2.1 Local Plan vision

Showing comments and forms 1 to 16 of 16

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5394

Received: 06/10/2017

Respondent: KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

No mention of the A6 Air Quality Management Area declared for the Kibworths in July 2017.

Full text:

No mention of the A6 Air Quality Management Area declared for the Kibworths in July 2017.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5618

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Ms Caroline Pick

Representation Summary:

CPRE Leicestershire support Harborough's Local Plan vision, particularly as it relates to the countryside.

Full text:

CPRE Leicestershire support Harborough's Local Plan vision, particularly as it relates to the countryside.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5695

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mr John Martin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I cannot understand why we have to wait until 2031 to have for example no housing built on a floodplain, such a target can be made availble today not in 14 year's time

Full text:

I cannot understand why we have to wait until 2031 to have for example no housing built on a floodplain, such a target can be made availble today not in 14 year's time

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5932

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: MR Michael Wilcox

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

There is insufficient detail within the plan to identify the local needs of the future proposed developments such as Doctors, schools, shops , parks, recreation centers,pubs etc.

Full text:

There is insufficient detail within the plan to identify the local needs of the future proposed developments such as Doctors, schools, shops , parks, recreation centers,pubs etc.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5957

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs N Stanley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Market Harborough as a town is losing it's character and identity. The proposed development either already committed or on new sites laid out in the local plan, will turn the town into an over congested sprawling area. Communtiy facilities have not grown - difficulties getting doctors appointments and under funding of local schools. Valued community hubs such as the Red Lion in Great Bowden has been allowed to close. The range of shops are no longer diverse enough and residents are likely to travel to other towns/cities to shop.

Full text:

Market Harborough as a town is losing it's character and identity. The proposed development either already committed or on new sites laid out in the local plan, will turn the town into an over congested sprawling area. Communtiy facilities have not grown - difficulties getting doctors appointments and under funding of local schools. VAlued community hubs such as the Red Lion in Great Bowden has been allowed to close. THe range of shops are no longer diverse enough and Residents are likely to travel to other towns/cities to shop.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5998

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Maggie Pankhurst

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The vision states that the district will have a diverse and thriving economy. However the plans for employment are mainly about renewing and increasing warehouse land and creating over 10,000 new jobs in this sector. Jobs in the warehouse/distribution sector are clustered around low/unskilled jobs. These jobs will mainly be filled by people commuting in who do not spend their money or pay taxes locally. It is difficult to see therefore how the proposals for employment align with the vision for the future of employment in the district.

Full text:

The vision states that the district will have a diverse and thriving economy. However the plans for employment are mainly about renewing and increasing warehouse land and creating over 10,000 new jobs in this sector. Jobs in the warehouse/distribution sector are clustered around low/unskilled jobs. These jobs will mainly be filled by people commuting in who do not spend their money or pay taxes locally. It is difficult to see therefore how the proposals for employment align with the vision for the future of employment in the district.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6292

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Richard Beer

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

To provide a district of rural villages and market towns you need to define what these entities are and their sustainable size within the definition. This avoids paying lip service to the concept and would set the maximum limits of development in order to retain their essential characteristics. For example Broughton Astley could hardly now be called a village, it is surely a small town in its current and proposed size.

Full text:

To provide a district of rural villages and market towns you need to define what these entities are and their sustainable size within the definition. This avoids paying lip service to the concept and would set the maximum limits of development in order to retain their essential characteristics. For example Broughton Astley could hardly now be called a village, it is surely a sma town in its current and proposed size.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6303

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: HUNGARTON Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Hungarton Parish Council agrees with the vision for the District.

