Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

The plan should focus a greater proportion of development close to Leicester City, where the unmet housing need is and where there are sustainable transport options.

Given that a large proportion of the housing need is from the unmet need in Leicester City, for the plan to be sustainable it should be allocating more development close to Leicester City, where the greatest need exists and where public transport can be provided. This would avoidreduce the need for commuting from Harborough District into Leicester City and prevent consequent environmental, air quality and traffic issues.

The plan should focus a greater proportion of development close to Leicester City, where the unmet housing need is and where there are sustainable transport options.

Given that a large proportion of the housing need is from the unmet need in Leicester City, for the plan to be sustainable it should be allocating more development close to Leicester City, where the greatest need exists and where public transport can be provided. This would avoidreduce the need for commuting from Harborough District into Leicester City and prevent consequent environmental, air quality and traffic issues.

Either amend this strategic policy to account for contradictions in other policies (DS01, SA03, DM06) or amend the other policies to meet this strategic policy.

Whilst we generally support this policy, it is contradicted by other policies in this local plan, including:

DS01 - strategic development and housing allocations are not located closest to the unmet housing need from Leicester City, meaning that use of private cars for commuting is likely to occur, given the high cost and poor quality of other options including public transport.

SA03 - site allocations are too far from the town centre to allow for active travel modes (walking/cycling) and will result in increased car use over sustainable transport options. Site allocations impact areas of ancient ridge and furrow archaeology and will inevitably result in habitat loss.

DM06 - Where this policy does not do enough to prioritise sustainable transport options and ensure that they are delivered within major developments.

Whilst we fully support this policy, proposed sites MH1 and especially MH2 in policy SA03 contradict this policy and will contribute to gradual erosion of the area of separation between Market Harborough and Great Bowden and will impact on existing heritage assets (Grand Union Canal), areas of ancient ridge and furrow archaeology, important hedgerows and other biodiversity assets.

The policy must be more robust in enforcing delivery of the appropriate infrastructure improvements that are required for such large- scale development. Delivery of such infrastructure should be ensured at an early stage of occupancy of large-scale developments. It must be available to new residents at the outset, to avoid the risk of them making other less sustainable and satisfactory arrangements.

Unfortunately, this policy does not go far enough to ensure that the necessary infrastructure improvements to support large -scale developments (especially relating to SA03) are actually delivered and ideally before the majority of development is in place.
For example, on other recent large scale development sites in Market Harborough, there has been little or no improvement to existing transport networks to accommodate increased traffic and the primary school was only built and opened after most of the development was complete and families had already sent their children to other nearby schools.

Whilst developer contributions can help with this, these are generally quite restrictive and prevent use of such funds for wider infrastructure improvements that would be required across the town. This approach would also not deliver the required infrastructure before development is commenced.

The site should be reduced in size so as not to contribute to gradual erosion of the separation area. Development should not be located close to the Grand Union Canal (the proposed site should include a buffer around this) and should not include any land that has ridge and furrow archaeology.

It should also be explained clearly how this site will meet the requirements of DS03 to ensure that it is sustainable.

The proposed site contradicts the provisions in policies:

DS04 - The proposed area of this site will contribute to the erosion of the separation area between Market Harborough and Great Bowden, which will lead to pressure on the defined separation area from future development. It will impact heritage assets, including the Grand Union Canal and ancient ridge and furrow archaeology.

DS03 - Where the location on the outskirts of the town (a significant distance and uphill), is likely to result in residents using private cars rather than sustainable transport options, especially walking/cycling.
There are also issues with surface water flooding and potential for flooding from the Grand Union Canal. These do not seem to have been fully considered, and the town already has significant issues with surface water flooding.

The site should be reduced in size so as not to contribute to gradual erosion of the separation area.

Development should not be located close to the Grand Union Canal (the proposed site should include a buffer around this) and should not include any land that has ridge and furrow archaeology.

It should also be explained clearly how this site will meet the requirements of DS03 to ensure that it is sustainable and how the significant transport issues will be mitigated.
Change the proposed site to include a buffer zone around the existing meat rendering site or explain how the impact of this will be mitigated taking into account policy DM02

The proposed site contradicts the provisions in policies:

DS04 - The proposed area of this site will contribute to the erosion of the separation area between Market Harborough and Great Bowden, which will lead to pressure on the defined separation area from future development. It will impact heritage assets, including the Grand Union Canal and ancient ridge and furrow archaeology.

DS03 - Where the location on the outskirts of the town (a significant distance and uphill), is likely to result in residents using private cars rather than sustainable transport options, especially walking/cycling.

There are potentially other significant transport issues as this site is likely to create significant additional car traffic along the B6047 into Market Harborough (where there is a pinch point at the entrance to the High Street) and along Leicester Lane and through Great Bowden (as this would be a route to the station).

There are also issues with surface water flooding and potential for flooding from the Grand Union Canal. These do not seem to have been fully considered and the town already has significant issues with surface water flooding.

The North West corner of the site borders a meat rendering site that has issues with foul smelling emissions. This site is not pleasant to walk past along the canal, so it needs to be stated how this will be mitigated for future residents that would have houses close to the site, so that it complies with policy DM02.

It should also be explained clearly how this site will meet the requirements of DS03 to ensure that it is sustainable and how the significant transport issues will be mitigated.

The proposed site contradicts the provisions in policy DS03, where the location on the outskirts of the town (a significant distance and uphill), is likely to result in residents using private cars rather than sustainable transport options, especially walking/cycling.

There are potentially other significant transport issues as this site is likely to create significant additional car traffic along the B6047 into Market Harborough (where there is a pinch point at the entrance to the High Street) and along Leicester Lane and through Great Bowden (as this would be a route to the station).

There are also issues with surface water flooding and these do not seem to have been fully considered, and the town already has significant issues with surface water flooding.

Carry out a heritage assessment and include in the Heritage Analysis of Local Plan Sites.

Explain how the significant flood risk will be mitigated.

It would appear that this site was not included in the Heritage Analysis of Local Plan Sites, so no heritage assessment has been carried out.

This site also has potentially significant flood risk from surface water flooding, which is already a significant problem in Market Harborough.

Remove this site from the plan and propose an alternative site that has fewer restrictions and will be deliverable.

It would appear that this site was not included in the Heritage Analysis of Local Plan Sites, so no heritage assessment has been carried out.

This site also has significant flood risk from river and surface water flooding, which is already a significant problem in Market Harborough town centre.

Development over/near to the large existing storm water attenuation tank, which protects the town centre from regular surface water flooding would be illogical.
It is not explained how development would result in no net loss of parking spaces, given that there is no equivalent land in the town centre to build new parking spaces.
Given all the issues and restrictions, we cannot see how this site is feasible.