Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

It is the current Local Plan that requires Harborough District Council to remove or minimise HGVs from Lutterworth town centre, and for the provision of a Spine Road through the Lutterworth East development to alleviate pressure upon Lutterworth High Street.

These are Local Plan requirements upon the District Council, there is the legal mechanism for these requirements to be delivered, and we are asking that Harborough District Council enact that mechanism in order to comply with the promises made to the town of Lutterworth, and the commitments made within the Local Plan. We respectfully point out that these commitments were part of the package of measures that made the planning application acceptable to the Planning Committee (albeit by a majority of only 1), and it would be wrong to renege on them at this stage. Without the inclusion of these measures, it is entirely possible that the application would not have been granted permission.

Should Harborough District Council refuse to act in the above manner, Lutterworth Town Council advise all areas affected by the new Local Plan to be wary of commitments made to them under either the plan or subsequent planning applications, as clearly there is no guarantee that they will be honoured.

Lutterworth Town Council are particularly unhappy to note that the few remaining protections against the forthcoming Lutterworth East development (current Policy L1) have been excluded from the proposed Local Plan.

The current Local Plan provides two commitments that will assist in easing the heavy traffic on Leicester Road through the centre of the town:
1. A commitment to remove or minimise HGVs from Lutterworth Town Centre.
2. The provision of a Spine Road through the Lutterworth East development to alleviate pressure upon Lutterworth High Street.

The decision of the Planning Committee in 2020 to allow planning permission for the Lutterworth East development included full planning permission for the spine road. However, the routing of the spine road takes traffic through the centre of the new development, past new schools, playing fields and affordable housing. Lutterworth Town Council argued long and hard that the spine road should run adjacent to the M1 motorway, thus avoiding the housing and areas of social interaction, however all efforts, including those of consultees and even some officers of Harborough District and Leicestershire County Councils were ignored.

As a result, in order to comply with the two commitments above, traffic would have to be directed through the new development, very much to the detriment of the new home owners and the general ambiance and quality of the development.

At a meeting with Harborough Town Council in April 2025, Lutterworth Councillors were told that the only way to be able to comply with the commitments was to “work within the art of the possible”, and despite the fact that it was the actions of the HDC officers that brought us to this position, Lutterworth Town Councillors were asked to provide suggestions as to how compliance with the commitments could be achieved.

The Town Council point out that it is entirely possible to comply with the commitments, however it will require the District Council to utilise the available legal process to ensure that the commitments are upheld.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 97 paragraph 1 provides for the following:

(1) If it appears to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify

(a) any permission (including permission in principle) to develop land granted on an application made under this Part, or

(b) any permission in principle granted by a development order,

the authority may, by order, revoke or modify the permission to such extent as they consider expedient.

(2) In exercising their functions under subsection (1) the authority shall have regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations.

(3) The power conferred by this section may be exercised

(a) in the case of planning permission that relates to the carrying out of building or other operations, at any time before those operations have been completed

(b) in the case of planning permission that] relates to a change of the use of any land, at any time before the change has taken place.

It is therefore entirely possible to revoke the existing planning permission for the spine road and require alternative plans to be presented that route the spine road in a manner that allows for the two commitments to be achieved without creating harm to the residents and atmosphere of the Lutterworth East development.

The current planning permission does not allow for the delivery of Local Plan requirements without causing harm to the new development, therefore it must be considered “expedient” to take the action allowed for under the 1990 Act. Further, attention is drawn to the wording of sub-section 2 of paragraph 1, specifically

“In exercising their functions under subsection (1) the authority shall have regard to the development plan and to any other material considerations.”

It is the current Local Plan that requires Harborough District Council to remove or minimise HGVs from Lutterworth town centre, and for the provision of a Spine Road through the Lutterworth East development to alleviate pressure upon Lutterworth High Street.

These are Local Plan requirements upon the District Council, there is the legal mechanism for these requirements to be delivered, and we are asking that Harborough District Council enact that mechanism in order to comply with the promises made to the town of Lutterworth, and the commitments made within the Local Plan. We respectfully point out that these commitments were part of the package of measures that made the planning application acceptable to the Planning Committee (albeit by a majority of only 1), and it would be wrong to renege on them at this stage. Without the inclusion of these measures, it is entirely possible that the application would not have been granted permission.

Should Harborough District Council refuse to act in the above manner, Lutterworth Town Council advise all areas affected by the new Local Plan to be wary of commitments made to them under either the plan or subsequent planning applications, as clearly there is no guarantee that they will be honoured.

The plan clearly doesn't identify where or how this expansion could take place nor does it include the necessary infrastructure to support it, this includes car parking.

