issue 3 - North West Leicestershire District Council

Represen 

tation ID 

Name of 

responden 

t/organisat 

ion 

1001 L Browne 

Support/ 

Object 

Object 

Summary of response 

Question 15 

Object to the development at Greenhill Farm. 500 houses would result in 500 extra vehicles and school traffic. 

The elderly population would find it difficult to access their shopping requirements. Poor housing market due to 

the recent slump. Flooding occurs due to drains being overload. 

1002 Rachel 

Smith 

1003 Mrs K A 

Smith 

Object Refer to Representation 755 


1004 S Booth Object Refer to Representation 755 

1005 J M 

Tebbatt 


1006 R D Willan Object Refer to Representation 755 

1007 Mrs P R 

Willan 

1008 Mr L 

Thorpe 

1009 Mrs J 

Thorpe 

1010 Miss B 

Thorpe 




Object Refer to Representation 879

1011 Mrs G 

Baker 

1012 Castle 

Donington 

Parish Plan 

Group 


Question 1 

Housing, employment and environment distributed around the District as in Para 6.4 means maximum 

vehicular/car use therefore its not sustainable. 

The Parish Plan Group state Para 6.2 is meaningless and disconnected from reality with the vision bearing no 

relationship to the economic situation nor the end of cheap oil and the consequences either globally or locally. 

The Core Strategy is not sustainable in either the short or long term. Climate change and its consequences 

regarding population and land use is ignored. This is a slavish response to regional directives, ignores reality and 

is unworthy of a District Council. 

There should be safeguards for agricultural and food production, to cover vast acreages with distribution centres 

is short sighted as Climate change will affect food production in other parts of Europe and the Parish Plan Group 

states that vast numbers of people will seek to relocate here and these distribution sheds will become indoor 

refugee camps. 

Therefore, distribution centres and huge housing developments should be forgotten in favour of small scale 

projects which can generate their own power, as well as increased local food production and roll out some of the 

initiatives encouraged by the National Forest. 

Currently most leisure facilities are inaccessible to residents in the northerly parts of the District. 

Restrictions should be placed on polluting activities within the District. 

Question 2 

Objective SO3 is the only realistic objective for which the District Council should strive. All others are subservient 

to and dependant upon this objective 

Question 5 – Object 

The Parish Plan Group state that there has not been any real serious survey of housing needs in the District. The 

figures produced in the Core Strategy have been arrived at between various government offices and developers. 

A quick tally of empty properties both private and Council owned would soon show that were these to be brought 

up to standard or priced realistically then perceived need could be satisfied. 

Question 6 

Potential future development must concentrate on provision of small scale energy production to serve local needs 

and ensure sustainability be safeguarding land for food production. 

Question 8 & 9

The proposals render the Rural Towns unsustainable. If such huge numbers of dwellings are developed then 

more car journeys will be made. Less land would be available for agriculture, wildlife corridors and outdoor 

activities. 

Question 22 - Object 

Castle Donington has carried out a Parish Plan, the results of which would feed into planning guidance however it 

is clear this has not been the case. 

Castle Donington suffers severe congestion and residents are unable to access facilities in other parts of the 

District at weekends due to traffic congestion associated with events at Donington Park and suffers stress from 

noise nuisance from both Donington Park and East Midlands Airport. 

Any further development would also exacerbate flooding problems and would render the already poor air quality 

intolerable. 

Question 37 

Government circular 01/2006 should be queried. Gypsies and Travellers are not the same and should not be put 

in the same category. 


Option 1 is supported. The Councils favoured approach negates the statement in the Vision at Issue 1 as the 

development of warehousing is unsustainable. 


The Castle Donington Parish Plan looked fully looked at the environment around Castle Donington. 

The favoured approach negates the Strategic Objectives and is not sustainable. It does not protect or enhance 

the landscape, it does not give priority to brownfield land, it does nothing to promote tourism and leisure. It does 

not minimise the risk of flooding, reduce the District’s carbon footprint or its contribution to climate change. It 

would not diversify the Districts economic base and it would not be an attractive place to live, work and play. 

Adverse effects would in clued noise, dirt, pollution, congestion and reduced air quality. To build in open 

countryside between medieval villages will degrade the area and lead to urban sprawl. Castle Donington already 

has a storage and distribution centre at Willow Farm, a Regional Distribution Centre at the Airport and a 

Distribution Centre on the former power station which has and adjacent railway line. New jobs should be provided 

near to the majority population to ensure its sustainability. 


Concern is raised about the locating of an employment zone at East Midlands Airport/Donington park as these 

are heavily reliant on oil as there is only a finite supply.

Small businesses will be needed and should be located where people are already such as in Coalville or 

Whitwick. Previous planning strategies have decided against development around junction 24 of the M1. 

It is considered that East Midlands Airport creates a huge economic deficit particularly in tourism and cheap 

imports air freighted to EMA have caused the loss of thousands of skilled jobs. 

