, Chris and Andrew Goacher


2185 Jane and Darren Smith


2186 Mr and Mrs Ball


2187 Gary and Louise Myring


2188 J H Astley


2189 Karen and Christopher Jordan


2190 Mr and Mrs Woolley


2191 Glenn and Fiona Allen


2192 Mr and Mrs JA Smith


2193 Maureen Elverstone


2194 W and R Object Refer to Representation 2055

Jones

2195 Chris and Wendy Leivers


2196 Mr and Mrs Taylor


2197 Jeff and Vivien Walker


2198 John and Susan Bates


2199 Marie and Gerald Clemson


2200 Mr and Mrs Coleman


2201 Sue and Peter Brealey


2202 Broyna and Bray Thomas Pallett


2203 Stephen and


Lorraine Lee

2204 Mr and Mrs Nunn


2205 N and M H Hill


2206 Mrs J Brown


2207 Stewart and Mary Coleman


2208 David and Angela O’Neill


2209 Jacqueline, Joseph and Jake Robinson


2210 Mr K S Robinson


2211 Colin and Valerie Little


2212 David and Carol Ann Sheffield


2213 Richard

Wildman


2214 Mr and Mrs T Brain


2215 Richard and Sharon Price


2216 Jake Linton-James


2217 J and G Bircher


2218 Mrs Beryl Starkey


2219 Anthony and Jeanette Allison


2220 Sally James


2221 Paul and Jennifer Johnson


2222 Catherine and Stuart


Storer

2223 Thomas, Judith and James Redburn


2224 M Grain


2225 Julian, John and Lee Blockley


2226 John and Lynn Hunter


2227 Albert and Wilfred June Bentley Everett


2228 Mrs J M Cooper


2229 James Edward Spare


2230 Mrs E R Smith


2231 Susan and Object Refer to Representation 2055

Ralph Richardson

2232 Mr and Mrs Green and Mrs Kartal


2233 David Hall


2234 Karen and lee Hodgetts


2235 A D Brown


2236 Peter, Susan and Mark Follows


2237 Leslie John, Mary and Denise Booton


2238 Tyrone Derrick and Jean Lines


2239 Mr M J Sparrow


2240 Mrs M Beniston


2241 M and D Harrington


2242 C and D Middleton


2243 Stephen Terry and Rita Yuen Terry


2244 Stephen Terry and Rita Yuen Terry


2245 Mrs J A Fox


2246 Christopher Bott


2247 S, H and A Ball


2248 Miss Natalie Parish


2249 Ken, Anthony and Alma Parish


2250 Samantha Object Refer to Representation 2055

Coleman

2251 Anthony and Sheila Bamford


2252 S and M Taylor


2253 Walter and Mary Ottey


2254 Mrs J Bayley


2255 Mrs J Lynch


2256 Trevor and Ann Smith


2257 Mr I and Mrs H Tebbutt


2258 Beverley Duncan and Didier Mailhe


2259 Marjorie and Keith Spencer


2260 John and Object Refer to Representation 2055

Wendy Bethel

2261 Miss D M Dolman


2262 H F and S L Edwards


2263 Brenda Blair


2264 Mr and Mrs J Wielett


2265 Margaret and Loman Box


2266 Mark and Collette Noon


2267 Mark Deeney, Shaun and Kathleen Cooper


2268 A and J Meakin


2269 M A Drabbie


2270 Nikki Young


2271 Linda Nicol


2272 Karen Goodwin


2273 Kathryn Butcher


2274 Allan Osborne


2275 Julie McGeehan


2276 Mrs S Mortell


2277 S Credland


2278 Mrs L Gould


2279 J Potter


2280 G Sutton


2281 J Collington


2282 P Sheldon


2283 Angela Refer to Representation 1395

McGee

2284 J.A. Howard


2285 H Buchannan


2286 L McGinty


2287 Dave Young


2288 Vanessa Carter


2289 J Perkins


2290 Lindsey Cooper


2291 S Crookes


2292 J Littlewortl


2293A Nanette Coombes


2293B Joanna Bradley


2294 Lisa Sutcpfe


2295 Jeffrey Refer to Representation 1395

Pole

2296 BJ Wehrle


2297 Kathryn Haydock


2298 Ian Boothe


2299 Malcolm Reeve


2300 John Anderson


2301 J Stanyard


2302 SA Dexter


2303 Peter Hewiett


2304 Ann Ward


2305 Helen Hewiett


2306 Jennie Harlock


2307 Craig Beesy


2308 Heather Baker


2309 Victoria

Smilyk


2310 Gill Reeve


2311 Loretto Madden


2312 Clare Cragg


2313 Karen Kembery


2314 Lisa Izard


2315 M Daynes


2316 Lesley Jones


2317 B Barnes


2318A S Pitts


2318B Cathe Leah


2319 Andrew Smail


2320 Melanie Armstrong


2321 Felicity Refer to Representation 1395

Shaw

2322 Jack Madge


2323 S Welshead


2324 P Barth


2325A J Welstead


2325B J A Toal and Family


2326 Ross Montandon


2327 Raymond Moore


2328 Miss V Birkenshaw


2329 C J Wallace


2330 E R Vallance


2331 J Vallance


2332 Matthew Shepherd


2333 Amy M Vallance


2334 Hannah Thompson


2335 Rachel Thompson


2336 Neil Thompson


2337 M Montandon


2338 Trevor Armston


2339 E Rafferty


2340 Kelly Rafferty


2341 G J David


2342 Jenny Thompson


2343 Mrs M Wright


2344 T G White


2345 Catherine Waldrum


2346 DJW

Jennis


2347 Mr G Bradford


2348 M Favard


2349 S Peace


2350 Roy Elliott


2351 Mr and Mrs H Jones


2352 M Gallagher


2353 Mrs L Stinson


2354 Melissa Armston


2355 Leon Armston


2356 Janet Abbott


2357 J A Toal and Family


2358 J Forrest Refer to Representation 1310

2359 M G

Montandon


2360 Gaynor Arnston


2361 Mr and Mrs S J Andrews


2362 John Baugh


2363 Helen Robinson


2364 Mary Swift


2365 Angela Bired


2366 V E Jackman


2367 George King


2368 Marjorie Revell


2369 Jean and Brian Bodle


2370 G K Refer to Representation 879

Duckworth

2371 Steve Duckworth


2372 E P Wilkins


2373 Shan Andrews


2374 Dana Tait


2375 Eddie Tait


2376 Leah Tait


2377 Glynn Davies


2378 Lee Wortley


2379 SL Hardy


2380 Mr PD Christian


2381A David N Wood


2381B D Colley


2382 John Smithard


2383 A Barker


2384 Robert Staunton


2385 Tracy Hall


2386 J Barker


2387 J F Dutton


2388 John Duffield-Moore


2389 Barry and Patricia Oram


2390 JD Horsman


2391 Dennis Scobie


2392 J and PB Hurd


2393 S Edwards


2394 James Rush


2395 R S Harris


2396 Stephen Foxall


2397 Mrs Eileen Swingler


2398 M Hannigan


2399 Dorothy and Peter Newton


2400 Norma M Berry


2401 Mr and Mrs Bowler


2402 MA and MR Dearden


2403 CE Barker


2404 Frances Hanson


2405 C Bate


2406 Mr and Mrs Stewart


2407 KA Rodgers


2408 Mrs Evelyn

Taylor


2409 Susan Wright


2410 Edmund Ruck


2411 George Baugh


2412 Franco and Jayne Simonetti


2413 J J and P Hubbard


2414 Neil and Elizabeth Rounce


2415 Rachel Turney


2416 S Englefield


2417 Tracy Footitt


2418 Shirley Attenborou


gh

2419 Margaret Smith


2420 P Perrican


2421 N J Bailey


2422 Raymond and Janet Cartlidge


2423 E C Harris


2424 Gary Lloyd Allen


2425 C E Caulfield


2426 R Smith


2427 D T Robinson and D S Knifton


2428 AL, AM and JN Carter


2429 Natalie Menzies


2430 Eileen and Frank Batho


2431 I J McGahon


2432 BP Larkworthy


2433 W Robinson


2434 J Bartlett


2435 Jinny Louis Bell


2436 Victoria Barnes


2437 Helen Dyer-Greeves


2438 Mr C Waldron

Object to all options proposed in the Local Development Framework.

