Regulation 19 - Proposed Draft Local Plan Submission

I was asked to submit comments to the council following the meeting I attended on 1 April at Great Glen.

Comments below relate to the meeting arranged by the council to explain the proposals, and the proposals themselves to build houses in the vicinity of Great Glen.

The Consultation on the 1st April at Great Glen.

Whilst the planning representative did his best to explain the proposals he acknowledged the information was limited by the stage at which the planning proposals were at but more importantly what was proposed by the adjacent planning authority, Oadby.

As a result the proposals presented on the 1st April were poorly prepared , graphically juvenile and grossly incomplete. We are told that as a country we need houses and that we are not building fast enough. Our local councils have determined where these should be.

Nothing on the 1st April explained how the road, transport and logistic infrastructure would work as it was devoid of connection with Oadby proposals. The short comings of the 1st of April can also be found in the proposals themselves.

The Proposals in General

There are fundamental problems with the Great Glen area without the additional house building.

The volume of speeding traffic, increased flooding and disregard of the Great Glen community has been a feature of the last 20 years. Repeated requests to Leicestershire councillor Kevin Feltham to address speeding traffic 6m from our front door have been disregarded with platitudes, You may consider that the county council are a separate part of government, but you are supposed to be a team delivering a service. So I do not accept any "washing of hands" as if it is a separate arm of government.

The existing residents continue to pay the price for bad planning by government. Addressing central government targets and appeasing developer's margins results in- Congested roads, speeding traffic, excessive road pollution and the destruction of community and village character. Uncontrolled flooding and destruction of the environment. Overwhelming of public services and village community. There is nothing in the presented proposals which consider these aspects. Politicians and Civil Servants should consider the existing resident who bear the brunt of development, no one else. Development should present an opportunity to enhance quality of life for existing and new residents. This never happens. If the proposals included a new road system, drainage provision, green spaces, adequate bio diversity increase achieved on the proposed site and an appreciation of the local community they would go some way to acknowledging that there are people living here already. I fundamentally object to the proposals on account of their competence and quality and lack of care.

I was asked to submit comments to the council following the meeting I attended on 1 April at Great Glen.

Comments below relate to the meeting arranged by the council to explain the proposals, and the proposals themselves to build houses in the vicinity of Great Glen.

The Consultation on the 1st April at Great Glen.

Whilst the planning representative did his best to explain the proposals he acknowledged the information was limited by the stage at which the planning proposals were at but more importantly what was proposed by the adjacent planning authority, Oadby.

As a result the proposals presented on the 1st April were poorly prepared , graphically juvenile and grossly incomplete. We are told that as a country we need houses and that we are not building fast enough. Our local councils have determined where these should be.

Nothing on the 1st April explained how the road, transport and logistic infrastructure would work as it was devoid of connection with Oadby proposals. The short comings of the 1st of April can also be found in the proposals themselves.

The Proposals in General

There are fundamental problems with the Great Glen area without the additional house building.

The volume of speeding traffic, increased flooding and disregard of the Great Glen community has been a feature of the last 20 years. Repeated requests to Leicestershire councillor Kevin Feltham to address speeding traffic 6m from our front door have been disregarded with platitudes, You may consider that the county council are a separate part of government, but you are supposed to be a team delivering a service. So I do not accept any "washing of hands" as if it is a separate arm of government.

The existing residents continue to pay the price for bad planning by government. Addressing central government targets and appeasing developer's margins results in- Congested roads, speeding traffic, excessive road pollution and the destruction of community and village character. Uncontrolled flooding and destruction of the environment. Overwhelming of public services and village community. There is nothing in the presented proposals which consider these aspects. Politicians and Civil Servants should consider the existing resident who bear the brunt of development, no one else. Development should present an opportunity to enhance quality of life for existing and new residents. This never happens. If the proposals included a new road system, drainage provision, green spaces, adequate bio diversity increase achieved on the proposed site and an appreciation of the local community they would go some way to acknowledging that there are people living here already. I fundamentally object to the proposals on account of their competence and quality and lack of care.

I was asked to submit comments to the council following the meeting I attended on 1 April at Great Glen.

Comments below relate to the meeting arranged by the council to explain the proposals, and the proposals themselves to build houses in the vicinity of Great Glen.

The Consultation on the 1st April at Great Glen.

Whilst the planning representative did his best to explain the proposals he acknowledged the information was limited by the stage at which the planning proposals were at but more importantly what was proposed by the adjacent planning authority, Oadby.

As a result the proposals presented on the 1st April were poorly prepared , graphically juvenile and grossly incomplete. We are told that as a country we need houses and that we are not building fast enough. Our local councils have determined where these should be.

Nothing on the 1st April explained how the road, transport and logistic infrastructure would work as it was devoid of connection with Oadby proposals. The short comings of the 1st of April can also be found in the proposals themselves.

The Proposals in General

There are fundamental problems with the Great Glen area without the additional house building.

The volume of speeding traffic, increased flooding and disregard of the Great Glen community has been a feature of the last 20 years. Repeated requests to Leicestershire councillor Kevin Feltham to address speeding traffic 6m from our front door have been disregarded with platitudes, You may consider that the county council are a separate part of government, but you are supposed to be a team delivering a service. So I do not accept any "washing of hands" as if it is a separate arm of government.

The existing residents continue to pay the price for bad planning by government. Addressing central government targets and appeasing developer's margins results in- Congested roads, speeding traffic, excessive road pollution and the destruction of community and village character. Uncontrolled flooding and destruction of the environment. Overwhelming of public services and village community. There is nothing in the presented proposals which consider these aspects. Politicians and Civil Servants should consider the existing resident who bear the brunt of development, no one else. Development should present an opportunity to enhance quality of life for existing and new residents. This never happens. If the proposals included a new road system, drainage provision, green spaces, adequate bio diversity increase achieved on the proposed site and an appreciation of the local community they would go some way to acknowledging that there are people living here already. I fundamentally object to the proposals on account of their competence and quality and lack of care.