L1 clause 1

Showing comments and forms 1 to 17 of 17

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5357

Received: 28/09/2017

Respondent: Mr Gerard Growney

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

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.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5503

Received: 23/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jaqueline Strong

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Housing development not currently required, would only be required if further development of Magna Park were to go ahead (policy BE2) and even then no evidence to support need.

Full text:

See attached paper

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5521

Received: 24/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Dennis O'Neill

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This plan is completely disproportionate to the area's needs and ability to cope with the increased demand on its infrastructure, amenities, services and air quality, all of which are considerably overstretched. This consultation is also clearly designed to minimise criticism and objections by being as difficult to respond to as possible, and specifically to put off anyone who would like to complain by overwhelming them with options and requests for further information at every one of the literally hundreds of possible touchpoints.

Full text:

This plan is completely disproportionate to the area's needs and ability to cope with the increased demand on its infrastructure, amenities, services and air quality, all of which are considerably overstretched. This consultation is also clearly designed to minimise criticism and objections by being as difficult to respond to as possible, and specifically to put off anyone who would like to complain by overwhelming them with options and requests for further information at every one of the literally hundreds of possible touchpoints.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5801

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr A Adcock

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This random development is prime agricultural land to the East of the M1. There is a distinct lack of commitment to the infrastructure needs of the locality to support such an expansion. Amongst a long list such items as schools, medical centre, recreational facilities, pollution in the town centre, a North/South By-pass and the retention of the hugely respected cottage hospital should ALL be conditions of the planning approval. Therefore planners should consider the housing proposal as a whole, not in piecemeal lots of say 40 to 70 houses with little or no commitment to individual infrastructure improvement.

Full text:

This random development is prime agricultural land to the East of the M1. There is a distinct lack of commitment to the infrastructure needs of the locality to support such an expansion. Amongst a long list such items as schools, medical centre, recreational facilities, pollution in the town centre, a North/South By-pass and the retention of the hugely respected cottage hospital should ALL be conditions of the planning approval. Therefore planners should consider the housing proposal as a whole, not in piecemeal lots of say 40 to 70 houses with little or no commitment to individual infrastructure improvement.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5829

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Whilst Misterton with Walcote Parish Council appreciates the advantages of allocating substantial parcels of land for housing allowing the economic provision of infrastructure, it wishes to raise concerns about certain aspects of the allocation of land to the east of Lutterworth.

Full text:

Whilst Misterton with Walcote Parish Council appreciates the advantages of allocating substantial parcels of land for housing allowing the economic provision of infrastructure, it wishes to raise concerns about certain aspects of the allocation of land to the east of Lutterworth.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5884

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: LANDOWNWER CONSORTIUM FOR EAST OF LUTTERWORTH SDA

Agent: Marrons Planning

Representation Summary:

East of Lutterworth fits with the Local Plan's overall strategy, and is the most appropriate location for large scale growth to meet development needs in the town and the District. Lutterworth benefits from range of services and facilities, which make it suitable for significant development as a Key Centre. It is also located close to significant employment opportunities.

The Consortium has produced a Vision Statement, submitted with these representations which sets out in detail the site characteristics, context, the alignment of the East of Lutterworth SDA with the Local Plan, the benefits of the scheme and a concept masterplan.

Full text:

How L1 fits with the overall spatial strategy

East of Lutterworth fits with the Local Plan's overall spatial strategy, and is the most appropriate location for large scale growth to meet housing and employment needs in the town and the District. Lutterworth benefits from range of services and facilities, which make it suitable for significant development as a Key Centre. It is also located close to significant employment opportunities both within the town itself and nearby Magna Park.

The allocation of East of Lutterworth facilitates the growth of the town in a sustainable way without harming the separate identity of neighbouring settlements. It also provides for a range of benefits and can mitigate potential impacts.

The Consortium has produced a Vision Statement, submitted with these representations which sets out in detail the site characteristics, context, the alignment of the East of Lutterworth SDA with the Local Plan, the benefits of the scheme and a concept masterplan.

The key points from this are summarised below:

Benefits

The delivery of the land to the East of Lutterworth offers many significant benefits, much of which is described in the Policy L1 and the supporting text. In accordance with the plan East of Lutterworth will provide approximately 2750 market and affordable homes and 23 hectares of employment land. In addition range of community facilities are proposed to service the development and the wider area, including primary schools, neighbourhood centre, parks and open spaces and enhanced green infrastructure.