2439 Miss K J Holahan


2440 Miss G L Holahan


2441 Mr L P Refer to Representation 2438

Holahan

2442 Mr C G Holahan


2443 Mr P G Holahan


2444 Mrs S J Holahan


2445 Alliance Planning on behalf of Tamar Group Ltd

Representations relate to land interest at the former Lisk Controls Factory Site, Lount. Request that this site is included in the Council’s review of sites included within the SHLAA study. Background information has been provided including a description of the land and its surroundings. Site is capable of accommodating some 34 dwellings, on previously developed land, in a rural location and capable of early delivery. A site plan has been submitted identifying the site and the wider land ownership of the Tamar Group Ltd, along with a detailed Sustainability Appraisal of the identified development site. Specific comments were also made on the Core Strategy consultation. Para 2.4 Have considered the Council’s ability to maintain a five year housing land supply in the context of the phasing of housing land provision contained in the Regional Plan. Council should encourage redundant employment sites, not suited to employment use, to be released for residential development in the short to medium term. The Regional Plan places an increase emphasis on those sites capable of early delivery, with a requirement for 510 dwellings per year for the period 2006 to 2011. Due to past completions rates there is already a shortfall in meeting this figure. Para 6.5 The vision would benefit from recognition of the contribution that rural areas can make to meet the needs of all the community especially in terms of housing provision and maintenance of the viability of rural services. The illustration of the visions set out in para 6.4 is considered simplistic in its approach and unnecessary.

Object

Question 2 – Spatial Objectives Recognise that the majority of new development needs to take place in sustainable towns and centres. There remains a positive role for rural villages to play in meeting housing demand with a potential to maximise re-use of previously developed land. Such an approach is consistent with PPS3 and a necessary part pf the overall spatial objectives of the plan. Question 3 Object to the favoured approach with regard to how it addresses rural settlements. In treating all rural settlements the same it fails to recognise that some may be relatively sustainable due to their proximity to higher order settlements. A recent appeal decision addressed this matter, as it was concluded that development inn Swannington would not be harmful to sustainability due to its closeness to Coalville. The Core Strategy fails to address the circumstances in which the availability of sites in rural areas might become available. Limited opportunities on previously developed land are likely to arise on employment sites where there is no longer a demand for such a use. The Core Strategy provides no advice on how this situation would be assessed. To insist upon their retention as employment land when there is no longer a need, ignores the valuable contribution these sites could make to meeting the Council’s housing land requirements. Such sites are often the subject of appropriate servicing and infrastructure and readily deliverable to the housing market. Question 5 There is a statutory requirement for the local authority to meet the housing provision of the Regional Plan and therefore this should be considered the absolute minimum level of provision. The Regional Plan does not place a restriction on making greater provision if this can meet with the overall objectives of the Regional Plan. Regional Plan does not provide any guidance on the total quantum of employment land to be provided in the District. The Council’s background papers shows there to be a substantial potential over supply of industrial land, the demand the period 2007 to 2026 is 10ha, but effective supply is already at 50ha. These figures suggest that there is potential for assessing whether existing industrial sites should be maintained in a use for where there is little demand. In such circumstances there is a strong case for the Core Strategy to recognise that there might be more beneficial alternative land uses such as residential. Question 7

Object Object

Support recognition of Ashby as a higher order centre with a range of facilities and services providing for own residents and wider hinterland. There is an increased expectation of housing delivery in the 2006 to 2011 period and this will require meaningful provision of additional housing over the next two years. The strategy will need to reflect any under provision and look for early release of sites. Emphasis should be given to sites which do not rely on substantive new infrastructure for their delivery. Question 8 There is a statutory requirement to meet the target of an adopted Regional Spatial Strategy. Its optional support is deemed inappropriate. Objection is raised to the element of the development strategy dealing with sustainable villages and the arbitrary 0.1 ha cut-off point for infill sites. This figure is not supported by evidence and seems to ignore the circumstances in which sites are likely to occur, including release of industrial sites for which there is no longer any demand. The use of an arbitrary cut-off figure is inappropriate and should be removed. Caveat regarding infill sites and their forming part of larger continuous area of land seems vague. The individual circumstances of the site will dictate what does or does not constitute infill. Recommend that this proviso be deleted. Restriction on local needs settlements seems inappropriate and inconsistent with PPS3 advice. PPS3 recognises that in rural areas, there is a need to meet an appropriate scale and location, all facets of housing market. Proposed restriction is onerous and difficult to enforce. Question 19 In addition to the options considered for Ashby, there should be recognition for smaller site provision to contribute to housing needs to the area and surrounding villages which are well related to and well served by the higher order facilities of the town. Question 34 Object to the favoured Option 1. Whilst principle of provision affordable housing through the LDF is supported, object to Option 1 as it fails to include reference to ‘economic viability as a key component of the ability of any site to make suitable provision.