The area has the two most polluting and health damaging activities possible within one village and the Core 

Strategy seeks to maximise this without any safeguards for residents. The creation of an industrial village on what 

is open countryside would be retrograde and would not be beneficial especially given the oil situation. 

Question 43 

The development envisaged in 18.2 is the only part of the favoured economic strategy that is considered feasible 

Question 44 – Object 

See reasons outlined in response to Q42 

Question 46 

Option 2 is supported 

Question 47 

Reference is made to the Airport Master Plan’s employment figures and the increase in the number of night 

flights. 

Question 48 

It is considered that ‘Operational Development’ is a reasonably clear cut phrase. Whereas ‘Airport Related’ is a 

phrase that can be distorted and abused for example power companies and accounting headquarters have no 

place on Pegasus Business Park (airport owned Greenfield land). EMA have vowed not to repeat such travesties 

in future whereas NWLDC has not. NWLDC should be wary when ‘Airport Related’ developments are mentioned. 

Question 58 

Reference is made to infrastructure issues such as the shortage of space at Castle Donington Surgery, no freight 

terminal in operation or under construction at Castle Donington’s East Midlands Regional Distribution Centre and 

only surface water lying on the larger part of the site suggesting drainage/ flooding problems. Racetrack traffic 

should be directed onto the A453 not through the village. 

Question 59 

This is broadly favoured however operations at Donington Park are questioned in terms of pollution and planning 

for climate change

1013 Mrs Diane 

Miller 

1014 Julie K 

Armett 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 63 

It is considered that the north part of the District has a larger proportion of HGV inducing sites, a highly polluting 

airport and race track but is conversely excluded from any green infrastructure provision. 

Question 7 

Why the need for 12,200 houses in the district and why the general requirement for 3 million new homes 

countrywide by 2026? Options for Coalville range from 5,400 dwellings to 9,800 dwellings. Based on occupancy 

of 2.4 per household there would be a significant increase to the existing 30,000 population of the town. 

Development of this scale would require spending on infrastructure to provide utility services and roads. 

Ravenstone should maintain its identity as a village and remain separated from any development around the 

outskirts of Coalville. Also concerned that the new Woodstone Primary School would not be able to support 

significant development within the village. 

Question 7 

Object to the Core Strategy and the district being allocated more than their proportionate fair share of new homes 

to be built. Any new development should be in direct proportion to the district area and current population. 

Suggest that the Barker Report is flawed and inaccurate for the local area and population as well as the country. 

Object to this report being used as the basis for identifying the need for new housing and development. 

Object to the Coalville area being used to take most of the housing in the district. Some of the largest employers 

in the region are the airport and associated companies and the racetrack. Would be sensible to focus majority of 

new housing development close to the main employment areas to get less cars on the road. It would be difficult 

to get to work in Castle Donington from Coalville without taking a car. The number of dwellings should be 

reduced by at least 50% to 60%. 

Question 10 

Object to green wedges being used to provide land for development. Question Council’s commitment to their 

Environmental Strategy document. Government’s overall aim is to protect the countryside and that priority be 

given to previously used/brownfield sites. There should be no building on our precious green wedges. They 

keep our environment cleaner and enhance the appearance of the area and the lives of Coalville residents. 

Question 35 

The favoured approach is not supported.

1015 Jackie 

Conkay 

Object 

Object 

Question 24 

Object to possible development of land at Leicester Road Ibstock. Field is used as amenity and recreational 

space. Loss of the range of flora and fauna that is found on the site. There is also methane gas on this land. If 

new houses were built, the doctors or the village schools would not be able to cope. Also concerned about the 

traffic that would be generated and concerned about highway and pedestrian safety. Level of development would 

lead to loss of individual villages as they would be joined up. Plans for the shopping centre does not require new 

houses to expand, if rates are cheap enough and well know shops move in, people will travel to shop in Coalville. 

Question 35 

The favoured approach is not supported. 

1016 Jackie 

Conkay 

(2nd Rep 

#1015) 

1017 Scott 

Conkay 

1018 Mrs & Mr 

Pepper 

1019 Jackie 

Conkay 

(3rd Rep # 

1015 & 

1016) 

1020 Mr M 

Starkey 

1021 Mrs S A 

Starkey 







1022, 

1023 & 

1024 

L Blockley, 

J Blockley 

and L 

Blockley 

Object 

Question 24 

Object to more houses in Ibstock. Local resources are already overstretched such as doctors, schools etc. New 

houses will bring new cars and noise. Building work and noise would impact on amenity. Loss of privacy. Need 

to protect the green wedge to protect countryside from development. 

1025 Miss B A 

Woods 

1026 Mr D A 

Wood & 

Mrs D E 

Woods 

1027 The 

Building 

and Social 

Housing 

Foundation 

Object Question 10 &15 

Object to the development of the few remaining open spaces and as residents of Whitwick we know how 

important these pockets of breathing spaces are. They are significant value to the local community and enhance 

the built up areas. Coalville and Whitwick are over congested with many existing building in need of repair and 

rejuvenation. Suggest these sites are firstly considered to provide affordable housing. 