Full text:

Hungarton Parish Council agrees with the vision for the District.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6319

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Kathleen Rowell

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The stated vision in this Plan is a nonsense, the proposal for Lutterworth and Magna Park means the vision of improvement cannot be met, quality of life for all in that area will be negatively impacted.
why does HDC make responding to the consultation online so difficult, think beyond planning staff and think residents, I suspect HDC do not want comments. Requests for paper copies were resisted by HDC staff and only gained by persistence.
The HDC vision is an insult, whoever proposed it will not be living near Magna Park, not if they care about their quality of life

Full text:

I have just read this section on vision and feel that the stated aim is totally contrary to what will actually come about as a consequence of the plans for Magna Park, Lutterworth, all local villages will pay a high price.
Reality is Lutterworth and surrounds will not be " a vibrant, safe, prosperous place which retains its identity as a predominantly rural area of villages and market town, where local communities enjoy a high quality of life" .
In fact that idealistic lifestyle will be destroyed by 700,000 sq metres of extra warehousing etc and all the negative aspects that will follow. Low paid, low skilled employment will not enhance quality of life for any local community, just road misery, noise and air pollution etc.
IT IS RIDICULOUS TO SUGGEST THAT THIS VISION CAN BE ACHIEVED WITH PROPOSED PLANS.
HDC tell the truth please?

I also need to comment on the difficulty of using this site, it can only have been made so hard to discourage residents from commenting. This site is no doubt easy for planning office staff. Originally I was timed out and so asked for a paper copy, this request was opposed vociferously by a member of HDC staff and I had to persist. In fact by using up a large amount of time and effort I eventually succeeded in an online response, as I had doubts as to whether paper submissions would be included in comments.
This is supposed to be a democracy and residents views should be listened to not discouraged as is reality.
If HDC wish to improve quality of life for residents in the Lutterworth area and nearby villages, they should question their plans for it's District. It is already known that although we pay the same Council Tax as Harborough we get a very small amount of spend on our area and it is time for that to change and this local plan is an opportunity to address the inequalities., so please ensure the vision is not just for Harborough but for all of us, we have the same rights!!

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6338

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Magna Park is Big Enough

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Air quality or light pollution will not be improved in Lutterworth; HGV and other vehicle traffic will not sufficiently be reduced from the proposals in L1; the proposed significance of Strategic distribution will contradict Key issue 3 and out-commuting will not be improved. See attachment for further detail.

Full text:

Air quality or light pollution will not be improved in Lutterworth; HGV and other vehicle traffic will not sufficiently be reduced from the proposals in L1; the proposed significance of Strategic distribution will contradict Key issue 3 and out-commuting will not be improved. See attachment for further detail.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6502

Received: 07/11/2017

Respondent: GREAT GLEN Parish Council

Representation Summary:

we support the vision shown

Full text:

we support the vision shown

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6637

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Cllr Rosita Page

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The vision and objectives are lordable but the policies with in the LP do not reflect the desired aims to achieve these objectives.
To secure a wide range of skilled jobs for an highly educated population has always been a supported council policy.
The objective, stopping young people from leaving the district is not served by focusing mainly on providing unskilled, temporary, low paid jobs in the logistic industry.
A focus on sustainable , diverse and vibrant job market is not possible without creating the opportunities.

Full text:

I consider the plan not sound and not compliant because;
Access to consultation form was made difficult, it disadvantaged ordinary residents to put forward a view.
Public advertising of the consultation in the local media was very limited.
Access to information for members to make educated decisions was limited , a lot of information was presented via verbal briefings only , some information was deemed as confidential and not provided.
Visions and objectives are good but empty rhetoric, not backed up with strong enough policies to achieve these goals.
The plan appears to focus mainly on the provision of housing rather than placing an additional focus on providing variety and access on suitable housing that will meet the needs and the diversity of residents.
The Harborough District has an above national average of an aging population and a larger focus should have reflected the needs of these residents by ensuring policies advocate more bungalows.
Provision of Extra Care and Specialist Accommodation is not deliverable .Targets are too high and policies remits are confusing.
There are mistakes and discrepancies in supporting information.
Some supporting information was not taken into consideration.
There is no guidance where to find relevant information and what has been superseded by what. The process is messy and confusing.
The Sensitivity Study was commissioned to confirm housing needs alongside employment /logistic options .These were supposed to be allocated across the HMA not just Harborough District.
The Sensitivity Study is not of merit to determine the amount of logistic provision therefore rendering policy BE2 not sound

