MH3 Clause 1

The site adjoins a 400 housing development served by Alvington Way. The boundaries were carefully considered when the estate was approved. Development of the Farm will represent an intrusion in to the countryside setting of the estate, be detrimental to amenities of residents and views from the north, and detract from gap with Gt Bowden.
The estate and its roads were not designed to take extra traffic. There are no local facilities so the development will create extra traffic moving to and from those facilities. Walking, cycling and public transport not an alternative. Detrimental to residents.

SEE OUR RESPONSE TO H1

As a resident of 18 years and after purchasing a house that overlooked green belt when it was bought, and at the time when greenbelt was protected; I am somewhat dumbfounded to have this now being taken away for housing. The impact the increased traffic will have on a quiet back road will be considerable. I have major concerns about flooding on this site. We have all had historic problems with flooding since living here and the removal of these fields can only make drainage issues even more relevant.

I live on Bates Close that is immediately next to the proposed development and I am very concerned about;
a) the scale of development in an area of natural beauty
b) increased vehicular use of Bates Close/Kingston way resulting in noise, danger to children and diesel exhaust pollution, now known to be a significant risk to human health,
c) the visual impact of the new housing on what is presently farmland,
d) damage to the natural habitat of rare species

I have lived here for nearly 20 years and specifically bought in this location to be next to the countryside

This development will limit opportunities for the residents of the existing dwellings to gain reasonable access to their own properties. As the increased traffic will have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of residents, by reason of (among other factors) significantly increased traffic associated noise*, disturbance* as well as overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc of properties along the border between the existing and new development at MH3

The Layout and Site at MH3, both in itself and relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views, is inappropriate and unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the local environment. The site is located in a predominantly residential area where residents could reasonably expect a level of amenity concurrent with their property. The new development at MH3 is likely to result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbour's residential amenity due to the fact that the only entrance and egress is via Kingston way..

We consider that 90 dwellings is too many due to the significant impact of the new local traffic using the only access point off Kingston way. This is a winding multi junction road already needing vicious traffic calming measures.
Whatever the final agreed number of dwellings is this needs to be adhered to by the developers unlike the figure of over 100 dwellings in the current proposals by David Wilson Homes.

The proposed new road linking the north of the town to the west should be considered when approving any new development off any Alvington Way. It will increase traffic along Alvington Way making it a through road to the East of Market Harborough to avoid the town centre

The proposed development on this land is crazy due to:

> The access in to the development being from Bates Close, how can access to a development be permitted from a close. The increase in traffic in to a Close for 90 dwellings is not fit for purpose.

> The planned development is not in keeping with Burnmill Grange (Alvington Way) area.

> There are also environmental and ecological aspects that will be affected by this proposed development due to the diverse wildlife that have habitats on this land.

The planned dwellings are not in keeping with this area and will significantly impact the visual landscape of this area.

The location of the development means the objective of reducing car use will not be achieved. Amenities are not close with schools in particular not in practical walking distance. Car use will therefore be above average compared to other areas in the town closer to shops, schools etc.

Having seen the David Wilson plans it is clear that 90 houses being built on site would

The Burnmill Farm development will have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing residents of Kingston Way, Bates Close and Alvington Way. The large size of the proposed development will mean that traffic and pedestrian volumes will be significantly greater. This will introduce levels of noise, pollution, danger to children playing in these areas far in excess of those currently. It will also significant reduce the amount of privacy enjoyed by residents in this quiet residential area. These factors, In turn, lead to potentially significant negative impact on the mental and physical health of these residents

The Burnmill Farm development must be subject to full, and critically independent, transport, environmental, ecological, archaeological and flood risk assessments. There is evidence for example of protected species such as greater crested newts in this area. There is also recent archaeological survey activity. Failure to undertake these independent assessments would mean the approval of a development without thought for material considerations

Burnmill Farm has appeared on the Local Plan as a proposed development of up to 90 dwellings. However, it is not clear how and when Burnmill Farm was actually added to the Local Plan, Documents seen from Oct 2015 consultation identify 3 sites for development with reference that no other additional development in MH was planned. Burnmill Farm was not among these sites. Clarity is required here. A development being added to the Local Plan is a significant step for a developer and it would be helpful to see what level of consultation with residents was undertaken

Accessing the development from Alvington Way and in particular Bates Close and Kingston Way will be inadequate for the new development of 90 homes, this together with the 70 existing homes what will total 160. The Kingston Way/Bates Close junction will not be adequate for potentially 2 cars for most households.