Question 15 

BSHF own three adjacent fields to Greenhill Farm on Agar Nook Lane. Would request that these be considered 

as an additional possible site for sustainable housing development. 

Question 34 

Support the preferred approach to affordable housing provision. In addition energy saving features will have a 

positive impact on fuel poverty. Also support the approach of bringing vacant properties back into use. In 

addition to housing, opportunities for local employment should also be considered. Suggest the use of 

community land trust mechanism to ensure affordability in perpetuity in rural areas. 

1028 Kate Scott Object Refer to Representation 879 

Issue 7 

BSHF have been involved in a range of work concerned with accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers and will 

be in touch on this at a future date. 

1029 Christoper 

Scott 


1030 Mr Stephen 

Alderson 

1031 Alistair 

Wilson 



1032 Phil Witing Object Refer to Representation 104 

1033 A Holland Object Refer to Representation 104 

1034 R Nash Object Refer to Representation 104 

1035 K Raynor Object Refer to Representation 104 

1036 S Butler Object Refer to Representation 104 

1037 L J Moore Object Refer to Representation 104 

1038 A C 

Sheppard 


1039 P Sampson Object Refer to Representation 104 

1040 S Green Object Refer to Representation 104 

1041 Olivia 

Newbold 


1042 A Plant Object Refer to Representation 104 

1043 D Simons Object Refer to Representation 104 

1044 D Needy Object Refer to Representation 104 

1045 P Whiting Object Refer to Representation 104

1046 Unclear Object Refer to Representation 104 


1048 C J 

Hopkinson 

& 


1049 D Hall Object Refer to Representation 104 

1050 R 

Whitehous 

e 


1051 D Heath Object Refer to Representation 104 

1052 A Newbold Object Refer to Representation 104 

1053 K Chawner Object Refer to Representation 104 


1055 K Chawner Object Refer to Representation 104 

1056 M Maskrey Object Refer to Representation 104 

1057 R Allis Object Refer to Representation 104 

1058 K Boni Object Refer to Representation 104 

1059 B Grocock Object Refer to Representation 104 

1060 S Whiting Object Refer to Representation 104 

1061 K Graham Object Refer to Representation 104

1062 R 

Whitehous 

e 


1063 R Caesar Object Refer to Representation 104 

1064 D Tegg Object Refer to Representation 104 

1065 S Ward Object Refer to Representation 104 

1066 J 

Hutchinson 


1067 W Simpson Object Refer to Representation 104 

1068 G Buckley Object Refer to Representation 104 

1069 R H Ball Object Refer to Representation 104 

1070 L Ball Object Refer to Representation 104 

1071 L Whiting Object Refer to Representation 104 

1072 M Whiting Object Refer to Representation 104 

1073 L Lord Object Refer to Representation 104 

1074 R Lord Object Refer to Representation 104 

1075 S Palmer Object Refer to Representation 104 

1076 Unable to 

read 


1077 R A Clarke Object Refer to Representation 104 

1078 D Gregg Object Refer to Representation 104 

1079 Unable to 

read 


1080 B Harding Object Refer to Representation 104 

1081 C M Earp Object Refer to Representation 104 

1082 B & S 

Belton 


1083 R Boseby Object Refer to Representation 104 



1086 N 

Harington 


1087 P Bearer Object Refer to Representation 104 

1088 P Ummey Object Refer to Representation 104 

1089 S Burkey Object Refer to Representation 104 

1090 K 

Shearman 


1091 D Tansley Object Refer to Representation 104 

1092 T Marshall Object Refer to Representation 104

1093 M Worley Object Refer to Representation 104 

1094 Z Budzih Object Refer to Representation 104 

1095 R Warrilow Object Refer to Representation 104 

1096 S 

O'Donnell 


1097 M Topley Object Refer to Representation 104 

1098 N Powney Object Refer to Representation 104 

1099 M Crane Object Refer to Representation 104 








1107 Ian and 

Angela 

Bayliss 

Object 

Question 24 

Object to development in Ibstock on land ‘North of Ashby Road’ and ‘South of Ashby Road’. Views will be 

blighted as will peace and quiet. Damage visual impact from Sence Valley Park. Loss of flora and fauna at 

Kelham Bridge Nature Reserve. Highway safety and traffic congestion at junction with A447. Affect drainage to 

properties in Chandlers Croft as open countryside and fields are needed for natural drainage. Building will bring

1108 Jenny 

Read 

1109 Lockington 

Cum 

Hemington 

Parish 

Council 

Object 

Ibstock closer to Snibston and Ravenstone which we do not want. Ibstock is already getting too big and loosing 

its identity. There will also be a massive strain in infrastructure and the schools and doctors will be unable to 

cope. 

