Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Back to document

Search representations

Results for CPRE Leicestershire search

New search

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

TB1

Representation ID: 12652

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Point of clarification. Thorpebury is not designed to deliver a link to the A46 / A607 that will have any more capacity than the very low standard country lanes that currently exist. It is not expected to be complete before the mid 2040s. There are many learning lessons from this development which currently does not have a bus service or any walking and cycling facilities. It is still served off an existing low standard country lane..

Change suggested by respondent:

Learn lessons from sites like Thorpebury to ensure they are not repeated.

Full text:

Point of clarification. Thorpebury is not designed to deliver a link to the A46 / A607 that will have any more capacity than the very low standard country lanes that currently exist. It is not expected to be complete before the mid 2040s. There are many learning lessons from this development which currently does not have a bus service or any walking and cycling facilities. It is still served off an existing low standard country lane..

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

BA1

Representation ID: 12653

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Broughton Astley and similar / smaller settlements are not sustainable locations. It could have qualified as one if the Leicester - Rugby railway line had been retained.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove this allocation until such time as it can be shown to be a sustainable location.

Full text:

Broughton Astley and similar / smaller settlements are not sustainable locations. It could have qualified as one if the Leicester - Rugby railway line had been retained.

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

GG1

Representation ID: 12654

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This is definitely not going to deliver a sustainable development.
"Impacts on the capacity of the A6 corridor must be assessed, and cumulative impacts from nearby developments should be carefully evaluated. The impacts will be informed by a Transport Assessment that sets out off-site and on-site transport measures to mitigate impacts from the development. A coordinated planning approach for walking, cycling, and overall infrastructure is preferred across the entire area."

Change suggested by respondent:

The transport and delivery issues relating to this site, like the others including SA02, should have been considered from the start.

Full text:

This is definitely not going to deliver a sustainable development.
"Impacts on the capacity of the A6 corridor must be assessed, and cumulative impacts from nearby developments should be carefully evaluated. The impacts will be informed by a Transport Assessment that sets out off-site and on-site transport measures to mitigate impacts from the development. A coordinated planning approach for walking, cycling, and overall infrastructure is preferred across the entire area."

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

K1

Representation ID: 12655

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Kibworth is not a sustainable location. It could have qualified if the station had been retained and it was served by a reasonable train service and feeder buses. The existing bridge over the railway should be widened to modern standards, with cycling and walking facilities before any more development is allowed in this area.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove all allocations in Kibworth until it can be demonstrated it is a sustainable location.

Full text:

Kibworth is not a sustainable location. It could have qualified if the station had been retained and it was served by a reasonable train service and feeder buses. The existing bridge over the railway should be widened to modern standards, with cycling and walking facilities before any more development is allowed in this area.

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

MP2

Representation ID: 12656

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

MP1, MP2 and the supporting reasons demonstrate what is wrong with the current planning system. Employment (of a sort) is proposed miles from main housing allocations and on multiple sites in advance of a thorough appraisal of its impact, Lutterworth is the only nearby town and the likelihood of walking to the site is remote. The A5 is already at capacity and there's no sign of any strategy, or any funding, to deal with current proposals, let alone more. A request, rather than mandate, to put solar panels on roofs. Building on land with a known flooding history etc.

Change suggested by respondent:

See other comments.

Full text:

MP1, MP2 and the supporting reasons demonstrate what is wrong with the current planning system. Employment (of a sort) is proposed miles from main housing allocations and on multiple sites in advance of a thorough appraisal of its impact, Lutterworth is the only nearby town and the likelihood of walking to the site is remote. The A5 is already at capacity and there's no sign of any strategy, or any funding, to deal with current proposals, let alone more. A request, rather than mandate, to put solar panels on roofs. Building on land with a known flooding history etc.

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

5.17

Representation ID: 12657

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Previous work in 2008 had showed this was a location which could not be made sustainable. The proposal contains only 5Ha of employment land for 4000 houses. No information has been provided to show where people are assumed to travel for work or other essential facilities or the mode they will use. The A6 and Gartree Road have no spare capacity and there is no prospect of being able to deal with additional traffic from this and other developments.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Plan should have considered this from the start.

Full text:

Previous work in 2008 had showed this was a location which could not be made sustainable. The proposal contains only 5Ha of employment land for 4000 houses. No information has been provided to show where people are assumed to travel for work or other essential facilities or the mode they will use. The A6 and Gartree Road have no spare capacity and there is no prospect of being able to deal with additional traffic from this and other developments.

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

5.20

Representation ID: 12659

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This paragraph shows some desperate thinking. Suggesting that SA02 is within walking distance of Oadby, Stretton Hall and Great Glen is trying to make it sound like it is a sustainable location when it isn't. The open 'countryside' to the north is Leicester Airfield which was part of the Pennbury proposal and parts of SA02 are in the same ownership. The priority for cycling in a sustainable development will be achieving safe routes to local facilities in the area not along existing rural rights of way.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove the waffle and wishful thinking.

Full text:

This paragraph shows some desperate thinking. Suggesting that SA02 is within walking distance of Oadby, Stretton Hall and Great Glen is trying to make it sound like it is a sustainable location when it isn't. The open 'countryside' to the north is Leicester Airfield which was part of the Pennbury proposal and parts of SA02 are in the same ownership. The priority for cycling in a sustainable development will be achieving safe routes to local facilities in the area not along existing rural rights of way.

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

5.23

Representation ID: 12660

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The notion that this Policy and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for this site will do what is claimed is highly unlikely given the wording of the Policy and the lack of clarity regarding the IDP and what it is seeking.

Change suggested by respondent:

Be more honest and realistic.

Full text:

The notion that this Policy and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for this site will do what is claimed is highly unlikely given the wording of the Policy and the lack of clarity regarding the IDP and what it is seeking.

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

Policy SA03: North of Market Harborough

Representation ID: 12661

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The difficulties of creating a masterplan across three sites can be very problematic. This can be much worse with individual developers/owners adding phasing, funding and delivery issues.
3 e. carries no weight since ridge and furrow has no protection and it can be ploughed up within days of ownership.
Problems related to 3f, 3g, 3h and 3i are mentioned in other representations.
4.3Ha of the 4.9Ha of employment development proposed in Market Harborough is at the very southern boundary of the town as far from these three proposed sites as it it could be.

Change suggested by respondent:

See all other representations.

Full text:

The difficulties of creating a masterplan across three sites can be very problematic. This can be much worse with individual developers/owners adding phasing, funding and delivery issues.
3 e. carries no weight since ridge and furrow has no protection and it can be ploughed up within days of ownership.
Problems related to 3f, 3g, 3h and 3i are mentioned in other representations.
4.3Ha of the 4.9Ha of employment development proposed in Market Harborough is at the very southern boundary of the town as far from these three proposed sites as it it could be.

Object

Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

5.26

Representation ID: 12662

Received: 20/04/2025

Respondent: CPRE Leicestershire

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The Plan does not show how it will deliver sustainable travel or quantify how it will reduce car dependency.

Change suggested by respondent:

See all other representations.

Full text:

The Plan does not show how it will deliver sustainable travel or quantify how it will reduce car dependency.

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.