Harborough Local Plan Sustainability Appraisal (SA)

Comment

Representation ID: 5632

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: mr Leo Collins

I regard the proposal to build 1200 houses at Scraptoft North as unsustainable for the following reasons:-
a) The roads in and out of Scraptoft are aleady congested particularly Hamilton Lane and Station Lane. It is suggested that Keyham Lane be used as a major route for the development. This road has two schools with 20mph restrictions and speed humps newly installed and traffic already backs up beyond Tesco roundabout at busy times. The village one way system is unable to cope with extra traffic.
b) Infant and secondary schools already at full capacity as are doctor surgeries.

Comment

Representation ID: 5902

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: LANDOWNWER CONSORTIUM FOR EAST OF LUTTERWORTH SDA

Agent: Marrons Planning

The Sustainability Appraisal accompanying the Local Plan examines the effects of the proposed strategy, policies and allocations and alternatives. This process emphasises the importance and necessity of looking in the round to assist the Council in coming to a reasoned and balanced judgement on the most appropriate strategy and allocations, which examines amongst other things the sustainability effects of the chosen pattern of growth in relation to the settlement hierarchy and the likelihood of reducing the need to travel and thus have a lesser impact on resources.

Comment

Representation ID: 6099

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Ivan Crane

Agent: Sworders

The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) fails to appraise all reasonable alternatives. On a settlement level, the SA does not test any level of development at all at Broughton Astley. Of the 9 different distribution options and combinations of options considered, none of these included any development at all at Broughton Astley.
On a site level, site A/BA/HSG/08 Land adjacent to land south of Crowfoot Way has not been appraised.
As such, the reasonable alternatives have not been considered, nor is the evidence proportionate.

Comment

Representation ID: 7628

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Tarmac Trading Ltd

Agent: Heaton Planning

The SA specific assessment of site E/009OC/16 contains a number of inconsistencies / inaccuracies which result in the site being under-scored, and not favoured for allocation compared to other sites.

Inconsistencies and inaccuracies are identified in respect of SA site appraisal criteria; NE2 'Potential for Impact on Wildlife', NE9 'Agricultural Land', BH2 'Impact on Setting of Built Environment', BH3 'Landscape Capacity to Change', I6 'Access to Highways'. Further details are provided in the full text.

The SA methodology is flawed, and the selection of sites for employment allocation based upon it are not sound.