Question 15 

Do not want the Greenhill Farm Development included in the proposed Local Development Framework. Greenhill 

Road is the only scenic route to Coalville and the proposed sites is part of the proposed Charnwood Forest 

Regional Park (2008). Building on this site would also put the area to the south at risk of flood and would 

exacerbate existing problems that are experienced. Development would increase traffic, congestion and highway 

safety concerns. 

Question 39 

Reference is made to Para 16.1 which states the historically the region has been called upon to make provision 

for new development of a significance at Regional level. Questioned why this is not mentioned in RSS8 or the 

“East Midlands Regional Freight Study” which makes no request for such provisions in the District. 

In reference to Para 16.2 perverse logic is sued to support the argument. It is acknowledged that such proposals 

cause large levels of commuting from surrounding areas which supports the argument that the proposal does not 

meet RSS8 criteria. 

In reference to Para 16.5 the Parish Council consider that the RSS8 criteria does not support this proposal. The 

‘unique location’ of the District has not been recognised in RSS8 where policies argue against the Districts 

suitability for the location of such developments. 

In reference to Para 16.6 The Parish Council consider it is disingenuous to state that the scale of new 

development in relation to local communities can be limited by good planning. It would be better to choose a site 

that meets the RSS8 criteria. 

The Parish Council consider that it is impossible to design and layout this proposal in such a way that preserves 

the character and amenity of settlements due to the scale of the proposed development. 

Reference is made to the following RSS8 policies: 

• Policy 2 – Outlines the priority order for development, it is considered that the proposed development 

partially meets priority D but doesn’t meet its criteria as it does not involve the use of previously 

developed land, it is considered that many alternatives do exist that meet the criteria 

• Policy 3 – Sustainability Criteria. The proposal does not meet the 1 st and 2 nd criteria as it does not utilise 

previously developed land and the site is not accessible for non-car modes and will encourage increased 

car usage 

• Policy 4 – Promoting Better Design. The design does not take into account local landscape character. 

The proposals dominance and scale would ruin this area and contravenes this policy.

1110 Paul Bullen Object Refer to Representation 879 

• Policy 5 – Concentrating Development in the Urban Areas. The proposal does not meet any of the 

priorities for siting developments (see Policy 3) outlined in this policy and is a direct contradiction of it and 

reinforces that it also contravenes Policies 2, 3 and 4. 

• Policy 15 – Development in the Three Cities Sub-Area. The proposal is in direct contravention of this 

policy and its criteria. 

• Policy 21 – Regional Priorities Areas for Regeneration. The proposal does not meet the criteria, whilst 

being ideal as a basis for regeneration in the named areas. 

Policy 30 – Priorities for the Management and Enhancement of the Regions. Reference is made to the objections 

to Policy 4, as the land between the villages was worthy of protection in the last plan (area of outstanding natural 

beauty), why is this no longer relevant? The proposal creates a new conurbation of Lockington, Hemington, 

Castle Donington and Kegworth. 

Policy 42 – Core Strategy and Regional Transport Objectives. The proposal is in contravention of criteria 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5 and 6 of this policy. This policy supports the sustainability criteria in all the policies referenced therefore as 

the proposal contravenes the above polices it also contravenes Policy 42. 

The development would have a major impact on the settlement of Lockington and Hemington in terms of pollution 

including air pollution, light pollution and noise pollution this would be increased in Lockington, Hemington and 

Kegworth. Landscape, as the development would destroy the remaining amenity and remove the bulk of local 

footpaths. Urbanisation, the development would urbanise the settlements in contravention of both the current 

NWLDC policies and the RSS8. 

Question 40 

The Parish Council does not support the favoured approach for the reasons detailed above 

Question 41 

The Parish Council consider that the District Council should only support sites that meet the policies and the 

supporting criteria detailed in the Regional Plan. As this precludes the development of such a site in the District 

there should be no such provision. It is considered that the proposal contradicts both Regional and National 

Policies. 

1111 Wendy 

Bullen 


1112 G L 

Aldridge 

1113 Luke 

Davies 



1114 J K Davies Object Refer to Representation 879 


1116 E Ralston 

& R 

Ralston 

1117 T Ralston 

& R Lycett 

1118 Mr T F 

Ramsell 

1119 Stephen 

Johnson 





1120 S Leeson Object Refer to Representation 879 

1121 Emily 

Watson 


1122 M Marriott Object Refer to Representation 879 

1123 L A Marriott Object Refer to Representation 879 

1124 R Brooker 

(Part of 

Hemlock 


Clay 

Pigeon 

Shoot 

Response - 

- attached 

to #1032) 