90 dwellings does not fit in with the existing housing development. The existing houses are not in a dense development and therefore the proposed 90 dwellings does not fit with the existing development as it is dense development. The existing development has bungalows towards the highest point of the development. There are no existing 2.5 storey houses.

I object to this site being developed. There are many other sites, in Market Harborough, that have been given permission. The town centre and supermarket roads already get congested. This site has no additional facilities so development, of this site, will place further burden on the existing infrastructure and facilities.

The proposed development of Burnmill farm will impact on the living conditions of existing residents through loss of privacy; overshadowing, since the new site is higher that existing houses on Kingston Way; and overbearing impact from additional traffic both on Kingston Way and Alvington Way which will have significantly more traffic movements from the Airfield development as people use Alvington Way to avoid the town centre.

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.

Site Access not big enough
Drainage is of concern
Too many houses planned for road infrastructure
Mix of housing types.
Ecological impact. Insufficient evidence for comprehensive survey
Road Infrastructure Impact.
Area Impact.
Drainage capacity planning.
Sustainable drainage plugs into Victorian drainage system on Burnmill Road
Archaeological Impact.

The proposed allocation of the site is supported, as too are requirements a to h iii) of the Policy. However, for the reasons detailed in respect of Policy H1 (refer to representations to Policy H1), David Wilson Homes object to the identification of a maximum number of 90 dwellings.
It understood that the site capacity for the proposed allocation has been reduced as a result of advice received from the Highways Authority. There is however no evidence to support this position.
A planning application is currently being prepared for the development of the site for 144 dwellings. The Transport Assessment which has been prepared to support the application confirms that the site access is suitable and that the local highway network can accommodate the proposed development without the need for mitigation.
Any concerns of the Highways Authority have been fully addressed. The proposed development of Burnmill Farm is not impacted by capacity issues of Burnmill Road and therefore it is no longer appropriate for proposed Policy H1, and associated Policy MH3 to limit the number of dwellings that can be delivered on the site. It is therefore considered that Policy H1 and MH3 should be amended to reflect a site capacity of up to 144 dwellings.

This proposal does not reflect any consistency to existing housing types by way of density, designs and styles.
The only access for an addition 100 or more homes, each with an average of two cars from at estate road (Kingston Way), with almost 70 existing houses is considered totally unacceptable, unsafe and impracticable especially for all service and emergency vehicles.
Ecologically the proposal is on a valued wetland site surrounded by and including a woodland perimeter full of wildlife including bats, songbirds, badgers muntjacs, hedgehogs, indeed wildlife in abundance and with particular note to the pond and bog area which contain yellow crested newts, frogs etc.
It is obvious this development does not provide sufficient areas of separation and green wedge.
Local facilities for shopping amenities will be approximately 2km from the site. Schooling close by is already full to capacity with medical surgeries and community facilities likewise, making abnormal demands and difficulties for young families.
Affordable housing needs to be centred to more accessible/new facilities and recreational areas which are not provided in this proposal.
The current farm access is barely suited for purpose and we understand it is to be retained, this is not shown on the existing plans. Further in depth consideration must be given to the access for the site development vehicles as negotiating this farm access of Burnmill Road is very limited and inadequate. It is understood that site access for development is intending to use the farm track and one must assume that they are intending to use Alvington Way and Burnmill Road to negotiate this. Assuming therefore the alternative Alvington Way and more particularly Bates Close and Kingston Way access would have to be used. This abnormal and monumental intrusion is not considered to reflect any consideration given to those existing residents.
We hope our comments will help balance your proposal aimed at policies to protect and improve a quality of people's lives and approve your objectives for the environment. In addition any development of the site should be considered within the future plans for land off Leicester Road, West of Burnmill Farm where upon adequate road and service facilities suitable for this size of development could be implemented.

In conclusion we feel we must point out that the promise from David Wilson Homes to notify all residents within 1 km of the development of the Presentation Meeting was to be held on 24th October, sadly failed. As a result of no communication whatsoever to a very large proportion of local residents this has lead to a limited period of time for which to reflect and underwrite our points. This lead to a doubtful explanation of this oversight.