Object

Current models rely on the profit made from market housing being utilised as a means of funding to reduce the entry cost of ‘affordable’ housing. Given the prevailing economic climate it is unclear whether such historic models of provision or subsidy are capable of delivering affordable housing or the quantities needed. Option should recognise that the provision of affordable housing will be dependent upon economic viability, along with the defined need in the actual amount of provision made. Council should also look at other ways in which funding released from development sites might better be used to improve the delivery of affordable housing, including initiatives to invest in the upgrading of currently derelict or vacant housing stock and to bring those resources back into active use. Question 38 Questionable whether it is desirable or deliverable to seek to make provision for 2900 affordable dwellings during the lifetime of the Core Strategy or whether the target of 40% provision is realistic or desirable. Question 39 and 40 Recognition of the absence of guidance as to whether regionally significant employment developments should be located in the district. It is suggested that rather than seek to identify specific locations or detailed criteria, the Core Strategy might be better directed to support proposals for regionally significant employment development and strategic distribution uses where they meet the objectives of the RSS. Core Strategy could identify key or significant development control criteria which proposal would need to meet. Question 44 Object to the economic strategy. Work undertaken shows that there is in the worse case a balance of employment land supply to demand. In terms of industrial land provision and offices, there is a substantial over provision of supply. Therefore it is not clear why the economic strategy seeks to make specific provision for new employment land nor where the evidence is that identifies this approach. Suggest that the economic strategy as the alternative to being a quantative strategy based on meeting specific targets could more appropriately be framed by way of a qualitative strategy which seeks to set out target aspirations. For example, income levels, standards of living for employees, reduced travel to work distances,

Object

enhances skills levels, reduced unemployment. Could then frame other DPD documents which help achieve these inspirational targets working with market on terms of needs and requirements, rather than setting unrealistic quantative provision. Question 57 Absence of detail and unanswered questions with regard to how the practical operation of CIL would secure the delivery of funding to strategic infrastructure requirements. Council, should at this time, be reliant of section 106 agreements to mitigate impacts and meet infrastructure requirements. Question 59 to -62 No basis for requirement for expecting new development to reach targets over and above those established to national and regional policy. Whilst there is a clear recognition of need for developments to reduce their carbon footprint there is still substantial debate within development industry and Government as to most appropriate means to achieve this. Therefore no justification for District to seek more stringent criteria and to do so could pace the authority at a competitive disadvantage. There are still unanswered questions with regard to issue of climate change and in a rapidly changing environment it would be inappropriate to set any target, when they may become outdate quickly. Suggest a more appropriate approach would be for new developments to meet National Policy and this would enable the Core Strategy to keep up to date with current thinking and technologies and avoid outdated policy.

2446 Turley Associates – re Lounge

Comments relate to additional rail freight related development Need – The Regional Plan has been adopted and notes that it is important that particular consideration is given to maximising rail freight and reducing the environmental impact of any new development. The East Midlands Strategic Distribution Study (EMSDS) reiterates that- In order to meet the Regional Freight Strategy target of an additional 30 freight trains per day around an additional 308 Ha of rail connected strategic distribution sites should be brought forward by 2026. When referring to Policy 21 of the now adopted Regional Plan the EMSDS notes that – Policy 21 is deliberately not prescriptive in terms of site size as it may be that smaller sites can generate sufficient demand for freight train services and should not be ruled out. Reference to the LSEP commissioned PACEC Study (November 2008) which identified 4 property sub markets in NW Leics of which the following are relevant to the site

• The M1 linked national and regional road based distribution market; and • The M1 linked national and regional road-rail based distribution market;

The report notes at paragraph 7.3.39 that employment land planning in North West Leicestershire needs to address road-rail strategic distribution…refers to Policy 21 regarding partnership working to bring sites forward… points out that this policy reflects growing market demand for road rail linked strategic distribution centres…. And that in the light of such a framework the District Council will be able to identify potential sites for assessment against the criteria set out in Policy 21. Also refers to the suggestion in the study that searches could be based around Junction 24 of the M1 and the A50 corridor, although they do not consider there is a reasoned basis for this. The study identifies a number of action points for both implementation and Core Strategies. Specifically- ‘To promote a shift towards more sustainable distribution in this context, emra and emda need to establish a regional framework for identifying preferred locations for the future provision of roald-rail strategic distribution centres. In the light of the EMSDS NWLDC will be able to:

- Identify potential sites for road-rail strategic distribution centres, and - Collaborate with emda for the assessment of those sites which meet the criteria set out in Policy 21 of the

RSS. The report continues that for Core strategies and DPDs, actions for local planning authorities include…. *An allocation of up to 50 hectares for road based distribution centres. Most Appropriate Site – Policy 21 of the Regional Plan is less prescriptive as adopted than in the SoSs proposed changes as it has removed the requirement for sites to be above 50 Ha and removed the specific reference to rail loading gauges to be W10 or above which were the basis of planning officers’ objection to their current planning application. None of the sites being considered can achieve higher clearance that W8 and the playing field is therefore level in this regard. There is a difference in the amount (and therefore cost) of rail infrastructure required to access each of the option sites. Lounge is already served by rail and other sites would need additional works to achieve a rail connection. All the requirements of Policy 21 of the Regional Plan are considered to be met in respect of Lounge. In addition to total size of the site they wish to see allocated is 48 Ha as it contains additional land to their planning application. Comparative Analysis of Options – This is a three stage approach as follows- Stage 1 Assessment – Flood Risk, Green Belt, Conservation and heritage, ecology and biodiversity and other constraints.

Stage 2 Assessment – Locational and Sustainability factors. Stage 3 Assessment – Availability and deliverability issues. Stage 1 is a pass fail with Longe the only one to pass (others fail on Flood Risk). Stages 2 and 3 are scoring with Lounge Scoring 80, J24 63 and Sawley Crossroads 61. Base on the LSEP site selection criteria, Lounge should proceed as the preferred Option in the LDF. Consultation Questions Q40 – Do not support the favoured approach and refer to their earlier analysis. PPS12 is clear that strategic decisions should be based on evidence, and the available evidence re LSEP criteria supports the Lounge Site. Considers the Council should undertake and publish its own scoring system using the LSEP criteria. In summary they consider Lounge performs best in terms of- Flood Risk, Highways, Rail connectivity, Accessibility by sustainable modes, and maximising the use of existing infrastructure. In addition the rationale for identifying only a single site is unclear and the identification of multiple sites for strategic distribution is not an option that has been considered in the Consultation document. There is support for this approach from draft PPS4 and Policies 20 and 21 of the Regional Plan. Q41 – They are not aware of any other sites that warrant consideration. * Although not stressed by Turleys it seems that with reference to various employment land studies the consideration of sites is in the plural but the allocation of a site is singular for each Core Strategy.