1125 Gems 

Taxis 


1126 A Haywood Object Refer to Representation 200 

1127 J L Weston Object Refer to Representation 200 


1129 S Robinson Object Refer to Representation 200 






1135 Mrs S 

Unwin 


1136 L Palmer Object Refer to Representation 200 

1137 I Tabberer Object Refer to Representation 200


1139 Mr D 

Ferguson 



1141 G Shaw Object Refer to Representation 200 

1142 Jamie 

Clarke 

1143 Duncan 

Bates 



1144 Jason Sign Object Refer to Representation 200 



1147 A Bates Object Refer to Representation 200 

1148 P Hession Object Refer to Representation 200 

1149 D 

Ferguson 

1150 Mrs M 

Ferguson 




1152 J Neville Object Refer to Representation 200



1155 Miss L 

Ferguson 


1156 D White Object Refer to Representation 200 

1157 Paul 

Bannister 

1158 Matthew 

Baker 



1159 M Leeson 

Object 

Question 9 

Before the Council think of future plans for Coalville and surrounding, they should show an interest in what they 

have started and not finished. For example, finishing roads on new housing estates. 

1160 J Sketchley Question 3 

Act as an agent to those with interest in two pieces of land located within Griffydam. Request that consideration 

be given to Griffydam/Peggs Green to be identified as a “Sustainable Village”. Local services include primary 

school, community facilities and a public bus service. 

1161 D Partner 

1162 Suzanne 

Gibson on 

behalf of 

Mr T E 

Object 

Question 15 

Future development at Greenhill Farm will destroy this beautiful area, destroy wildlife habitat and devalue 

properties. New facilities would be needed which would lead to more loss of land. Have experienced surface 

water draining off the field and a development creating hard surfaces would exaggerate this problem. Suggest 

that Brownfield sites are developed instead. 

Question 15 

Understanding that the previous ten year plan was that houses would be built on Brownfield sites such as former 

site of Coalville Tech College and the site of the old Rugby Club. A number of sites have been developed 

including Botts Hollow, sites in Ellistown and a site off Belvoir Road plus others. These sites along with the South

Gibson 

East Coalville site were going to be sufficient to meet Government targets, 

The South East Coalville site was to include a by-pass, a railway station, new school and shops. Believe that this 

site was not developed only because the developers are reluctant or unable to meet this criterion. Is now 

concerned that in order to meet new Government targets other sites will be chosen in preference to South East 

Coalville with no works done to the by-pass that has been promised. An Air Quality expert has advised that the 

air quality is such that no new development can be built with egress onto Bardon Road until there is a by-pass in 

situ. This consultation is also the first time that the use of a narrow strip of land between houses and existing 

Ivanhoe railway line has been mentioned. Had understood that this was to be used as a buffer zone between the 

proposed estate, railway and existing road. This could then be treated as a wildlife haven and amenity space. 

1163 Mather 

Jamie 

Question 15 

Support proposal to extend Coalville to the east with the development of the area identified as Greenhill Farm. 

There is also potential for development on land off Agar Nook (site identified on submitted plan). Development 

on both sides of Greenhill Road should be considered as this land here is relatively flat before it rises into the 

Charnwood Forest Area. Therefore development could take place without loss to open countryside. 

1164 Mrs J E 

Burnerr 

1165 Lin Hoult 

Object 

Object 

Land off Agar Nook is in the ownership of Building Social Housing Foundation and would make its land available 

to enhance provision of low cost housing. Greenhill Road and the area of Agar Nook Lane meet all sustainability 

requirements. There is potential to increase public accessibility into the adjoining identified recreational open 

space and for this area to be extended. 

Question 15 

Object to development at South West Coalville. Live in the area for its rural location and superb views, including 

of the Snibston Grange Nature Reserve. If 700 houses were built close to this designation there would be the 

loss of wide range and abundance of wildlife, as well as peace and quiet. This would be a criminal act and it is 

also at the heart of the National Forest. Object to the proposal by Miller Homes to put in an access road and form 

a concrete jungle. Highfield Road cannot cope with existing traffic levels without additional traffic generated by 

new houses. Standard Hill can also not cope and these two roads are not suitable for additional traffic. 

Question 8 

Object to the development of 12, 200 house in Coalville and surrounding villages. We are fast losing our identity 

and do not want to become a city. What are implications of the Penbury houses and are they coming to Coalville?

1166 Mr P 

Goacher 

1167 Mr B Fern 

1168 M Johnson 

1169 C L 

Johnson 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 10 

Loss of Green Wedge will have an irreversible impact on wildlife and peace of mind. 

Question 15 

Wish to object to the scale of development proposed and will be affected by the development in Hugglescote. 

Grange Road is busy and dangerous. Further dwellings will result in increased traffic, noise and pollution. 

School places are limited. How will be school accommodate new pupils? Loss of established wildlife and loss of 

the public rights of ways and fields, used by a lot of people for leisure and enjoyment. The second phase 

development of shops would be a waste of time. Radical changes and investment is needed to encourage 

people to the centre of the community and not away from it. Why wait for phase two before by-pass, schools and 

shops are to be built. It would make sense to improve the current infrastructure before adding more strain. 