Comments relating to the following (sections / policies) :

1.2 The Option Consultation: secured an overwhelming public response .The public objected to a major expansion of Magna Park .The Sustainability Appraisal Interim Report 2015 and 2016 rejected an Option of 700 000sqm which echoed demand not need for 3 planning permissions submitted .Officers stated the conclusion of the SAIR would not be affected in the future and Planning officers concurred by stating that approving all 3 application submitted would not be sustainable.
However without evidencing any proper process this evidence was overruled.

1.5 The Duty to Co‐operate: was not fully adhered to by consulting all neighbouring LA's in any of the early stages .There are only notes of DtoC meetings from
May and July 2017. These minutes state foregone conclusions without having followed proper democratic process.

1.7 Supplementary Planning Documents: As well as other evidence has not been readily available throughout the process and parishes and other stakeholder have not been given the timeframe to consider background information. It is not clear what is valid, some reports are superseded, reports are not all in one place and the evidence base is confusing.

2.1 Local Plan Vision and 2.3 Objectives: The vision and objectives are lordable but the policies with in the LP do not reflect the desired aims to achieve these objectives.
To secure a wide range of skilled jobs for an highly educated population has always been a supported council policy.
The objective, stopping young people from leaving the district is not served by focusing mainly on providing unskilled, temporary, low paid jobs in the logistic industry.
A focus on sustainable , diverse and vibrant job market is not possible without creating the opportunities.
Reducing impact of traffic on local communities in Objective 10 is not a deliverable policy in line with the proposal of policy BE2 either and Objective 7 to protect the historic environment is also compromised by policy BE2 . The protection of heritage is highly supported by the NPPF and featured in the draft Growth Plan but the policy is not strong enough . The objectives and policies are contradicting themselves in places .

3.1.2 to 3.14
Recognises a fair geographical spread , long term strategic growth by providing a diverse , fair , economic strategy across the region and Leicestershire placing resources where there is need and higher unemployment Policy BE2 in this LP adds considerable more than the identified long term requirement of non -rail storage /logistic to a already considerable land bank of logistics permissions granted but not build out.
Furthermore BE2 is disadvantaging other operators in other geographical areas by oversaturating the market.

5.1.4: The HEDNA was to identify housing and employment need. However all this important detail of employment /logistic provision and the correlation thereof was omitted until very late in the process .The Sensitivity Study was an add on, not fully commissioned and was not made available until July.
The study has not been objectively assessed , scrutinised , it is confusing , contains flaws and is based on assumption not on evidenced facts.
The scenarios used to underpin the need for 700 000sqm of logistics floor space are disregarding all previous, confirmed evidence , consultation result and a democratic members decision.
The study that alleges 19 % of HD residents work at Magna Park. If to be considered as factual, one needs to be mindful that this has taken over 20 years to achieve.
To raise this to 25 % ( 3000 workers approximately ) in an area of low unemployment (at it's highest 1100) without effective policies and no means of enforcement this seems unachievable.

5.1.9: A buffer of 20% was applied by a proper democratic process to assist other LA's with unmet housing needs in March 17 .This need has not yet been evidenced and was agreed on the provision of 2 letters received ( 5.1.6 )
Not adhering to a proper democratic process the 20% buffer provision was split into 15 % unmet need and 5 % ( 5.1.9 ) to meet the impact of policy BE 2.
The March decision was ignored and these figures were already placed in all the draft Local Plan documents before being agreed by the Executive in September 17.
How can the Local Plan with no provisions and policies to enforce, underpin or secure the ambitious commitment to house Magna Park workers in the district ?