The allocation will also facilitate the provision of a spine road to both serve the development and divert traffic from Lutterworth town centre, which suffers from pollution and congestion and is consequently zoned as an Air Quality Management Area. This will assist substantially in the Council's statutory obligations to undertake measures to reduce harmful particulates. The reduction in traffic will improve the shopping environment in the town centre and provide opportunities to strengthen the retail economy.

Further, significant investment in highway and transport infrastructure will compliment other investment programmes within this corridor.

Mitigating Impacts

Currently, East of Lutterworth is predominantly agricultural fields; however the site does contain some key assets. These include Misterton Marshes, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which will be protected and enhanced in accordance with national and local planning policies. The Consortium has undertaken technical ecological work in consultation with Natural England and the Environment Agency to agree an appropriate strategy to protect the SSSI, and the first iteration of the Feasibility Study in relation to this is on the Council's Evidence Base webpage. Submitted with these representations is the latest iteration of the Feasibility Study (October 2016), along with correspondence from Natural England confirming that the mitigation scheme is feasible, subject to securing appropriate conditions or obligations at the detailed planning application stage. Elsewhere, the proposed green infrastructure network will be developed to include enhancements to other significant features such as the River Swift and Thornborough Spinney.

Other potential impacts include traffic and transport, which will be mitigated by a network of vehicular and non vehicular routes, and connections to Lutterworth town centre provided to ensure suitable and sustainable access. To this end, the Consortium have engaged extensively with the Local Highways Authority and Highways England in respect of both access and necessary offsite highway works, taking account of predicted traffic forecasts and junction capacity assessments, which can be found in the Draft Strategic Transport Assessment for East Lutterworth (STA) on the Council's evidence base webpage. Consequently a strategy of required highway works and broad timings has already been agreed. The STA Executive Summary and associated appendices submitted with these representations provides the latest update in this respect.

Infrastructure Requirements & Costs

Given the scale of the development, there are significant infrastructure requirements. Policy L1 sets out the key infrastructure required for development with specific triggers. The Consortium supports the identified infrastructure requirements and the Council's estimated costs for their delivery.

The costs for infrastructure provision for the site will principally be met through secured and future capital receipts yielded from the development of the allocation. Other sources of funding will be sought where appropriate and necessary including the Housing Infrastructure Fund, or other sources which may assist with cash flow and/or pump prime the development. However, the Consortium does not consider the other sources of funding essential to deliver the Strategic Development Area.

Addressing key physical constraints

Key physical constraints principally relate to creating access to the site, offsite highways works, and an additional access across the M1 in a later phase of development at the northern end of the allocation.

The first principal accesses will be created at the southern end of the SDA from the A4304, which will enable the development of the employment land to the south and the initial phase of residential development to the north. In addition to this, offsite highway works will address highway capacity at key junctions including the J20 of the M1 and the Frank Whittle roundabout.

From the southern access, the spine road will be phased before linking via a new bridge over the M1 to the A426 to the north of Lutterworth town centre in a later phase of the plan period. It is appropriate that as well as the allocation to the east of the M1, the Council have additional safeguarded land in this area to allow for flexibility in the siting and design of the motorway bridge and access to the A426 to the west. The Consortium will support the Council in the use of its Compulsory Purchase Powers to ensure the certainty of delivery of this link and the proper planning of the area.

Realistically viable and deliverable

The Consortium considers East of Lutterworth to be viable and deliverable. The Consortium is willing to bring forward the land in their control for development and consider that the allocation as proposed will generate a meaningful return. More specifically, Leicestershire County Council has formally resolved to promote this land for development as detailed in the minutes of the Cabinet Meeting held on 9th May 2016 attached to this representation.
The Council's housing trajectory at Appendix G of the Local Plan is considered a reasonable assumption of the delivery for the East of Lutterworth SDA. The Consortium can confirm that early work has started on the preparation of an outline planning application for the entire site. An indicative timetable for this process is attached to this representation. The timetable takes a cautious approach and allows extensive time for the preparation of a collaborative masterplan, environmental impact assessment, determination of the application and agreement of funding obligations.