Also feel strongly that the individual villages of Hugglescote, Ibstcok, Ellistown, Whitwick and Thringstone should 

remain as villages and not merged into the town of Coalville. 

Question 8 and 10 

Object to building 12,000 houses around Coalville and building on green wedge land. It would be wrong for 

villages to loose their identity and to become part of one urban sprawl. People already struggle for houses and 

this would be made worse with no sustainable jobs. Also lead to more cars parking at schools. 

Question 8 

Object to the housing plan that is proposed. It appears that the Council have tried to railroad these proposals in 

order to acquire funding needed to redevelop Coalville Town Centre. The decision to refer to Thringstone, 

Whitwick, Bardon, Hugglescote, Ibstock and Ravenstone as ‘North, South, East and West Coalville’ is deceitful. 

There is no actual need for this scale of development other than to attract commuters from surrounding cities. 

Such a scale of development would destroy the nature and appeal of the area, overload the already drowned 

local road network, and the loss of green spaces would change a rural area to one of urban sprawl. The 

suggestion of increase local employment is fantasy. 

Question 8 

Object to the housing plan that is proposed. The amount of housing and location will damage the character of the 

area, obliterate village identity and destroy the green areas that are cherished by the community. Most local 

people appreciate that there is a need for housing on a much smaller scale and are of the opinion that this could 

be accommodated on brownfield sites. This approach would also tidy up derelict land that blights the area.

1170 P D 

Beddoe 

1171 Mrs E P 

Mee 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 1 

The Sustainability Triangle is an approach that is just handed down from Central Government. Dumping all 

business in the north of the district at Castle Donington and concentrating housing in the south east at Coalville is 

a simplistic approach. This will ensure that occupants of the new houses will drive north to work. The drive for 

environmental improvements in the west at the National Forest will deprive other areas of must needed 

environmental improvements. 

Question 10 

The Green Wedge protects Swannington from development and this principle should be extended throughout the 

district. Why is no such protection for the northern parishes where development continues unabated, with the 

loss of farms. 

Question 20 

The road and street layout of Castle Donington only just operates day to day, with traffic jams on weekday 

mornings and evenings, and gridlocked at weekend when events are staged at the Racetrack. The new housing, 

for which no demand exists, would make the traffic and infrastructure situation intolerable for existing residents. 

Question 35 

As it is situated on the perimeters of there counties, Castle Donington is prone to illegal gypsy encampments. 

The provision of additional sites should be resisted. 

Question 46 

In respect of the Airport, no consideration is given to the impact on the residential population, their right to sleep 

and to have unpolluted clean air. The area suffers from in excess of 22,000 night flights per year and the 

increasing atmospheric pollution. The airport contributes to net national tourism deficit and annihilation of 

thousands of indigenous skilled manufacturing jobs. Distinct Council have granted permission for speculative 

office development within the airport curtilage for non-airport related firms, which is resented by surrounding 

populations. 

Question 23 

Object to the amount of housing proposed in Ibstock. Villages should not be joined and they should retain their 

individuality. If there are 1300 homes empty homes, why do new homes need to be built? New homes will bring 

more cars and noise to the area and people will need to use their cars to get to work and to quality shops. Roads 

and junctions are busy and provision of buses does not seem to have an impact. Improvements will need to be

1172 Mr J Kirk 

Object 

made to schools, GPs and roads. There will be a loss of environment, views and adverse impact on the Sence 

Valley. 

Question 23 

No justification for more dwellings in Ibstock as there is no scope to significantly increase employment. New 

residents will have to commute to work and this would add to traffic congestion. There will also need to be an 

increase in services such as schools, medical facilities, roads and car parking. 

Site to the south of Ashby Road is a Greenfield site, was designated as Green Wedge, presumes against 

development, and the development would result in the loss of the physical separation between the villages of 

Ibstock and Heather. Previous advice has been that this site is unsuitable for development. This Greenfield site 

should be protected given the continual disappearance of natural habitats. The residents of Station Rd and 

Parkdale have paid a premium for their dwellings because of their proximity to the open area and building high 

density housing would lead to a loss in property values. 

1173 O B Twigg Question 15 

Wish to put forward for consideration a section of land situated behind Thringstone Primary School, and bordered 

by Loughborough Road and the A512. Put forward this land for the purpose of building houses. 

1174 Mrs Pat 

Elderfield 

Object 

Question 7 

Grave concerns about the option one preference. These proposals have taken centrally/regionally dictated 

numbers and identified sites by developer option agreements rather than take the opportunity to reshape and 

strengthen the settlements within the district. Is it too late to challenge the distribution of dwellings across the 

district? 90% of the housing would be developed within a four-mile radius of Coalville. This will put pressure 

upon the drainage infrastructure through Whitwick and Thringstone. Option four seems more appropriate at 

enabling more organic growth of the settlements in the district. 