LTC note the proposal to increase retail floor space in the Town to 280 sqm by 2031, then to 570 sqm by 2036, and 960 sqm by 2041. Thus multiplying the increase in retail space 3.5 times between 2031 and 2041.

LTC observe that this doesn't identify where in the Town this expansion could take place, nor does it suggest a solution to the infrastructure necessary to support this. Car parking is at a premium in the town, with roads used as overspill, and this is before the influx of shoppers as a result of the Lutterworth East development.

LTC note that all B8 Warehousing is to be confined to Magna Park, and no other area will be impacted.

The routing of a spine road takes traffic through the centre of the new development, past new schools, playing fields and affordable housing. Lutterworth Town Council argued long and hard that the spine road should run adjacent to the M1 motorway, thus avoiding the housing and areas of social interaction, however all efforts, including those of consultees and even some officers of Harborough District and Leicestershire County Councils were ignored.

Lutterworth Town Council note that all B8 Strategic Warehousing in the Harborough District is to be confined to Magna Park, and no other area will be impacted by B8 Warehousing.

While the Town Council does not object to the extension of Magna Park, they wish to point out that the proposed inclusion of this extension would have been known to officers in December 2024 when Leicestershire County Council applied for an S106 variation to planning application 19/00250/OUT, resulting in the approval for the future creation of a 500,000 sq ft warehouse on the A4303. One of the main reasons for the success of the application for variation was that there was reported to be insufficient strategic B8 warehouse capacity in the area, despite evidence to the contrary, and now despite the fact that officers would have been aware of this planned extension to Magna Park. As the Planning Committee were not informed of the potential proposals within the emerging Local Plan, Lutterworth Town Council believe that this was at best disingenuous and certainly did not follow the “evidence led” approach which is supposed to be used in planning decisions.

LTC propose the 90 houses are relocated to Leicester Road, meaning are in one location, with the requirement that the access is as far from the spine road as possible.

Lutterworth Town Council note the proposals for the creation of 230 new homes on the Leicester Road just beyond the Poppy Estate, and 90 new homes adjacent to the Swinford Road.

While the Town Council supports the need for new home creation, our objections are based on safety to road users.

The proposed Leicester Road development will be very close to the new junction that will be created as a result of the building of the spine road on the Lutterworth East development and will create a confluence of traffic joining the Leicester Road from four different directions within a very short distance. This road is also the main road through Lutterworth (A426) and carries a significant number of heavy goods vehicles, particularly at peak travel times.

The proposed 90 houses on Swinford Road are effectively in a small rectangle bordered by the M1, A4304 and A426, and so the quality of life for householders in that area will be questionable. Further, the main access to the site will be from the A426 via a junction that is already questionable in terms of safety, given that it is directly opposite the golf course entrance on a road that is the main conduit from Rugby to the northbound M1. This is used by a considerable number of heavy goods vehicles which pass through that junction at high speeds as it is adjacent to a 50mph section of the A426.
Lutterworth Town Council would suggest that the proposed 90 houses are relocated to the Leicester Road site, meaning that all of the housing development takes place in one location, with the requirement that the access to the site is located as far from the spine road junction as possible, in order to minimise the impact of traffic confluence.

We question why all new developments are assumed to be viable with this requirement in place while the Lutterworth East development was deemed to be not viable.

Lutterworth Town Council note the proposal that any new affordable housing in the district will be apportioned in the manner of 75% rented and 25% owned.

The Council also notes that Harborough District Council are retaining the requirement for 40% affordable housing on all development above 10 houses.

The Council observes that this requirement was in place for the Lutterworth East development (19/00250/OUT) until December 2024 when Leicestershire County Council successfully applied for a removal of the requirement on the basis that it made the development unviable. The Town Council questions why all new developments are assumed to be viable with this requirement in place while the Lutterworth East development was deemed to be not viable. The Town Council offers this information as a warning to areas within the District who believe that the 40% requirement will ensure a strong supply of affordable housing, whereas in fact it is potentially subject to change after planning permission has been given to a developer.

The Council would propose that the policy is amended to a maximum of 12 caravans, rather than 12 pitches, as this will place a defined maximum limit on the scale of the site.

Lutterworth Town Council note the proposal for the creation of 12 new pitches on Bonehams Lane, Lutterworth.

The Town Council observe that as each of these pitches are allowed to accommodate more than one caravan provided that the residents are related, there is very little restriction on the scale of this development should the pitches be occupied by extended family groups.

The Council would propose that the policy is amended to a maximum of 12 caravans, rather than 12 pitches, as this will place a defined maximum limit on the scale of the site.