Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Search representations
Results for CPRE Leicestershire search
New searchObject
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
Our Local Plan Vision
Representation ID: 12632
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The vision is not deliverable.
The Plan requires rewriting recognising the constraints which make the vision undeliverable.
The vision is not deliverable.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
1.1
Representation ID: 12633
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The strategy does not show any sign of demonstrating that it will deliver sustainable development or preserve the attractive rural character.
See other comments.
The strategy does not show any sign of demonstrating that it will deliver sustainable development or preserve the attractive rural character.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
1.3
Representation ID: 12634
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Government Planning Policy does not recognise the practical difficulties of delivering sustainable development, in the right places, and delivering essential and other associated infrastructure.
See other comments
Government Planning Policy does not recognise the practical difficulties of delievering sustainable development, in the right places, and delivering essential and other associated infrastructure.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
2.16
Representation ID: 12635
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Rail is essentially irrelevant to most of Harborough with the exception of travel to London. Bus services are very poor. The 'challenges' on routes to the only junction on the M1 in Harborough and the A6 are recognised but the development proposals make these worse.
See elsewhere.
Rail is essentially irrelevant to most of Harborough with the exception of travel to London. Bus services are very poor. The 'challenges' on routes to the only junction on the M1 in Harborough and the A6 are recognised but the development proposals make these worse.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
2.20
Representation ID: 12636
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Local Plans have a legal duty to demonstrate that they contribute to the mitigation of climate change. It states there is a strong need to reduce these emissions by promoting sustainable transport options. Sustainable transport cannot be provided to unsustainable locations with few facilities and where there is little or no prospect of being able to provide attractive alternatives to the car. It does not state what the proposed transport options will, or are expected to, achieve. This would need to be greater than the increase from the development.
It is fundamental to the Plan and should have been considered from the outset.
Local Plans have a legal duty to demonstrate that they contribute to the mitigation of climate change. It states there is a strong need to reduce these emissions by promoting sustainable transport options. Sustainable transport cannot be provided to unsustainable locations with few facilities and where there is little or no prospect of being able to provide attractive alternatives to the car. It does not state what the proposed transport options will, or are expected to, achieve. This would need to be greater than the increase from the development.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
3.3
Representation ID: 12637
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Strategic Growth plan did not consider climate change or sustainable communities. It was conceived around the delivery of Expressways to facilitate the growth of traffic and proposed a 'growth corridor' along the A46 corridor. The A46 Expressway was abandoned in 2020 and there is no prospect of funding for an A5 Expressway. Most employment growth was directed to an area around East Midlands Airport. There is an obvious disagreement between the County Council as Local Highway Authority and District Councils as Local Planning Authorities regarding the impact of traffic.
The Plan should have ignored the non-statutory Strategic Growth Plan and it should say why. It is incompatible with demonstrating the Plan contributes to the mitigation of climate change and the need to reduce congestion, not make it worse.
The Strategic Growth plan did not consider climate change or sustainable communities. It was conceived around the delivery of Expressways to facilitate the growth of traffic and proposed a 'growth corridor' along the A46 corridor. The A46 Expressway was abandoned in 2020 and there is no prospect of funding for an A5 Expressway. Most employment growth was directed to an area around East Midlands Airport. There is an obvious disagreement between the County Council as Local Highway Authority and District Councils as Local Planning Authorities regarding the impact of traffic.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
3.4
Representation ID: 12638
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The A46 Expressway was abandoned in 2020 making the unsustainable and non-statutory SGP untenable. The LEP function was abandoned in April 2024 with responsibility transferring to LeicsCC. The agreed framework is unwinding as the County Council continues to seek and prioritise increasing the capacity of roads. In March 2025 the County Council decided to object to the Harborough LP declaring it 'unsound'. A reason was the failure to include a road through the SA02 site to maintain the SGP vision of an Expressway.
The Plan should not have been prepared around the unsustainable SGP.
The A46 Expressway was abandoned in 2020 making the unsustainable and non-statutory SGP untenable. The LEP function was abandoned in April 2024 with responsibility transferring to LeicsCC. The agreed framework is unwinding as the County Council continues to seek and prioritise increasing the capacity of roads. In March 2025 the County Council decided to object to the Harborough LP declaring it 'unsound'. A reason was the failure to include a road through the SA02 site to maintain the SGP vision of an Expressway.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
3.7
Representation ID: 12639
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 demonstrate the continuing regard for the unsustainable SGP. A 'local steer for the delivery of infrastructure' is not sufficient to ensure its delivery and any infrastructure must be appropriate and achievable together with other relevant requirements. This is not demonstrated.
See other comments
3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 demonstrate the continuing regard for the unsustainable SGP. A 'local steer for the delivery of infrastructure' is not sufficient to ensure its delivery and any infrastructure must be appropriate and achievable together with other relevant requirements. This is not demonstrated.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
3.9
Representation ID: 12640
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
A Duty to Co-operate does not require Agreement. There is an obvious disagreement with regard to dealing with the traffic that will be generated by new developments and how this should be tackled. This is a national problem created by Policies generated in government silos.
See all other comments
A Duty to Co-operate does not require Agreement. There is an obvious disagreement with regard to dealing with the traffic that will be generated by new developments and how this should be tackled. This is a national problem created by Policies generated in government silos.
Object
Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission
4.4
Representation ID: 12641
Received: 20/04/2025
Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Government's 'standard' method changes frequently at a whim and it is not providing the type of houses people need most. The scope for reusing land or buildings in Leicester to deliver more houses has not been considered sufficiently because it is seen to be easier and more profitable to use greenfield land for low density sprawl. This is because Government policy is created in silos where climate change, land-use (housing, employment, agriculture, energy) and transport are not joined up.
See other comments
The Government's 'standard' method changes frequently at a whim and it is not providing the type of houses people need most. The scope for reusing land or buildings in Leicester to deliver more houses has not been considered sufficiently because it is seen to be easier and more profitable to use greenfield land for low density sprawl. This is because Government policy is created in silos where climate change, land-use (housing, employment, agriculture, energy) and transport are not joined up.
