Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

More consideration needs to be given to strategic infrastructure that would be required to ensure that such large- scale development proposals are sustainable.

More work should be done on identifying what specific facilities would be required, in addition to those mentioned. A revision of the built sports facilities strategy is also required to reflect the future need for leisure facilities.

This policy does not fully explain how the necessary infrastructure improvements (required by DS05) to support such large- scale developments will actually be delivered, 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.
To be sustainable, strategic infrastructure needs to be planned and put in place prior to such large- scale developments and not as an afterthought.

There is no mention of the need for additional or expanded leisure facilities (i.e. built sports facilities and sports halls). The existing leisure centre does not currently have capacity for 1000s more users and this would be the wrong side of the town for the proposed sites, resulting in travel by car. The plan should include a revision of the built sports facility strategy, which is out of date (2020) and does not reflect the growing need for leisure facilities as a result of significant expansion of the town.

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.

Reduce or remove the specific density requirements from this policy as these will prove restrictive and are likely to be undeliverable alongside sustainable development goals.

The proposed density of 30 (40 in town centres) dwellings per hectare is excessive for a Market Town such as Market Harborough. This density is not sustainable or deliverable, given the requirement to ensure good design, adequate open space, protection of heritage and biodiversity, and that the rural and market town character of the area is maintained.

Include a requirement for a suitable percentage of community ownership for renewable energy developments.

Whilst we support the general policy to permit development for renewables, this should only be allowed where there is a percentage of community ownership. This would improve community support and help to mitigate any negative impacts of such development on the community.

Add the requirement to demonstrate compliance with applicable local design guidance provided through Neighbourhood Plans.

This policy should mention that proposed development should demonstrate how it meets applicable local design guidance provided through Neighbourhood Plans.

We fully support this policy, but it must be reflected in other policies, especially SA01 & SA03. It should also be explained how the chosen sites and such high housing densities are compatible with DM04.

The policy needs to be strengthened to prioritise sustainable travel modes.

Walking and cycling networks and routes should be Coherent; Direct; Safe; Comfortable and Attractive as set out in LTN1/20 Cycle Infrastructure Design.

Remove "where feasible" and "where practicable" as these provide an option not to deliver the requirement enhancements.

Whilst a number of the recommendations are welcome, policy DM06 does not fully reflect the requirement to prioritise sustainable travel modes as set out in the NPPF.

The policy should be amended to ensure that new development is permitted only where there is low risk of surface water flooding or where this risk can be mitigated and development would not contribute to surface water flooding issues.

New development within flood zone 1 should not be permitted, as this is not sustainable.

Use of flood zones 1-3 only covers flooding from rivers. The policy does not include management of the risk from surface water flooding, which has been a significant issue recently in Market Harborough and other areas of the district.

The policy needs to specifically include surface water flooding to ensure that future development is sustainable and does not contribute further to existing surface water flooding issues.