3.1.6 The Settlement Hierarchy

As previously stated, the designation of the Claybrookes as an SRV is wrong and conflicts with the NPPF. The Local Plan Vision states new development will be delivered in the most sustainable locations and will reflect local needs.
C;laybrooke is not a sustainable location. The NPPF states that patterns of growth must enable the fullest use of public transport. But we have an infrequent bus service (hourly) to only Lutterworth and Hinckley with no service beyond late afternoons or Sundays or Bank Holidays. Access to services and facilities is very limited other than by car.
There are practically no local employment opportunities, unchanged by the Plan. As a result, as highlighted in the Settlement Profile, a considerably higher proportion of people in the village (compared to the District) use a personal vehicle for work. A survey of our residents working locally and further afield showed 100% usage of personal transport for commuting due to time pressures and lack of public transport alternatives.
For example: to use public transport to work in Leicester entails having to leave before 4pm to get back to Claybrooke Magna. This demonstrates the service is of very limited value. The unsustainable pattern would clearly only be worsened by additional development with more people using cars.
Further evidence was supplied by Arriva confirming very low usage of the bus service. Development would clearly fail to facilitate access to jobs and services as required by the NPPF.
The Settlement Profile highlights the fact that the Broughton Astley GP service is already 'severely constrained'. Residents currently struggle to access appointments in reasonable time. The practice recently lost the senior partner through retirement as has not replaced time. We are aware there is the possibility of a new surgery at some point but there are no established, agreed and fully resourced plans so this 'aspiration' cannot be used in mitigation. Once again this known pressure makes the proposed development unsustainable in terms of NPPF policies.
The NPPF states that developments must take account of different characters of areas. Our village is a small, thriving local community. That is what residents value. Development that increases our size by around 25% as proposed completely alters that and puts at risk the community spirit that makes us a success. It also moves us towards coalescence with Claybrooke Parva, despite the Settlement Profile recognising we are separate with individual characteristics and that this separation must be respected and protected.
HDC Housing Register data relating to Magna shows over the past 5 years only 5 applications received. Only 2 are still active and only 1 expressed a preference for Magna - so there is no evidence of need for anything like the proposed scale.
Plus the Settlement Profile highlights under occupation of homes in the village so a development with the proposed proportion of larger houses obviously does not meet local need.
The NPPF requires planners to promote strong and vibrant communities by providing housing with accessible local services and that reflects local need. The Settlement Profile identifies that the age structure of the village is young compared with villages across the District. We have a greater proportion of the population in the 35-64 age group than is seen in the District as a whole and the proportion of the population aged over 65 is well below District level. Therefore the community is vibrant as it stands with no evidence of need and housing other than minor infill should be directed elsewhere - where there is a real need.
Overall, the proposed development scale is disproportionate, out of keeping and with no evidence of local need or support is contrary to NPPF core principles as set out in para 17 and contravenes the requirements of paras 50, 58 and 66.
It also fails to meet NPPF core principles regarding sustainable transport and in this regard contravenes paras 17, 35, 37, 69 and 70.

Retail needs are not really considered within the plan.
To think that in 2017 a house wife with children living in a new house on Ashton Rise for example will do her weekly shop at a store 800m away on foot is not realistic

Villages that are considered sustainable by definition should have a post office, shop and public house is not an appropriate definition as this situaation can and does change frequently, witness the number of recent pub closures in the villages between Harborough and lutterworth

We support the principle that Rural Centres should provide the focus for rural development

Previous Regional and County planning documents have consistently highlighted the constrained nature of the transport network to the south and south east of the Leicester PUA. This noted that large scale urban extensions to the PUA in Harborough would be difficult without 'sustained and significant transport infrastructure investment.' The area is remote from the strategic road network and it needs to be recognised that there are physical and development infrastructure capacity constraints.
Thurnby, Bushby and Scraptoft may be close to Leicester but have poor public transport links and limited local facilities that can be accessed on foot. This means that new developments tend to be very car dependent. Travel to secondary school, and other services to the south in Oadby for example, require orbital movements on narrow country lanes and village streets. I therefore question whether these settlements are the most suitable in sustainability terms and am concerned about them being placed at the top of hierarchy.