On this basis, first completions starting in 2022/23 can be expected, with outlets and completions rising through the plan period as parcels of land are opened up for development. The Consortium is committed to seeking opportunities and working with partners to bring forward infrastructure, particularly the spine road, as early as possible in order to accelerate delivery of homes and jobs. Given experience elsewhere and demand within the housing and employment market area, the trajectory is considered achievable.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5889

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: LANDOWNWER CONSORTIUM FOR EAST OF LUTTERWORTH SDA

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Whilst the Consortium considers that the triggers for delivery of infrastructure as specified in the policy should be capable of being met, it is felt that they are not necessary in the policy itself.

National policy states that in bringing forward land, Local Plans should provide detail on form, scale access and quantum (bp 5, paragraph 157 of NPPF), but it does not require infrastructure trigger points to be specified. Furthermore, national policy states that the Local Plan should only include policies that provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react (paragraph 154).

Full text:

Triggers (various)

Whilst the Consortium considers that the triggers for delivery of infrastructure as specified in the policy should be capable of being met, it is felt that they are not necessary in the policy itself.

National policy states that in bringing forward land, Local Plans should provide detail on form, scale access and quantum (see bullet point 5 of paragraph 157 of the Framework), but it does not require infrastructure trigger points to be specified. Furthermore, national policy states that the Local Plan should only include policies that provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react (paragraph 154).

The crystallisation of trigger points for key infrastructure would normally be developed and agreed during the master planning and planning application processes, where phasing, need, viability and other considerations can be considered in much greater detail. In the absence of this work being undertaken, the suggested trigger points may well need to change. Whilst the wording of each trigger is caveated to allow flexibility in their interpretation, their inclusion is not necessary and may create uncertainty for decision makers in how to respond to planning applications in due course.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5920

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Ms Josephine Muldowney

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Lutterworth already has high levels of pollution and resultant health problems as identified in your own assessment. Traffic congestion and shortage of parking is already a problem in Lutterworth. Building right next to a major motoway will not only affect the health and air quality for the new residents, but also, with the huge increase in car usage and traffic from this development cause further deterioration in air quality and traffic congestion. The siting of this development also involves the extra cost and upheaval of building another bridge over a major motorway.

Full text:

Lutterworth already has high levels of pollution and resultant health problems as identified in your own assessment. Traffic congestion and shortage of parking is already a problem in Lutterworth. Building right next to a major motoway will not only affect the health and air quality for the new residents, but also, with the huge increase in car usage and traffic from this development cause further deterioration in air quality and traffic congestion. The siting of this development also involves the extra cost and upheaval of building another bridge over a major motorway.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6078

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Brian Poulter

Representation Summary:

This acceptable in line with government regulations

Full text:

This acceptable in line with government regulations

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6610

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Brian Burgoine

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

To the best of my knowledge there has been no representation or opinions asked of any of the local residents in Lutterworth town, so cannot have been positively prepared, justified or effective. , Lutterworth town centre is in desperate need of a North-South Bypass with noise traffic, HGV's and pollution currently running at a national record high. Developer funded bypass must be done first. Can't allow small developers to come in and pick off sites without having to put any infrastructure in place. They must contribute proportionately to bypass as well as improved shopping, schooling and medical services.

Full text:

To the best of my knowledge there has been no representation or opinions asked of any of the local residents in Lutterworth town, so cannot have been positively prepared, justified or effective. As to its consistency with National Policy, I must wait for HDC to provide me with further guidance.
With reference to Misterton East Development Plan (L1) for at least 15,000 houses, Lutterworth town center is in desperate need of a North-South Bypass with noise traffic, HGV's and pollution currently running at a national record high. So in order to achieve this bypass we urgently need to raise a significant loan to start to build the bypass through the proposed development area to meet up with the A4304 at Misterton, east of the M1 island at Junction 20.
THIS MUST BE DONE FIRST.
There is absolutely no point in allowing small developers to come in and pick off sites, build up to 100 houses then pull out without having to put any infrastructure in place. As has already been happening in and around Lutterworth recently. Developers MUST be made to pay from the HUGE profits to be made from selling new houses, to create this new bypass. With so many new houses planned, money should also be made available to finance improved shopping, schooling and medical services, so a proportionate amount should also be taken from each developer in order to achieve this.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7128

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Bloor Home Ltd

Agent: Define

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy L1 is considered unsound on the basis that it:
- is not justified in that it is has not fully acknowledged the practical constraints to development within the SDA;
- is not effective in that the SDA will not deliver the scale of development the Submission Plan currently assumes, and the identified needs will not therefore, be met; and
- is inconsistent with national policy in that it does not fully reflect the Government's priorities and policies in terms of enabling sustainable development and boosting the supply of housing to meet identified needs.

