Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5837

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Parish Council is concerned that land proposed for development lies within the floodplain of the River Swift, an area frequently subject to flooding. Consequently, poorly designed development may impede the flow of the stream, causing problems within our parish.

Object

Representation ID: 5838

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

In addition, we urge careful consideration be given to the siting of development in relation to St Leonard's Church Misterton, a grade 2* building.

Object

Representation ID: 5839

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Misterton with Walcote Council is concerned that the Plan has no overall strategic view of transport issues throughout the District, including the intergration of traffic generated by different policies. We are concerned that the cumulative effect of these allocations may have unforeseen consequences for the road network which have not been addressed.

Object

Representation ID: 6501

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to allocation because;
- plan has not demonstrated a need for this development (ref. Para 15.2.11)
- it opens up further land to the south of A4303 to development pressure, as no natural or landscape barrier with surrounding countryside
- it's not been tested through consultation, differs from Options stage proposal
-includes grade 2 agricultural land, so contrary to selection criteria and policy GI5.3
-access likely to cause excess traffic congestion (4 traffic light controlled junctions within 0.73miles between site and A426) in combination with extra traffic generated by policies L1, BE2, BE4 and displaced from Lutterworth town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 6503

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to allocation because;
- plan has not demonstrated a need for this development (ref. Para 15.2.11)
- it opens up further land to the south of A4303 to development pressure, as no natural or landscape barrier with surrounding countryside
- it's not been tested through consultation, differs from Options stage proposal
-includes grade 2 agricultural land, so contrary to selection criteria and policy GI5.3
-access likely to cause excess traffic congestion (4 traffic light controlled junctions within 0.73miles between site and A426) in combination with extra traffic generated by policies L1, BE2, BE4 and displaced from Lutterworth town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 6513

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to policy / this allocation because;
- proposal differs from that at Options stage and has not been tested via consultation
- contrary to Key Objective 3
- its excessive and plan provides no evidence of need for this scale of development
- it will not create new jobs to meet local needs, contrary to Key Objective 2 and policy BE2 clause 2.c
- insufficient labour so commuting will increase substantially
- congestion is inevitable, in combination with policy L1 and intensification of use via policy BE4.1.f, particularly at M1 Junction 20 contrary to BE2.2.e

Object

Representation ID: 6514

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Even if the workforce is hired in accordance with BE2.2.d there will still be substantial in commuting. We question HDC's ability to ensure compliance with this criteria or take action if breached.

Object

Representation ID: 6515

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Concerned that congestion is inevitable, contrary to this criteria, in combination with policy L1 and intensification of use in policy BE4.1.f particularly around Junction 20 on the M1.

Object

Representation ID: 6517

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Parish Council appreciates the advantages of allocating substantial parcels of land for housing, but has concerns about certain aspects of the allocation;
*Whilst the size of the allocation to 2031 is now reduced to 1500 dwellings, the ultimate size of the development to 2036 remains 2750, 750 more than was in the original consultation document.

Object

Representation ID: 6518

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: MISTERTON WITH WALCOTE Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

* spine road not in place until site substantially developed, contrary to policy IN1.1
* delayed provision of the spine road will have an adverse impact on Lutterworth AQMA (contrary to Key Issue 8, policy IN2.g)
*main road described as a spine road not Lutterworth Eastern by-pass, the provision of which was the basis of previous support for the development.
*design standard of spine road likely to discourage use and is lower than previously detailed.
*only 'some relief to through traffic within Lutterworth town centre'
*concern Para 15.2.16 might further delay or down grade quality of the spine road.