2447 Paul Reynolds

Object

Question 8 Object to all options for housing development including the preferred option.

2448 East Midlands Housing Association

Support

The document has been considered from the perspective of an affordable housing provider and comments relate to strategy housing needs/demand and practicalities of delivering need. Understood that the SHMA will feed into the LDF and this document. Suggest that a SPD document is prepared to prove more detail. Vision Support in principle the vision depicted by the sustainability triangle.

Support

Objectives These are generally supported SO8 – Should cover affordable housing both in urban and rural areas and include housing for vulnerable groups. SHMA will provide information on demand/support and SHLAA would be used to identify exception sites to assist with delivery. Support development of housing on urban sites in the main, in particular to assist with regeneration of Coalville Town Centre. SO10 – Support the approach but would encourage a broader definition of rural sustainable settlements. SO12 – How will the approach by Homes and Communities Agency to develop Local Investment Plans to direct funding support link with the Priority Neighbourhoods or other areas mentioned here? Question 3 Urban settlements identified would all need to be developed to a similar degree to be sustainable. Number of people on housing register shows that there is a demand for affordable housing. The percentage of affordable homes delivered through section 106 agreements will drop in current housing market and add to demand. Approach needs to be flexible and tailored to the housing market. Support the approach of Sustainable Villages and welcome new development in rural areas to meet local needs including on exception sites. Proposed approach with list of villages is considered too prescriptive and does not recognise the importance of other villages which need to grow to become or remain sustainable. Suggest a more flexible approach. It is not just facilities that make a village sustainable. Range of other networks/local infrastructure support sustainability and demand in some villages. Question 12 Support identification of items based on an assessment of infrastructure requirements, viability and sustainability. Support identification of rural exceptions sites which could be included in the SHLAA. Question 13 A strategic site is one that contributes to delivery of overall vision and objectives of strategy and does not need to be defined by number of dwellings. For example, a site of 50 homes may make a significant contribution to

regeneration of Coalville Town Centre and therefore location and impact on surrounding areas is important. Question 35 The needs assessment identifies need to provide accommodation within the District. Question 38 Assume the favoured strategy reflects the District Housing Strategy. Support the provision of a range of affordable housing including supported housing. Note the percentage affordable housing requirements but current housing market will impact on viability and flexibility is required. Suggest a number of issues that could be covered by an Affordable Housing SPD, including section 106 sites, circumstances for commuted sums, calculations and how funds will be used in delivery, viability assessment, exception site development, transfer values to HAs, quality standards and cascade approach. Support an approach that would waive commuted sums payment for affordable hosing to be provided given viability issues with delivery. Would like to see a flexible planning approach that allows affordable housing to be delivered to optimise sustainable, mixed communities within the context of market conditions at the time. An understanding of financial viability and a cascade approach to section 106 site. Question 55 Support desire to ensure high quality sustainable developments. Standards in the document should be consistent with the requirements of the HCA. Question 57 Support the waiving of contributions on affordable housing provision. Question 59 Support improving energy efficiency and moving towards carbon neutrality taking into account viability and delivery.

Question 65 How does the HCA approach to ‘Place Shaping’ and Local Investment Plans link to the priority neighbourhoods approach?

2449, 2450, 2451, 2452, 2453, 2455, 2456, 2457, 2458

David Lock Associates on behalf of Tapron Estates Ltd

Support Support Support Support

Question 2 Support the favoured objectives. Welcome approach to concentrate majority of new development in the most sustainable locations, giving priority to previously developed land, and locations with good access to service, facilities and public transport. Question 4 Support identification of rural towns and sustainable villages, and the criteria used. But would urge the Authority to give consideration to other sustainable locations in the district, namely those related to settlements at or adjacent to the district border. These locations will often benefit from same criteria listed for rural towns. These sites can make valuable contributions to housing delivery. May well be more sustainable than stand-alone allocations with long lead in times and more onerous infrastructure requirements. Question 5 Agree that the housing requirements set out in the RSS should be regarded as a minimum requirement. A pragmatic approach to delivery, that allows long term planning for infrastructure and other funding requirements to be properly planned for. Para 8.3 No view on the suitability of Albert Village but strongly support the explicit reference to the need for joint working between neighbouring authorities such as North West Leicestershire and South Derbyshire to enable cohesive development of the sub-region. Para 8.19 Own work reflects the findings of the most recent Employment Land Study, that there is only limited need for additional employment land in the District. Following grant of 2003 outline permission considerable efforts have

Object Object Object Object

been made to market the employment area with the Woodville Woodlands development. There has only been limited interest by potential occupiers in the last 5-8 year due to other available sites nearer the strategic highway network and lack of local market demand in the Woodville area. Question 7 Support the general approach to consideration of the four options and priority given to assessment of infrastructure capacity and constraints. However object to failure to include sustainable locations outside the identified settlements. Such sites, for example, Phase 5 of the Woodville Woodland development are located within the District but benefit from existing infrastructure and services outside of the District. Provide a sustainable alternative to stand-alone allocations with more onerous infrastructure and service requirements. Suggest an additional Option to include strategic opportunity for circa 200 dwellings at Phase 5 of the Woodville Woodlands development. Can be assessed against the same criteria as the other scenarios. Question 8 Support focus of Coalville but should also include sustainable sites elsewhere in the district, e.g. cross-border locations adjacent to settlements outside of the District. One of these sites is Woodville Woodlands, within this district and South Derbyshire. Phase 5 of this development is located within North West Leicestershire and its potential is recognised in the Housing Land Background Paper (Nov 2008). Represents an opportunity for residential development that benefits from the existing settlement of Woodville and its infrastructure and facilities. Question 12 Support principle of specifying strategic sites and suggested threshold of 100 dwellings. However the document only lists selected sites without an explanation why certain sites meeting the threshold have been excluded. Object to this approach and result in sustainable and suitable sites not being considered. Question 13 As the development scenarios fail to recognise potential sites in sustainable locations on the edge of the district, the selection of strategic sites is flawed. The potential site at Woodville Woodlands does not appear in the emerging Core Strategy, with no justification, lack of transparency and consistently contrary to the test of

Support

soundness. Urge Council to identify all strategic sites over a certain size. Important to apply clear rules in site selection. Woodville Woodlands site benefits from proximity to existing local services and infrastructure, and developer interest. Could be brought forward immediately and make key contribution to 5 year housing land provision. Question 34 Support approach to affordable housing and the target of 160 affordable dwellings per year, with yearly review as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. SHMA provides more accurate and up-to-date figure than the RSS. Need to adopt flexibility in early years of the plan period to main delivery of housing in the current economic climate.