The final document should also say that 20-30% of future development should be on Brownfield/reshaped areas, 

for example, land of Wolsey and the Pegson’s site in Coalville. Development should be steered towards areas of 

the town centre where the authority would like to see regeneration and increase density. The document should 

also give greater emphasis on what has been delivered, along with clear statements about the protection and 

provision of green areas, green corridors, and the preservation of Green Lane. 

Question 35 

Reference is made to the activities of Fenland DC with reference to Gypsy and Travellers. They have delivered

1175 Janet and 

Eric 

Warburton 

Object 

Object 

Object 

three times the amount of provision than that is expected of NWLeicestershire. 

Question 14 

Totally against any of the suggestions. There is no need for further housing especially on green wedge sites. 

There are already many houses for sale in the area. Where are all the people going to come from to live in these 

houses? Infrastructure, such as medical services, drains, water supply, cannot support anymore houses. 

Question 10 

Green Wedges are part of the areas heritage and should be protected. They should not be built on and should 

not be overrun by public. These green wedges are green area, which maybe farmed or areas of special interest, 

especially with wildlife input. 

Question 35 

Do not want any more gypsy and travellers sites in the Coalville area as there are already two sites in close 

proximity at Costalot and Sinope (privately owned). 

1176 Jenny 

Burnett 

1177 Mrs C 

Powell 

1178 George 

Kenneth 

Milnes 

1179 Stephen 

LoftHouse 





1180 Mrs Bird Object Refer to Representation 634 

1181 Ian M. 

Walne 


1182 Rob Object Refer to Representation 634

Houghton 

1183 C.M Grove Object Refer to Representation 634 

1184 W.J 

Marsden 


1185 Joan Briers Object Refer to Representation 634 

1186 D.A David Object Refer to Representation 634 

1187 Mr F Mee Object Refer to Representation 634 

1188 Maurice 

Briers 


1189 Mrs M Mee Object Refer to Representation 634 

1190 Joyce O 

Walne 

1191 Clare 

Houghton 

1192 Mr Sean 

Clarke 

1193 Mrs Faye 

Clarke 

1194 Mrs Annie 

Walker 

1195 Mrs M G 

Milnes 







1196 Mr John 

Walker 

1197 Mr Roy 

Walker 



1198 W Bancroft Object Refer to Representation 634 

1199 A Bancroft Object Refer to Representation 634 

1200 C A Ryder Object Refer to Representation 879 

1201 S Neal Object Refer to Representation 879 

1202 Lorraine 

Talbot 

1203 Richard 

Derbyshire 

1204 Margaret 

Dennis 




1205 S M Walker Object Refer to Representation 879 

1206 Mrs E A 

Allen 

1207 Mr P A 

Allen 

1208 Gale 

Adams 




1209 Mr M W 

Adams 

1210 Arnold 

Heister 

1211 Elaine 

Heister 

1212 Alan Peter 

Costello 

1213 Keith 

Spurling 

1214 Pamela 

Ann 

Costello 

1215 Miss N 

Horne 

1216 Mrs S 

Attenborou 

gh 

1217 Paul 

Attenborou 

gh 

1218 P 

Attenborou 

gh 











1219 Gail Object Refer to Representation 879

Alderson 

1220 No representation with this reference number 

1221 B Flester 

1222 Dave and 

Ann Toon 

1223 M J and W 

R Brother 

hood 

1224 Dave Toon 

and Ann 

Toon 

1225 Mr and Mrs 

Wilton 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 14 

Have already lost too many green fields and trees and object to more being destroyed. If Bardon Aggregates get 

permission to build quarry what will happen to people’s houses and the traffic problems created. Loss of animals, 

atmosphere and pollutions. Where will all the people come from and where will they work. There is a lack of 

infrastructure including utility services. This is the people’s land and should not be ruined. The empty homes 

should be sold to those that need housing. Do not believe the proposals will regenerate Coalville. 

Question 10 

Strong rumours that the Hermitage Leisure Centre is being run down with an ultimate aim of closure and site 

clearance, with no plans for a replacement centre. The vacated site together with its open spaces will then 

become available for housing development and further reduce the Green Wedge areas in and around Coalville. 

The publication of the Council’s future plans for Hermitage Leisure Centre would be appreciated. Object to the 

loss of this leisure facility and the surrounding green areas. 

Question 14 

Raise strong objections to the proposed housing developments in the Coalville areas. It is not acceptable for the 

villages of Whitwick, Thringstone and Swannington to become part of Coalville – the autonomy of these ancient 

villages should be retained. In addition the Green Wedge which separates Thringstone and Whitwick is ancient 

unspoiled land and it is unacceptable that it becomes building land. The Head Teachers and Governors of 

Thringstone were not advised that the school and playing fields had been identified as potential building land. As 

such they were denied the opportunity to object in the original required timescale. It is an excellent school which 

serves the community well. 

Question 15 

Alarmed and object to the proposed building of houses at Greenhill Farm. This area and the fields opposite are 

start of the Charnwood Forest and should remain free of development. Development would remove an area of 

natural beauty and restrict views of fields, and spoil the outlook. 