Full text:

Bloor Homes do not object to the principle of the allocation of the Lutterworth East SDA. However, they do have serious concerns in relation to its deliverability within the plan period that are not addressed in either the Submission Plan or the supporting evidence base. As a consequence the proposed allocation and the Submission Plan that relies on its delivery to ensure that the identified housing needs for the District are met in accordance with the NPPF is currently unsound.

Most notably, the site promoters have requested that the District Council exercise their compulsory purchase powers in order to deliver the highway crossing over the M1 and associated link road required to serve the development and ensure that there is not an unacceptable severe impact on the local and strategic highway network. However, as yet the Council has not confirmed their commitment in that regard. In any event, this is an extremely lengthy process and there is clearly no certainty in relation to the final outcome. Moreover, the evidence base demonstrates that the viability of the scheme relies on the delivery of further development beyond the plan period.

The evidence base also refers to major environmental issues, including ecological and heritage constraints, which will need to be appropriately addressed through the allocation and application processes. It is also clear that the development will have significant highway impacts and there is no evidence at this stage that they can actually be appropriately addressed (refer to PBA report paras 19.2.3 and 22.3.5).

Moreover, it is apparent that the Local Plan Housing Trajectory incorporates entirely unrealistic assumptions in terms of both the timing and rate of delivery at the SDA. That indicates that the Council anticipate the first completions being delivered in the period 2022/23, i.e. within 51/2 years.

Bloor Homes' objection in relation to Policy H1 clearly demonstrates why that will not be achieved, and that a more realistic assumption of delivery from 2025/26 should be assumed. Even then there is a significant risk that the resolution of the site specific environmental constraints, infrastructure provision and landownership issues highlighted above will further delay delivery. Thereafter a robust view on the rate of delivery also needs to be taken. The assumed rate of delivery (rising to around 240dpa for a sustained period) is extremely ambitious, and no evidence has been presented that demonstrates that it is actually achievable in this location.

Clearly the recalibration of the housing trajectory will have a significant impact on the housing land supply position in the District and its ability to meet the identified housing need. That will need to be addressed through the allocation of additional development sites before the Local Plan can be found sound.

Soundness
For the reasons set out above, Bloor Homes object to Policy L1, which is considered unsound on the basis that it:
- is not justified in that it is has not fully acknowledged the practical constraints to development within the SDA;
- is not effective in that the SDA will not deliver the scale of development the Submission Plan currently assumes, and the identified needs will not therefore, be met; and
- is inconsistent with national policy in that it does not fully reflect the Government's priorities and policies in terms of enabling sustainable development and boosting the supply of housing to meet identified needs.

Proposed Change
To remedy the flaws in the soundness of the plan:
- The housing trajectory should reflect a realistic timescale for the delivery of the Lutterworth SDA.
- The Local Plan Plan should then identify sufficient deliverable and developable supply of housing land to meet the identified housing need in sustainable locations in the District, notably at the PUA.
- That should include the allocation of the land off Uppingham Road, Bushby.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7263

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Leciestershire County Council

Representation Summary:

East of Lutterworth SDA is strongly supported for the following reasons:
- situated in the M1 corridor within one of the priority areas for economic growth in the Strategic Economic Plan
- it is seen to meet best the criteria set out in Key Issues section of the plan and compliments the further development of Magna Park.
- it is confirmed that the site, is available (being owned by a consortium of willing landowners) deliverable and capable of supporting a viable development.

Full text:

APPENDIX
HARBOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 2011 TO 2031 PROPOSED SUBMISSION
LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RESPONSE

Transport

1. Leicestershire County Council, in its role as Local Highway Authority (LHA), has been working closely with Harborough District Council as part of the Local Plan making process. As such, the LHA is content that the draft submission document is appropriately evidenced and also appropriately deals with transportation considerations at this stage in the planning process.

2. Subject to Harborough District Council's continued commitment to the policies and delivery approaches set out within the document, the LHA supports the submission of the Local Plan and looks forward to working with Harborough District Council in its delivery.