2459 J A Toal Object

Question 5 Do not agree with statements made that it is Central Government who says the district has to build so many houses. The non-elected Regional Body decided this. The area is at saturation point with transport. Population in the area is not expanding and the birth rate is declining. There are no jobs for the occupants of the new houses and not everyone can work at the airport. This will result in a large number of social/affordable housing and not decent housing. Occupants of social housing will put a demand on health, social and education services. Question 8 Object to the proposals to focus development in Coalville and the surrounding villages. It will destroy the character of the area and residents quality of life. The area of Coalville has a history that is worth keeping. The surrounding villages, established before Coalville, have their own individuality, importance and characteristics. Strategy will result in increased pollution, gridlocked roads and a soaring carbon footprint. The regeneration of the town centre will not happen and a regional town centre is not viable. Do not want major stores, want local shops. Whitwick, Thringstone and Hugglescote are not part of urban Coalville. They are separate sustainable villages and separated from Coalville by the green wedge. Do not want to be part of Coalville and should be kept separate. Communities should be retained as well as the green areas which have environmental benefits and also used as working farmland. No to urban sprawl and large scale housing estates. What else will be dumped here e.g. pits, open cast mining, quarrying? Question 10 The Green Wedge should stay.

2460 Mr A P Harrison

Object

Question 10 The consultation document makes reference to an assessment of the Green Wedge. No statement is made to the completion or availability of the completed document. Question 8 Currently roads are gridlocked and additional cars will make this even worse. Question ability of services to cope e.g. school, doctors. Can water, drains, gas, electrical and waste services cope with the extra load? What effect will run off from the area have and will it affect the draining of rain water from the area?

2461 Mrs C Harrison

Object

Question 10 Object to any building on the green wedge between Whitwick and Coalville. Green Wedge is the only area of green space between Coalville and Whitwick. If this was developed with houses, Whitwick would loose its identity and be swallowed up by Coalville. Volume of traffic would cause major problems particularly if there are no plans for extra public transport. Leisure Centre is an important venue for local people. Object to the loss of this facility. Can amenities such as water, drains, gas, electric supply, water services etc cope with the extra load? If they cannot, then the proposals are not feasible.

2462 Graham Partner

Object Object to the whole Core Strategy and its process which is flawed. The Green Wedge should be maintained and not built on. It provides good arable land and is needed to grow food. The stream that runs off the Green Wedge floods and to simply improve the drainage will move the water downstream and flood Grace Dieu and Thringstone. They also have historic value. None of the villages want to be joined up as part of the urban sprawl or become part of greater Coalville. Identify and uniqueness of the villages is important. The birth rate is such that there should be a shrinking population, so not only will we have empty properties now but more once all these new houses are built. The reason so many homes are needed is due to the level of immigration. There is no economic argument for such a larger number of houses as people are losing their jobs at the fastest rate in 80 years. There is no demand for such a large number of houses and Coalville will become a satellite town. Contradicts sustainability issues and will increase carbon footprint. Doubling the size of Coalville will double everything that goes with it such as waste, car use and pollution. Habitat will be destroyed particularly around the Sence Valley and there will be run off into the river.

2463 Mr and Mrs Question 14 and 15

Altimas Oppose the plans to build between 8000 and 9800 houses in the Ravenstone area of Coalville. All of the 4 options propose the bulk of housing in Coaville. All of this soon after the opening of the Long Moor Surface Mine. Would it not make sense to distribute development over a larger area of the district? Castle Donington provides greater employment and commercial opportunities than Coalville and therefore should accommodate more housing. Coalville already has a busy road network with heavy traffic. Development will increase traffic and parking problems. New development will also not ease the crime and unemployment figures. Suggest that during current economy, development should be put on hold. Ravenstone is characterised by green fields and farm land and provides valuable green area between town, village and motorway. Development of this scale will irrevocably change Coalville and surrounding villages for the worst and will place a burden on local schools, road networks and services. There is no reason why such a large amount of houses should be built.

2464 Graham and Penny Fisher

Question 8 Nature of East Midlands, with its small towns and green wedges is different to the urban sprawl of Birmingham and other cities. Not the type of development that should be developed for future generations. Object to having to conform to both the Regional Spatial Strategy and National policy. Did not vote for this regional authority – it is unelected and should be abolished. Ibstock is not a rural town. It is a fundamental misinterpretation of its size. Development should not be undertaken to fund the development of and increase size of Coalville town. Council should look at more qualitative options – bigger does not mean better. Country is going to have major energy crisis. Nuclear is being supported and coal fire stations being decommissioned. This and lack of alternative fuel will serve up more consequences and problems for this development. Question 23 Object to the development at Ibstock. Question 24 Object to the proposed development sites at Station Road and the South of Ashby Road site. Development will

result in the loss of views and increase in traffic along Station Road will change living experience and character of home. Development will destroy an attractive part of the village. Considerable upgrade will be needed to the social infrastructure and question ability of these services and the village to cope with such a number of new houses. Roads in and around Ibstock are busy with commuters and school traffic and concerned that these roads will not be able to cope. Question 35 The favoured approach is not supported. Not clear as to who Travelling Showpeople are.

2465 Thomas W Redfern – Chartered Town planner

Questions 8,12, 13 & 17 and Para 8.23, 8.29, 10.22 & 10.23 Generally support the Council’s favoured Option 1, the Coalville Focus and the reasons why it is the most appropriate option. However would suggest that in terms of actual numbers, the Coalville allocation is marginally reduced from 9800 to 9300 and allocations in the Rural Towns should be increased. Ibstock should have 300 (extra 200). Kegworth should have 200 (extra 150) and Measham should have 200 (extra 150). This would not have a significant impact on Coalville and its benefits as being a focus for development but would help provide additional population to these Rural Towns to help sustain local services and their declining town centres. 500 dwellings are appropriate for Ashby. If it is necessary to allocate a larger site then the site at Money Hill is the best option for the following reasons:- Site linked to the by-pass, close to town centre with footpath links established, employment land is to north of town and within walking and cycling distance of this site and development of the north-east quadrant would give balance to the structure of the town.

2466 Harry & Marjorie Reed

Question 24 A lot of new houses are not needed in Ibstock and the road system is inadequate. Station Rd, Ashby Rd and Melbourne Rd in particular will not cope with more traffic. The Leicester Rd/Ravenstone Rd would appear to be the least disruptive. Questions where the sewage etc is to go.

