H1 clause 3 Lutterworth SDA

The traffic on the Leicester Road in this area is already congested and this proposed road will be next to some prestige houses that have been built.
It is already very difficult to pull out onto the Leicester road without anymore traffic flow being added to it.
Why when you have got other housing options would you build a bridge which will cost tens of millions of pounds.
At the moment Lutterworth has one of the worst air pollution problems in the UK. More traffic ,More pollution

Lutterworth is already meeting its social obligations with 4 (or more) new housing developments in the year 2016 - 2017 alone. The idea to build a 1500+ dwelling development to the East of the M1 will destroy the local existing Lutterworth community and identity. It will saturate the existing local resources and compromise the ability of the local schools to deliver their mandate of high quality education. It will turn a Market Town with some identity into an urban sprawl, diluted from any persona and will reduce the quality of living of the existing residents.

My objection relates to the complete lack of provision for road infrasructure to support this building, and the impact on Lutterworth, not the principle of build itself. A "spine road" is muted, which if like Brookfield Way, is completely inadequate. A Bypass of Lutterworth is required from the proposed bridge over the m1 north of Lutterworth to jct 20 of the M1 running adjacent to the motorway. Normla estate roads can feed off this road. Equally there needs to be a weight limit on the Town centre to reduce polution, and direct traffic to the new road

The road infrastructure south of Lutterworth on the A426 cannot cope with the existing traffic levels . Since the changes to the A14 junction this is the main route from M1 south to M6 North. This is congested every day and if there are any incidents on the M1 south of junction 20, (at least 2-3 incidents every week) this road becomes gridlocked. This also results in the village of Shawell being used as a relief road for cars. Shawell has already sent representations to Harborough district and Leics CC re the problems this is causing.

I am writing to you in order to make formal representations for the Harborough Local Plan on behalf of the Harborough District Council residents in my constituency of South Leicestershire.

As a Member of Parliament for South Leicestershire, I have listened attentively to the view of my constituents on a range of matters that are outlined within this proposed Local Plan submission. As such I should like to make formal representations on the following areas:-

HOUSING
With regard to house building in the District, I do, in principle, agree with the Government's guidance that further, more expansive housing building is required across the country. This guidance is in line with national population increases as well as the large number of people either wishing to take their first step onto the housing ladder or are awaiting social or affordable housing via a local authority or housing association.

With this in mind however, I should like to see 'appropriate' house building, whereby new developments will be built in an environmentally sound manner and will be built to meet the crucial economic and domestic needs of my constituents in South Leicestershire and other residents within the District.

In addition, I have been closely following the plans for the large-scale development known locally as 'Lutterworth East' for some time. I acknowledge that while these plans have not yet been finalized, they are nevertheless are source of some concern for my constituents. Given that these are 'embryonic' plans, I am unable to commit fully until I see further detailed plans.

MAGNA PARK
In concern of the proposed expansion of Magna Park, I should like to reiterate once again my objections to these proposals as originally outlined following my election as MP in 2015. In keeping with the thoughts and concerns of many of my constituents, I believe that the proposed expansion would be counter-productive to the local area's needs and to residents in terms of pollution and congestion, where the town of Lutterworth has historically experienced detrimental issues.

In closing, I should like to sincerely thank Harborough District Council for carrying out this consultation and for giving my constituents and the other residents of the district an opportunity to have their views and opinions heard on this vitally important matter.

Dear Harborough District Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your proposed Local Plan. Please see below the consultation response on behalf of Rugby Borough Council, which is given at Officer level.


Comments on the proposed plan:

It is not clear from the plan or supporting evidence how the impact of the proposals on the highway network and transport outside of the Leicestershire boundary has been considered and what the likely effects will be. The Jacobs Preliminary Impact Assessment 2016 appears to exclude areas outside of Leicestershire, even though there are main routes adjoining or crossing into neighbouring counties (in Rugby Borough's case the A5 and A426, which are near to the Magna Park and Lutterworth proposals), and analysis is not apparent in other documents. It is queried whether sufficient consultation has taken place with Warwickshire County Council Highways Authority to ensure the local plan's implications on cross-county matters have been taken into account.

In addition to the effect on the connected road network, it should be considered how the proposals for growth in Rugby Borough's proposed Local Plan (currently being examined by the Planning Inspectorate) have been taken into account. Further consultation with Warwickshire County Council is encouraged.

It is unclear in the Jacobs Preliminary Transport Assessment 2016 how the figures used in the assessment relate to the local plan targets. Clarification should be given as to how the total amount of growth proposed in the plan has been tested in the assessment and appropriate mitigation identified.

The August 2017 Magna Park Employment Growth Sensitivity Study is welcome, although it is queried whether the position of the other HMA authorities on employment and unmet housing need has been agreed between appropriate authorities and if the Duty to Co-operate has been satisfied. It should be ensured that the draw of employment from surrounding areas as a result of the expansion of Magna Park has been fully considered and also factored in by other authorities, in order to ensure there would not be over provision in the market area as a whole. It is acknowledged that within the plan that the expansion of Magna Park will result in an increase to the overall housing requirement from 532 to 557 dwellings per annum to align the housing with the employment growth and that this will also meet some unmet need from elsewhere in the HMA. However, it is not clear the position of unmet need across the HMA as it is also noted within the plan that Leicester City Council have stated they will have unmet housing need but that the extent is not yet established.

Overall, Harborough District Council has progressed its local plan, and this progress is noted and welcomed. It should be ensured that the impacts of the proposals on cross boundary matters have been fully considered, and that due regard has been given to Rugby Borough's proposed growth. Matters of employment and housing on Duty to Co-operate should be agreed between relevant authorities to ensure overall need has been properly accounted for and to avoid over-provision.

In principal I support the development of housing-we need more housing to meet demand. However I do have concerns regarding the scale of this development and the fact that the infrastructure might not be upgraded at the same pace as housing is created. Lutterworth does need investment into its infrastructure, the towns roads are at capacity at many time of the day and other services such as the GP surgery are only just fit for current purpose. Any development that takes place in and around Lutterworth must be supported by an equal investment into services.