Education

3. Policies F1, MH2 and MH3 include no reference to securing suitable contributions for educational facilities. It may be that the intention is that these are covered by Policy IN1 - Infrastructure Provision, however whilst this policy refers to the Leicestershire Planning Obligations Policy (LPOP), it only does so in terms of waste, it does not refer to education.

4. Policies L1 and SC1 refer to delivery of Primary Schools 'soon after 300 dwellings'. The County Council would normally, and has with Harborough District Council, requested that the intended provision be available for opening in the September prior to the occupation of 300 dwellings.

Ecology

5. It is acknowledged that the de-declaration of the Scraptoft Local Nature Reserve is also currently being consulted on, and that its de-declaration would enable land to come forward for development as part of the Scraptoft North Strategic Development Area (SDA). The County ecologist has and continues to be actively involved, working through an approach which ensures the retention and management of areas of ecological value whilst enabling the release of some land for future development. This may involve the designation of a Local Wildlife Site.

Waste Management

6. The Local Plan needs to recognise that Waste Management considers proposed developments on a case-by-case basis and, when it is identified that a proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the local civic amenity infrastructure, appropriate projects to increase the capacity to offset the impact have to be initiated. Contributions to fund these projects are requested in accordance with Leicestershire's Planning Obligations Policy and the Community Infrastructure Legislation Regulations.

Economic Growth

7. The County Council supports the new employment land allocated in association with the Lutterworth SDA and recognises a similar approach is not necessarily appropriate with the Scraptoft North SDA with opportunities to access existing B use employment sites and proximity and ease of access to the City for employment.

8. The proposed portfolio of B use employment land in the Local Plan, which will provide the opportunity to deliver a range of jobs and economic prosperity in the District and wider area, is supported.

9. The County Council supports the approach taken to strategic storage and distribution (strategic B8 use) at Magna Park in the Local Plan, which has been informed by recent evidence commissioned by Harborough District Council. In particular, it supports additional strategic distribution proposals at Magna Park needing to meet the six criteria set out within the second part of Policy BE2, which sets a limit of 700,000 square metres for non-rail-served strategic B8 use in the Plan period.

10. The emphasis on the vitality and viability of the town centres is supported, and the regeneration emphasis on Lutterworth town centre although it is considered there is scope to strengthen this further, beyond the focus on vacant units absorbing identified need in Lutterworth town centre.

Strategic Assets

11. Comments from Strategic Assets are made in relation to the County Council's role as landowner. Its main interests in Harborough District are:

* land at Misterton County Farms Estate which forms part of the East of Lutterworth SDA (for which a separate detailed collaborative response will be submitted on behalf of the landowner consortium), and;
* potential smaller scale sites within Market Harborough, Lutterworth and rural settlements throughout the District.

12. Query whether the settlement hierarchy requires further consideration, to enable settlements which are better serviced than others in the same tier of the hierarchy to be more clearly distinguished and potentially receive more development.

13. In general terms the distribution of housing across the settlement hierarchy is supported; however, considers that there needs to be more clarity regarding the future housing needs of key settlements and seeks more flexibility for future housing numbers for smaller settlements.

14. The allocation of the East of Lutterworth SDA as a preferred strategic housing allocation is, in particular, strongly supported. The Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) supported by the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) should therefore inform and provide strategic guidance to the development of later SPDs and Neighbourhood Plans. In considering the distribution of housing in the lower tiers of the hierarchy the Plan needs to demonstrate that those key centres and rural centres with neighbourhood plans will deliver housing numbers based on the current OAN rather than those contained within existing plans which were based on an earlier, much lower, OAN. Without this clarity the methodology could be open to criticism.

15. The integration of the social element of housing for older people and specific groups should be incorporated within the quantum and mix of affordable housing in order to mitigate any negative effect on site viability.

16. The County Council requests that planning consents at Airfield Business Park, Market Harborough (BE1.1a (ii)) and the land south of Lutterworth / Coventry Road, Lutterworth (BE1.1b (ii)) should be shown as existing commitments. Further, the consented site at Gaulby Road, Billesdon (a former highways depot), should also be shown as a commitment.