BE1: The Full Council has always voted to encourage and promote knowledge based industries to the district but policies or actions do not actively reflect this ambition.

BE2: Comments from members and residents ignored, evidence flawed, contradiction to previous evidence applied, proper process not followed in order to accommodate a policy that advocates unnecessary ,over allocation of storage, logistic provision to consider with applications submitted which will be decided at a planning meeting before this plan is evaluated.
The applicants stating their proposals are promoted via the LP and that the policy of the emerging plan supports their application.
This policy is ambiguous, will saturate and monopolise the non‐ rail storage and logistic market to the disadvantage of neighbouring authorities. This policy supports greed and does not identify need.

H1: Sets out housing commitment to 2031. The infrastructure document are difficult to access. It should be explained that dwelling should not just be taken as houses but could be apartments /flats. The policy should reflect a need for this provision to aid the accumulation of much required social housing.
It refers in 5.1.8 to 557 per annum or 11140 over the plan period .There is no correlation of the figures.
H1 ( SS1 2a ) states a minimum of 12800 but should state a maximum.
All of this is very confusing and it will be difficult to implement and to achieving a clear basis on which a 5 year housing supply is calculated which is clear and defendable.
Previous housing trajectory identified that no 5 year housing supply has been achieved previously in the Harborough District with a far lower annual housing requirement. It is therefore ambitious and unrealistic to add a 20 % buffer on ONA as this is unlikely to be achieved possibly rendering the Local Plan impotent.

H2: 40 % is not viable or sustainable and will not aid the provision of affordable housing when only up to now only 19 % was achieved and at present only 4000 units are outstanding to be build.

H4: More emphasis needed to ensure specialist housing is provided , policy impossible to achieve and confusing. Is the 10% on top of 40% affordable ?

H6: Provision at Bonham's Lane is not required and the special status of the site should be recognised.GTAA was not an open and public consultation
There would be no requirement for additional Showpeople plots if officers would stop supporting present sites for housing development against planning inspectors advise thus losing the district the existing provisions.
Travelling Showpeople plots have been allocated to non‐ guild members , there have been statements to the fact that there are no further requirements.
5.11.2 refers to the amount of pitches for G/T and showpeople .However, Parish Council 's have unsuccessfully requested up‐dates on occupation of the sites. It is therefore assumed that the illustrated figures are questionable as there have been no detailed evaluations.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7383

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Sport England

Representation Summary:

Support as promotes healthy and safe lifestyles.
- There will be better access to the countryside and an improved range
of open spaces for local people to enjoy
- increased provision for walking and cycling, and improved access to public transport for new development will have contributed to a reduction in the District's carbon footprint.
- Communities will have access to improved social, recreational, sports, health and
educational facilities.

Full text:

Vision and objectives: Support
promote healthy and safe lifestyles.

- There will be better access to the countryside and an improved range
of open spaces for local people to enjoy
- increased provision for walking and cycling, and improved access to public transport for new development will have contributed to a reduction in the District's carbon footprint.
- Communities will have access to improved social, recreational, sports, health and
educational facilities.

Key Issue - growth in the economy and Objective 2. Employment:
Sport England would advise of our economic value of sport toolkit
https://www.sportengland.org/research/benefits-of-sport/economic-value-of-sport/
and more generally
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/la/1946157347/report.aspx

Objective 4 Infrastructure: Support

Objective 9 Design: Support. With particular reference to bringing forward strategic development areas of East Lutterworth and Scraptoft (policy SC1) with regard to
Active design - Sport England, in conjunction with Public Health England, has produced 'Active Design' (October 2015), a guide to planning new developments that create the right environment to help people get more active, more often in the interests of health and wellbeing. The guidance sets out ten key principles for ensuring new developments incorporate opportunities for people to take part in sport and physical activity. The Active Design principles are aimed at contributing towards the Government's desire for the planning system to promote healthy communities through good urban design. Sport England would commend the use of the guidance in the master planning process for new residential developments. The document can be downloaded via the following link:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/active-design/

Support Policy GD3 - b. outdoor sport and recreation and associated buildings

Support GD7 2a. permitting development if it relates to outdoor leisure, sporting or recreation facilities including school playing fields, cycleways, footpaths or bridleways;.