2467 Robert Nicol

Question 23 Does not support the development proposals relating to Ibstock. The objection is based on the over subscribed infrastructure and there are no sufficient future plans committed to support current need and growth let alone

additional development. Main objections are as follows: • The road network within Ibstock cannot safely sustain more traffic; traffic calming measures have caused

traffic to bulk and the increase in on-street parking is hazardous. • Schools are already oversubscribed • Doctors and dentist surgeries are oversubscribed • Public transportation links are inadequate leading to increase private car use, increasing congestion.

The Council should not adopt an ‘if we built it then they will come’ approach to the resourcing required to support the developments.

2468 Miss R Harrison

Suggests that the strategy be re-written taking into account the views of local people. Question 10 Object to any development on the Green Wedge between Whitwick and Coalville. It is the only green space left between the two areas and differentiates the identities of the two settlements. Consider that the removal of the Green Wedge has not been fully investigated especially the implications for the communities. The road network is inadequate for further development and there is no public transport in this region. Question 35 Object to the size, quantity and location of the proposed Travellers sites. Questions what the criteria for a pitch size are and who decides the criteria. Question 44 Objects to the favoured economic strategy regarding the types of business and work as well as the strategy for the centre of Coalville and the building up of Whitwick etc without significant assessment of infrastructure.

2469 S. A. Harrison

Object to all part of the strategy, especially the sale of Hermitage Leisure Centre. Question 8 Object to all building on the scale proposed without a study of the impact it will have on the area. Question 44 Consider that the District needs employment with high wages so that local people can afford to buy houses.

2470 L. R. Burbank

Further comments to add to those dated 2nd August 2007.

Question 15 Consider that the land between Bardon Road and the Leicester to Burton railway line is best reserved for the Coalville by-pass. This could be a simpler engineering project rather than a route taken south of the railway line. Also consider that housing development should not take place until all quarrying at Bardon has ceased to prevent disturbance to the residents of new houses.

2471 Mr S. L. Gadsby

Question 23 Is immensely disappointed that the site along Station Road, Ibstock has been proposed for development. Countryside, including a working farm, should be preserved at all costs. If new development is needed in Ibstock then there should be a commitment to developing businesses and services within the Village. There are plenty of sites that should be redeveloped before utilising green field land. Question 24 Of the sites proposed it is considered that only the two sites off Leicester Road seem to be viable to improve the village with minimum impact to the boundary or green land.

2472 R Hill Question 8 Any of the favoured approaches are detrimental to the area and the figure of 12,000 new homes should be shared throughout the entire region. Also consider that a good percentage could be accommodated on brown field sites. Some villages surrounding development sites will lose their identity forever. Was led to believe that infrastructure (sewage and drainage systems) in Thringstone was incapable of sustaining development.

2473a John Edwards

Object

Question 10 The Green Wedge should be used in favour of any developments into the Charnwood Forest and the National Forest. Question 15 Object to the proposed development of land at Greenhill Farm for the following reasons:

• The extension of Coalville into The National Forest and particularly the Charnwood Forest should be avoided

• This area suffers with drainage problems every winter and additional building would increase the problems

• There are access issues • Access to service and amenities, new housing should be located close to the town centre for easier

access to shops and public transport

Consideration should be given to the environment, wildlife and the resources for future generations. Empty properties could be bought back into use before new ones are built and in the current economic climate many new houses remain unsold. Refers to SO1 which states the development should be located in the most sustainable locations. Any developments on the edge of the town are not going to fit in with this objective. Question 16 The use of empty properties and brown field sites within urban areas should be a priority. After the use of these then options 2, 3 or 4 could complete the remainder of the requirement, while avoiding the use of the Greenhill Farm site.

2473b Mrs Josie Jackson

Object

Question 15 Objects to the proposed development area backing onto Hermitage Road for the following reasons:

• Does not consider that enough emphasis has been placed on the impact the development would have on the already congested road network.

• Does not consider the development proposals reflect a Council with an environmentally driven agenda • No details have been provided regarding provision of infrastructure • No faith in the building companies to provide infrastructure • No reference is made to the local service which will be required by the Travelling communities • Does not consider that additional houses are required presently due to the economic downturn • Considers that the main reason for the proposed development is to regenerate Coalville town centre but

not enough information has been given to residents regarding the types of retailers the council seeks to attract

• Coalville is used to refer to villages, it is essential that these retain their individual identities • Is astounded by the lack of detail the Council is required to provide

2474 Lois

Edwards

Object

Question 10 The Green Wedge should be used in favour of any developments into the Charnwood Forest and the National Forest. Question 15 Objects to the proposed development of land at Greenhill Farm for the following reasons:


• This area suffers with drainage problems every winter and additional building would increase the problems

• There are access issues • Access to service and amenities, new housing should be located close to the town centre for easier

access to shops and public transport Consideration should be given to the environment, wildlife and the resources for future generations. Empty properties could be bought back into use before new ones are built and in the current economic climate many new houses remain unsold. Refers to SO1 which states the development should be located in the most sustainable locations. Any developments on the edge of the town are not going to fit in with this objective. The use of empty properties and brown field sites within urban areas should be a priority therefore avoiding the use of the Greenhill Farm Land.

2475 John and Lois Edwards

Object

Question 10 Considers that from a practical point of view the use of the Green Wedge should be maximised which fits in with all the objectives of the Community Strategy. The Green Wedge should be utilised before expanding the boundaries of the current built-up area. The main benefits for using these areas are access, services, minimising the environmental impact access to town centre and to public transport. Question 14 Coalville should be promoted as the heart of the National Forest; it should not be expanding into it. The use of Brownfield sites should be a priority. Questions how the proposed urban sprawl of Coalville will enhance the National Forest and whether the numbers of houses required is accurate given the economic downturn. Need to ensure that irreversible developments on National Forest land are avoided. Considered that the number of empty properties should be assessed and utilised before new housing is developed. Refers to objective SO1 which refers to concentrating the majority of new development in the most sustainable locations. Considered that any construction on the extremities of the town is not going to fit with this plan as there will be no direct access to the rail link and people will still need to use their cars compared to development in the centre of the built up area. Question 15 Object to the inclusion of Greenhill Farm for the following points:


• Environment – the area has suffered drainage problems every winter and the building of additional houses and roads will increase problems

• Questions whether the projected numbers of dwellings required is realistic

• Access off Greenhill Road/Dauphine Close • Access to amenities and services – placing housing closer to the town centre will provide easier access

to the Town Centre and Public Transport. Considers that the environment and wildlife should be considered in the proposal. The use of Greenhill farmland does not fit well with the Council’s Green Policy. The proposed development on Greenhill Farm will increase traffic congestion on already inadequate roads/junctions. Question 16 Once empty properties and Brownfield sites have been utilised suggest that the land between Coalville, Whitwick, Swannington and Thringstone should be maximised, then Options 2, 3 or 4 used to complete the remainder of the requirements, while avoiding the use of the Greenhill Farm land.