17. Whilst recognising the desire to concentrate strategic distribution at Magna Park, the proposal in Policy BE2.2 to allocate sites capable of delivering units of at least 9,000 sqm is seen as logical, as is the desire to stimulate economic growth by delivering sites that meet regional and sub-regional demand.

18. Policy BE3 on existing employment areas is supported; BE3.1 being seen as of particular relevance in ensuring that development meets the needs/demands of the wider sub-regional market in addition to local businesses in order to attract inward investment.


19. The allocation of both convenience and comparison retail floor space within the Lutterworth East SDA in Policy RT1 is supported, as is the additional provision within Lutterworth town centre which will complement the development of the new local centre and maintain a balance across the expanded community.

20. Policy L1- East of Lutterworth SDA is strongly supported. Being situated in the M1 corridor within one of the priority areas for economic growth in the Strategic Economic Plan it is clear that Lutterworth should be the focus of major strategic development within the District. The East of Lutterworth SDA is seen to meet best the criteria set out in Key Issues section of the plan and compliments the further development of Magna Park. Further, it is confirmed that the site, which is recognised as the most sustainable location for major development within the district, is available, being owned by a consortium of willing landowners, deliverable and capable of supporting a viable development.

21. Policy L2 - Land south of Lutterworth Road/Coventry Road. Outline planning consent has been granted and accordingly it should be regarded as an existing commitment for the purposes of the Local Plan.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7277

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Miss A Tiktin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This Plan is neither legally compliant nor sound, claims being made about what the current situation is to claim this is sustainable are fundamentally untrue. The Plan as is, will endanger the lives of local residents.

Full text:

This proposal fails to be legally compliant; due to the legal requirements to fulfill the sustainability appraisal. Social and environmental aspects are being systematically ignored; risking lives of local residents.
The Plan is unsound as it is not positively prepared (see notes re: present and future infrastructure have not been met and/or addressed in the proposal), not effective (there is no joint working, let alone effective, as the issues raised by the Parish/Town Council are ignored by Harborough District and County Council regularly), or consistent with national policy (see note about unsustainable development).
This proposal is for 2750 of the 4660 houses in the entire plan be at Lutterworth (in addition to an increase 1000 people in the last ten years and current and already agreed building projects.
This in conjunction with the reduction to public services/infrastructure already (i.e. closure of Police Station, closure of hospital, worsening public transport meaning it is useless for commuting or getting access to hospitals elsewhere, the lack of improvement to local roads, refusal to take action concerning dangerous road junctions) means it does not meet the requirements stated above to make the proposal legal or sound. All issues not addressed in the proposal. Please see paper marked A

A -
Examples of dangerous junctions are Leicester Road/Frank Whittle Way, which Harborough District have just made a 4 way junction with no traffic control measures.

Also the roundabout between Brookfield Way and the "Bypass" that does not have a clear line of sight to the right making this incredibly dangerous. Another issue both Harborough and the County Council have refused to address.

These issues demonstrate a lack of ability to create sustainable development; and will be made significantly worse by a dramatic increase in the population.

Whilst in the "Plan" mention is made of some community facilities, these don't include secondary schools, supermarkets, churches, restaurants etc. Lutterworth will be used for these adding traffic to already dangerous roads and pollution levels (Lutterworth already has some of the worst pollution levels in the Country for a settlement our size!)

If this Plan as flamed as it is, is passed it will result in deaths of local residents.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7318

Received: 23/10/2017

Respondent: Highways England

Representation Summary:

Due to its proximity to M1 J20, we consider that there would be significant impacts upon the operation of the junction. Initial traffic model sensitivity tests indicate that M1 J20 would reach capacity before the site (to the scale up to the end of the plan period) is built out.

HE is aware of a scheme which includes signalisation at M1 J20, A4303/A426 Frank Whittle signalised cross­ roads and proposed signalised site accesses on the A4304. We consider that these improvements are likely to be suitable, but the interaction of M1 J20 with the adjacent junctions will need to be closely monitored and carefully designed. A risk that if not suitably coordinated then potential blocking issues at the exit arms could impact the operation of M1 J20.
HE keen to maintain close engagement with LCC and HDC in the development of this scheme.

Full text:

CONSULTATION ON THE PROPOSED SUBMISSION HARBOROUGH LOCAL PLAN 2011-2031

Highways England welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposed submission version of the Harborough Local Plan which covers the period 2011-2031 and has been produced for public consultation.

Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). It is our role to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the SRN whilst acting as a delivery partner to national economic growth. In respect of the Harborough Local Plan our principal interest is safeguarding the operation of the M1 which routes through the west of the district, a small section of the A14 which routes through the south-west corner and the A5 which borders the boundary of Plan area to the west.

We understand that a total of 4,660 dwellings have been allocated to be delivered across Harborough over the Local Plan period up to 2031. Of this allocation it is noted that 1,500 dwellings have been allocated to the Lutterworth SDA and 1,140 dwellings to Market Harborough over two sites. Due to the proximity of the Lutterworth SDA to M1 J20, we consider that there would be significant impacts upon the operation of the junction. Indeed, initial traffic model sensitivity tests indicate that M1 J20 would reach capacity before the site (to the scale up to the end of the plan period) is built out.

Highways England is aware of a scheme that has been put forward by the Council which includes signalisation at M1 J20, A4303/A426 Frank Whittle signalised cross­ roads and proposed signalised site accesses on the A4304. We consider that the proposed highway improvements are likely to be suitable, but the interaction with the motorway junction and the adjacent junctions will need to be closely monitored and carefully designed. There is a risk that if the junctions are not suitably coordinated then there could be potential blocking issues at the exit arms could impact the operation of M1 J20.




Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ
Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363


r"\ INVESTORS J---IN PEOPLE


We are keen to maintain close engagement with Leicestershire County Council and Harborough District Council in the development of this scheme.

We have no further comments to provide but will continue to engage with Harborough District Council as both the Local Plan and Lutterworth SDA plans progress.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7393

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The allocation would have a negative impact on the setting and be harmful to the overall significance the grade II* Church of St Leonard at Misterton and the Grade 1 Listed Church of St. Mary, Lutterworth and that which non-designated heritage assets derive from their setting. As such, Historic England object to this allocation on the grounds of soundness.

Full text:

The proposed development would be built to the north, west and south of the settlement of Misterton. The site is located between the grade II* Church of St Leonard at Misterton and grade 1 Listed Church of St. Mary, Lutterworth and close to a number of non-designated heritage assets. The non-designated heritage assets include a double moat north of the GII* church which forms part of a deserted medieval village. Misterton Hall lies on the site of the former medieval manor house and to the south east is the scheduled monument 'Bowl barrow at Misterton' (1008541).

The church towers are the most prominent features on the skyline and were intended to be, reflecting their importance and status. The church towers have acted as landmarks for hundreds of years and would have helped guide people through the landscape. There is an important intervisibility between the two churches and the division of the separate settlements and their parish churches is enhanced by the open fields that divide them. Extending the settlement of Misterton to the north, west and south would eliminate the open views of the fields and blur the division of the settlements, which in turn would erode the understanding of the landscape and settlement division as well as the rural character. This would have a negative impact on their setting and be harmful to the overall significance the churches and non-designated heritage assets derive from their setting, contrary to the NPPF. As such, Historic England object to this allocation on the grounds of soundness.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7475

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Bailey

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The A4303, A426, and the A5 are already very congested as they connect with main routes from and to the M6 (especially to and from the North). The development of Magna Park and DIRFT (together with the latter's new town development) will further increase the strain on these routes. In my opinion, the developments planned should not go-ahead without the infrastructural problems of the A426, A4303 and A5 being solved.

Full text:

My major concern relates to incremental traffic flows and movements relating to the industrial and residential developments in the south and west of Lutterworth.

Your reference to the 'Golden Triangle' raises significant issues on the pre and post development road infrastructure surrounding Lutterworth. Notwithstanding the intent to build an eastern by pass around Lutterworth which will support both heavy inter-regional traffic flows on a north-south trajectory of the town but also encompass residential developments and related traffic flows in the area, It is my firm belief that there are critical infrastructural faults with existing routes (A4303, A426, and the A5). These routes are already very congested as they connect with main routes from and to the M6 (especially to and from the North). The development of Magna Park and DIRFT (together with the latter's new town devleopment) will further increase the strain on A4303, A426 and A5 which in their present state are not fit for purpose.
The loss of access to M6 north is an important traffic generator within this 'Bermuda Triangle' with regional and local industrial traffic now forces much more flows on to the A426 and A5 with poorly developed connections to M6. Before the new A14/M6/M1 junction at Catthorpe was completed, there was an alternative direct link from the M1 South to M6 North - this was severed in 2015. The infrastructure is poor and mainly single carriageway between DIRFT, Magna Park and
the M69 creating further problems.