Support policy GD8 - Design which in explanation refers to our guidance on active design. We would ask if the use of active design would be made stronger by reference in the policy. (also covered in policy IN2) also should be referenced in SC1, MH1, MH2 and LH1

Support in principle Policy HC2 - Evidence who demonstrates that a facility is no longer required. We are unsure what evidence is available to understand the demand, supply and needs for built sports facilities. This is even more relevant with regard to policy IN1.

G12 this policy is supported in principle particularly around the use of the emerging Playing Pitch Strategy 2017 which details not only the provision requirements but also quality improvements which could meet the demands generated by development. (please see attached) We are concerned with regard to the reference to and accessibility standard 4km or 10mins drive/bus this is not appropriate in all circumstances and not for all sports. The catchment for football is different to that for cricket and other sports. The emerging playing pitch strategy will provide more information on this aspect. The playing pitch strategy should also be the evidence needed for the robust assessment referred under G12.2.a. with regard to playing fields.

It is not clear if the plan fully details with the needs for new or replacement built sports facilities particularly sports halls and swimming pools (leisure centres) having regard to Para 70 of NPPF and the requirement to plan positively
.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7404

Received: 16/11/2017

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

Gladman support the Harborough Local Plan Vision and in particular the statement that in 2031 residents will benefit from increased access to suitable housing, a wider range of local skilled jobs and high quality services and facilities.
Gladman also support the main focus for development being the market towns, the settlements near the edge of Leicester, Broughton Astley and the rural centres.

Full text:

Refer to attached document.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7585

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Merton College and Leicester Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

Our clients support the overall vision and objectives for the District as set out in the Plan up to 2031.

Full text:

Our clients support the overall vision and objectives for the District as set out in the Plan up to 2031. Our clients support the principle of providing new development in the most sustainable locations, with residential development meeting strategic and local needs. The focus of development at the market towns and rural centres is supported. Subject to the comments made elsewhere in this correspondence, the principle of meeting the housing requirements of the District in full by providing a range of market and affordable housing types, tenures, and size in appropriate and sustainable locations is supported.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7616

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey

Agent: Ms Lydia Voyias

Representation Summary:

Support is given to the sentiments of the Vision for the Local Plan.

Full text:

Support is given to the sentiments of the Vision for the Local Plan. In particular:

"In 2013, Harborough District will be a vibrant, safe and prosperous place which retains its identity as a predominantly rural area of villages and market towns where local communities enjoy a high quality of life. Residents will benefit from increased access to suitable housing, a wider of local skilled jobs, and high quality services and facilities, all of which promote healthy and safe lifestyles..."

"....New development will have been delivered in the most sustainable locations...."

Market Harborough, Lutterworth "along with settlements near to the edge of Leicester Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby), Broughton Astley and the rural centres, will have been the main focus for development. Residential development will have been delivered to meet strategic and local needs and the necessary infrastructure and community facilities needed to support this growth will have been delivered on time."

"....New housing will reflect local needs in terms of type, size and tenure and enable equality of access to suitable accommodation. Older people will have increased access to accommodation to suit their changing needs and affordable homes will have been delivered to enable a new generation of home owners to get onto the housing ladder and to meet the needs of those unable to afford market housing for sale. New housing developments will be high quality, well designed, and respectful of their setting in order to ensure that the character of the District's towns and villages is maintained and protected......."

"......Communities across the District will have embraced neighbourhood planning, affording them the opportunity to shape the future of their environment by ensuring that they have a real stake in the decision making processes that oversee what development takes place and where."