2476 Ralph P Davis

Object

Question 15 Need to avoid the extending development into the National Forest and Charnwood Forest. The land suffers drainage problems and new houses and roads will exacerbate this problem. Question whether the housing numbers are realistic, safety of an access off Greenhill Road/Dauphine Close and limited access to the town centre’s amenities and services. The proposed urban sprawl will harm the National Forest and loss of wildlife would be contrary to Council policy. There are empty properties already available which would reduce the number of houses needed to be built. This proposal is contrary to Strategic Objective SO1.

2477 Nanette Davis


2478 Edward Crilly & Jan Short

Question 15 With reference to the proposal to include land at the back of Bardon Road as part of the ‘South East Coalvillle SUE’. Previously Understood there was the possibility of building on one side of the railway but did not consider that development would be proposed to the rear of the existing houses. It will devalue property and compensation is expected if this land is developed.

2479 Richard Spurr (same


response as 735)


2481 Veronica Robinson

Object

Question 7 Opposes Option 1 on the following grounds:

• Disproportionally – 89% of the homes are being built where only 40% of the residents live. • A Coalville focus and policy H4/1 would put pressure on any vacant land in the Coalville Urban Area. • Even subtracting previous development from the number of houses required the figure is still to high and

has been criticised by LCC • Development of the Green Wedge would destroy the separation between Coalville and Whitwick. • Building on the Green wedge would create two further villages within the existing village which conflicts

with the Council’s policy regarding cohesive communities. It would also double the number of houses in the village, it should be noted that some 250 homes (towards the Districts 12,200) have already been built/allocated in Whitwick.

• Poor transport links, there is no passenger rail service within Coalville therefore it is inappropriate to consider Coalville on a par with other Sub-Regional centres within Leicestershire. Routing the A511 through the centre of the Coalville urban area is damaging to the communication links along the Leicester-Burton corridor, it’s doubtful the A511 could accommodate development without major upgrading.

• If the Leicester-Burton corridor is considered important then Ashby must be considered as a major site for development and not removed from the current Coalville/Ashby development focus

• Development in Albert Village must also be considered • No account is given to housing needs of rural communities, with no specific number of houses allocated. • Building on the Eastern Green Wedge would increase the risk of flooding

Do not support any of the options put forward and would consider a more dispersed Option 5 (similar to Option 3 but with the Coalville total reduced to accommodate more rural housing and development in Albert Village and Parkway Extension area) which preserves the Green Wedge and maintains the distinct separation of Whitwick from Coalville. Consider that the Core Strategy contains a very serious threat to the existence of the Hermitage Leisure Centre and other recreational facilities on the Central Green Wedge. Totally disagrees with any development scenario that involves the removal of the Leisure Centre and outdoor facilities. Any attempt to remove recreation facilities from the Green Wedge to ensure that is does not meet that criteria would be resisted.

Question 10 The District only has one area of Green Wedge and no Green Belt land. The Eastern and Central Green Wedges are located in Whitwick, not Coalville as stated. Considers that the scale of development detailed in the Regional Plan is sufficient reason alone to maintain the Green Wedge. Refers to LCC’s wish to locate an eco-town in the District illustrates how intense the pressure on local green spaces has become. Totally disagrees with the criteria used to appraise the Green Wedge and the insistence that each section of the Green Wedge must meet all criteria. Considers that the combined areas of Green Wedge provide the largest concentration of recreation in the District with the Eastern and Central Green Wedges providing a variety of leisure activities. The Western Green Wedge offers a host of formal recreation opportunities as well as historical interest. Considers that wider public consultation, a Landscape Character Assessment and management plans for the Green Wedge land should be undertaken. Does not consider that the option to rename the Green Wedge as an ‘Area of Separation’ or ‘Strategic Gap’ offers the same degree of protection against future development as no definition of either has been provided. Feels that Coalville has little benefit from National Forest planting and the Green Wedge is an ideal location for such planting to take place, in accordance with objective SO2. Also considers that the Green Wedge should be included, alongside Charnwood Forest and the National Forest in the Districts Green Infrastructure Plan. Refers to objectives SO4, SO5 and SO13 as the proposed plans for the Green Wedge do not meet these objectives.

2482 J Bunicliffe

Object Question 14 Strongly disagrees with all of the proposals concerning building housing on the green belt area in Coalville and the surrounding areas. Wildlife will disappear and the infrastructure in the town is not sufficient for current or additional residents.

2483 L Quenault Object Object

Question 8 Objects to the development plans and considers that none of the four options proposed are acceptable. It is unacceptable that villages such as Thingstone and Whitwick are under threat. Question 10 Considered unacceptable that the Green Wedge and farm land is threatened and the Council plans to create urban sprawl to the detriment of all who live in the area. Question 15 Considered unacceptable that Thringstone Primary School is threatened by development plans. It is rated by Ofsted as a good school and for the infrastructure to come later as part of the new developments it would seem

Object ridiculous to destroy a successful school in special surroundings to build one somewhere else.

2484 Mr J Barnett

Submission includes a completed Suitability Appraisal of Land off Station Hill, Swannington (Land between 1 New Street and 41 Station Hill). Report seeks to demonstrate that Swannington is a sustainable location capable of accommodating residential development. Also offers evidence that it can accommodate more than 5 dwellings and location of the site in the Green Wedge is challenged. The submitted study identifies in detail a series of facilities at 2km, 3km and 5km. Information has been provided on bus and train routes, proximity and accessibility to shopping facilities, employment, including industrial estates and business parks, range of health services and education facilities. Wholescale erosion of the eastern and central Green Wedge could be avoided if more development was sanctioned on adjacent Green Wedge land within the settlement boundaries of Sustainable Villages such as Swannington.

2485 Mrs Tracey Payne

Question 15 Response is regarding proposed development off Standard Hill. Previous proposed development off Standard Hill was refused due to highways issues, the loss countryside and wildlife habitats and also the lack of school places and increases in pollution. The Council should say no to further development as local amenities cannot cope with additional housing developments. In the current economic climate it makes no sense to build more houses and empty properties should be bought back into use before new ones are built. Visual amenity should not be destroyed.

2486 Ian Bull Object

Question 14 Strongly objects to the proposed development of 9,500 house in the Coalville area for the following reasons:

• At present all of the communities of the villages surrounding Coalville have their individual identities, under the proposals these communities would become one massive urban sprawl losing much, if not all of their individualism.