A related point is that these key roads (A426, A4303, A5) are in the front line when there are problems on the M1 and M6 in the area (M1 junction 19-20, A14-M6 junction 1-2) which again has major negative effects on traffic around Lutterworth.

In my opinion, the developments planned should not go-ahead without the infrastructural problems of the A426, A4303 and A5 being solved.

I have been a resident in the area since 1982 and have seen at first hand the infrastructural effects of developments in the area.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7619

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Policy L1 relating to East of Lutterworth Strategic Development Area is unsound so far as it will fail to deliver the predicted number of homes during the plan period, which is likely to result in a shortfall against the plan requirement of circa 600 homes (Enclosure 4);

Full text:

Policy L1 proposes the allocation of land east of Lutterworth as an SDA to deliver a total of 2,750 dwellings of which 1,500 are planned to come forward during the plan period, with the remainder to meet requirements after 2031. In addition to these homes, Section 15 of the Local Plan identifies that Lutterworth has already seen growth of over 260 dwellings since 2011 and that there are around 500 committed dwellings that are not part of the SDA.
Effectiveness
In order to be considered effective, NPPF Paragraph 182 states Local Plans should be deliverable over the plan period.
The current Local Plan consultation was delayed by over 6 months from late 2016 in order to allow for what were described as 'outstanding remaining spatial issues' linked to the proposed SDA to the east of Lutterworth to be resolved, including concerns regarding: the scale of infrastructure investment, impact on a nearby SSSI, traffic impact, landowner cooperation and the potential need to use compulsory purchase powers and assumptions on delivery. During this 6 month delay, the Council undertook further work that was made available to members ahead of an Executive Meeting on 15th May 2017, but not to the general public. This information included further details provided by SDA promoters, conclusions reached on the potential use of compulsory purchase powers and a risk assessment of the SDA which presumably deals with key aspects that could affect its delivery.
Without seeing the additional assessments made available to members, it is far from clear whether the significant issues regarding the delivery of the Lutterworth SDA (i.e. due to the scale of infrastructure investment, lack of landowner cooperation and the potential need to use compulsory purchase powers) have been satisfactorily resolved. This is an important point that will need to be the subject of detailed examination by the appointed inspector. It is beyond the scope of these representations to conduct a detailed assessment of whether the scale of infrastructure and land assembly needed would significantly constrain the delivery of the Lutterworth SDA, but it is clear that there are unanswered questions here and we wish to raise significant concerns regarding the effectiveness and therefore the soundness of the Proposed Submission Local Plan in delivering its planned quantum of development.
To illustrate this point, we refer to industry standard delivery rates as a guide to how many homes are likely to be delivered during the plan period at this SDA. A report last year from Lichfields (http://lichfields.uk/media/1728/start-to-finish.pdf) identifies that the average planning approval period for schemes of 2,000+ dwellings is 6.1 years with an additional 0.8 years from approval to first delivery (i.e. 6.9 years total) and that following the grant of planning permission the average annual build out rate is 161 dwellings per year.
A planning application has yet to be submitted for the Lutterworth SDA and it is clear from the issues surrounding infrastructure provision and compulsory purchase that it could be some time before an application is ready to be submitted. On this basis, we consider the very earliest date that a planning application is likely to be submitted for the site would be the planned date of adoption for the Local Plan in October 2018. If an application were submitted in October 2018, the industry average approval time for a scheme of 2,000+ dwellings of 6.9 years would mean development would not get underway until Autumn 2025. This would leave two thirds of 2025/26 for development and 5 subsequent years in which to deliver an average of 161 dwellings per year until the end of the plan period. As detailed in the table below, this would see Lutterworth East deliver approximately 900 dwellings during the plan period rather than the predicted 1,500.

18/19-App, 19/20-App, 20/21-App, 21/22-App, 22/23-App, 23/24-App, 24/25-App, 25/26-107, 26/27-161, 27/28-161, 28/29-161, 29/30-161, 30/31-161 Total:912

This policy is therefore unsound as it is ineffective. It will fail to deliver the predicted number of homes during the plan period, leaving a shortfall in delivery of circa 600 homes.