• It appears that no thought has been given to the increase in traffic the development would bring or the requirement for additional infrastructure.

• There is no mention of re-opening the Leicester to Burton railway to passengers which would increase travel opportunities. Network rail has already stated there is no problem with re-opening the line.

• Questions why there is no expansion, even on a small scale, of any of the villages within NWLDC that could support small increases in housing stock.

• Raises concern about the extra pressure on local watercourses and the increased potential for flooding in

the area. • Considers that many empty properties could be bought back into use reducing the need for new homes.

Suggests a better proposal to increase the use of Coalville town centre and to lessen the impact on the local communities, as follows:

• Permit the improvements to the Belvoir Shopping Centre with the proviso that the co-op is retained somewhere in the development.

• The Mitchell Grieves site be developed to provide flats and apartments, these would be within walking distance of the town centre and would relieve some of the housing pressures elsewhere

• The Ford Garage site could be used for more flats and apartments increasing the population close to the new shopping centre further relieving housing pressures elsewhere.

• The Pegsons site could be retained for industrial use, providing employment opportunities. Otherwise it could be used for additional housing.

Question 10 Considers that it is wrong and possibly illegal that there was no consultation on the removal of the Green Wedge designation. This appears to have been done without though for all the history and wildlife of the area.

Question 35 Understands that a site has been identified purely for Travellers, questions why this cannot be used.

2487 Diane Bull Object Object

Questions 1 & 2 Questions why Leicestershire and NWL have been allocated such a large increase in population and in particular the large number of houses to be found in NWLDC. Such a large increase in housing is unsustainable and unnecessary. Development should be distributed across the region and existing communities and valuable land resources should not be destroyed. The plan will destroy the environment and community cohesion. Questions 3 & 4 Considered that Thringstone and Whitwick should be designated as Sustainable Villages as they both fulfil the criteria. Both are ancient villages that have retained distinct identities and communities. History seems to be ignored in the Strategy. Thringstone is on the edge of the Charnwood Forest and forms a link between that and the National Forest and if 470 houses are built to the north it would destroy that link. Thringstone and Whitwick are not and do not wish to be part of Coalville. Question 5 & 6

Object Object Object Object Object Object Object

Considers that it is incorrect to include Whitwick and Thringstone as part of the Coalville conurbation. Also states that there is no way that all the additional houses will be required in the Coalville area. The plans are based on outdated and flawed mentality of the credit boom. The world has changed and more realistic plans are needed which value what is already in place such as farmland and communities. Question 7 The local roads cannot sustain such an increase in population. The sewage system is also inadequate and more development would exacerbate flooding problems. With such a demand for allotments removing these would be terrible. The Hermitage Leisure Centre is a valuable resource that is irreplaceable. Questions 8 & 9 Does not support the development strategy. Just because some areas do not have their own Parishes they are still settlements in their own right. Any development should be spread throughout the area for it to be sustainable. The proposed development strategy will destroy the environment and social cohesion of the area. Question 10 The approach in the strategy is illogical and damaging. The Green Wedge is important and encompasses amenity land, farmland, meadow, woodland and heath. It is valuable and the flora and fauna should be preserved for future generations and farmland is important to the future viability of our nation. Considers that the Green Wedge is a green lung in a comparatively built up area. The District is an important green area between the Three Cities. Considers that the Council doesn’t appreciate what is in the area and is intent on turning it into urban sprawl whereas the Green Wedge separation is exactly what is required and it is already in place. Question 11 Public access is not the correct criteria for determining the viability if the Green Wedge. The Hermitage areas and the excellent network of footpaths provide sufficient access. Increased access would destroy the valuable amenity especially for future generations. Question 12 Given the present economic uncertainties it would be irresponsible to be too specific. Far more detail regarding infrastructure and history needs to be considered. It seems that all the individual areas have been lumped together with Coalville in order for Section 106 money to be available for the development and improvement of Coalville itself. This is too high a price to pay for dubious benefit. Question 13 The site north of Thringstone and the possibility of destroying the Green Wedge between Thringstone and

Object Object

Swannington is both undesirable and unsustainable. The infrastructure is inadequate and it would result in the loss of flora and fauna and green corridor. Questions the north of Thringstone site boundaries. Although the site is close, it is too remote from Coalville for practical purposes and would increase car use. The number of houses proposed is too high and would destroy the village community. Considered that Thringstone meets all of the criteria to be a Sustainable Village. Questions 14, 15 & 16 Considers that the basis for building so many houses in the area is wrong for economic and environmental reasons. The Green Wedge is a continuous green corridor between Thornborough and Hermitage Roads therefore the hypothesis for dismissing the Green Wedge as viable is false. Questions 17, 20 & 26 Has no special knowledge regarding Ashby, Kegworth, and Castle Donington etc but would promote a lesser development in all areas in line with the current and future economic and environmental realities. Much of the current commercial and housing developments are lying empty and building has been halted on many existing sites. Question 35 Regarding Gypsy and Traveller sites, integration by the very nature of such communities as ‘travelling’ is limited. Question 38 Does not support the Housing Strategy as such a large increase in population in Coalville is unsustainable. The current population is ill served by the existing facilities which would be made worse with more people. The promotion of additional facilities is dishonest as previous experience of other developments teaches that the facilities never match up to the promises in the short to medium term. Facilities including the passenger railway have disappeared. Question 53 & 54 Considered that it is of utmost importance to have a railway connection in Coalville to reduce dependence on the car. It would be of enormous benefit for Tourism and access to EMA. Question 55 & 56 Para 23.3 briefly acknowledges the history of the area however the current plan pays little attention to the history of the surrounding area. Para 23.7 mentions increase in flood risk, development of the Green Wedge would significantly increase flood risk.

Object

Question 57 & 58 Considered that Thringstone School could not sustain such a large increase in population as proposed and the existing infrastructure is also inadequate. Question 63 & 64 The value of farming and the topographical nature of the countryside as an amenity need to be considered. Open farmland and meadow land are more valuable than poorly maintained recreation areas. Existing natural links should be preserved.

2488 Unknown Object


2489 Valerie Webster

Object


2490 Monica Tatterdell

Object


2491 Gary Wass

Object


2492 Ruby Wass

Object


2493 Diane Knifton

Object


2494 Joseph Knifton

Object


2495 H Greenway

Object


2496 J W Biddle

Object


2497 M Biddle

Object


2498 William J McNeice

Object


2499 J C McNeice

Object


Date post:	04-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Represen Name of Support/ Summary of response tation ID

Documents