Object to any more development and sites for travellers in and around Whitwick. Whitwick is too busy with traffic

1226 Mrs and Mr 

Heister 


Vaughan 

Object 

Object 

and schools, dentists and doctors are overcrowded. House prices would be devalued. Houses are still moving 

due to subsidence. A spring runs under Hermitage Road and flooding will increase as water will not drain away. 

Glebe Farm land is medieval ground and should be protected. Whitwick is a village and does not want to be part 

of Coalville. Development will result in loss of wildlife with very little green land left. 


Oppose plans to build thousands of houses in the area and development would result in loss of countryside, 

wildlife and green field’s. There will be no distinction between Coalville, Ravenstone, Hugglescote, Donington, 

Ellistown, Ibstock and Whitwick. Do not want all these houses and traveller sites. The small villages and the 

green wedge, green field, hedgerows and trees in the area should be kept. Building more houses will lead to 

more cars and transport. 

Question 23 

Development of the site to the north of Ashby Road, Ibstock would affect views from nearby areas and affect and 

house values. There is also the major problem of the instability of the ground resulting from nearby coal mining 

at the old Heather mine. The effects of this include drag-subsidence, subsidence of land and add new hazards to 

traffic on the A447. The south-eastern field on this site is a recently improved sports field with a new clubhouse 

and cat park. These facilities are well used. In addition, the service resources of the community would be 

overstretched by housing development of this scale. 

1228 Mrs SA 

Booth 

1229 Mr GD 

Booth 

1230 Linda 

Robinson 

1231 Dianne 

Middleton 

1232 Lyn 

Roberston 







Lowe 

1234 Rachael 

Tortora 

1235 Barbara 

Bentley 




1236 John Price Object Refer to Representation 879 

1237 D Jones Object Refer to Representation 879 

1238 Mrs J 

Adams 


1239 J Sherdiff Object Refer to Representation 879 


KE Coates 

1241 Dianne 

Murray 



1242a 

1242b 

Gertrude 

Robinson 

Mrs H 

Wraithmell 



1243 Elizabeth 

Weston 

1244 Pearl L 

Francis 




1246 Sheila King Object Refer to Representation 879 

1247 J White Object Refer to Representation 879 

1248 R and M 

Beeson 

1249 Mrs D 

Glitheroe 

1250 Mrs A 

Elliott 

1251 Mrs G 

Bradley 

1252 Doris 

Stanyard 

1253 Mrs H 

Black 

1254 Mrs P 

Burgess 








1255 S A James Object Refer to Representation 879 

1256 Joan 

Maynes 

1257 Tracy 

Foulds 



1258 Brenda 

Simpson 


1259 P Hubbard Object Refer to Representation 879 

1260 Heather 

Francis 


1261 J Gufflen Object Refer to Representation 879 

1262 Barry 

Taylor 

1263 Christine 

Mellor 

1264 L 

Whitehurst 

1265 Margaret 

Staley 

1266 Mr Ronald 

Mitcnison 

1267 Maureen 

Wayte 

1268 John 

Cheshire 

1269 J 

MacGregor 









1270 Anne 

Baxter 


1271 S Ibrahim Object Refer to Representation 879 

1272 V Whathall Object Refer to Representation 879 

1273 Mrs Ann 

Toon 


1274 Mr D Toon Object Refer to Representation 879 

1275 Mrs Ann 

Toon 

1276 Mr P.D. 

Toon 

1277 Mr E 

Helster 




1278 R R Parker Object Refer to Representation 879 

1279 Alan 

Goacher 


1280 Tina Kirk Object Refer to Representation 879 

1281 Pauline 

Eveleigh 

1282 Patrick 

Eveleigh 



1283 Alan and 

Gwen 

Findley 

1284 Patricia 

Purday 



1285 J Bradford Object Refer to Representation 879 

1286 Trevor 

Aldridge 

1287 Doreen 

Aldridge 

1288 Duncan 

Farrow 

1289 Tracey 

Farrow 

1290 Ann 

Merwick 

1291 David 

Turner 

1292 Raymond 

Purday 








1293 Jane Bell 

Object 

Question 14 

Object to the intended housing developments around Coalville. There is little green space as it is in Whitwick and 

we do not want to lose our identity and become integrated with Coalville. This is the National Forest, a place for 

growing trees, and not covering the available space with houses.

1294 Mrs 

Barbara 

Granger 

1295 Mrs Burton 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 23 

Concerned about the impact of any further development in the village. Development in recent years has resulted 

in infrastructure problems, including Severn Trent having problems. Local people are unable to gain access to 

services such as doctors, dentists and schools. Traffic and parking is a problem in the village and the police are 

struggling to keep on top of street drinking, littering and vandalism. There is also a shortage of suitable playing 

areas for older youngsters as well as large open spaces for families. 

Question 24 

Station Road – have an allotment on this site which is well used with a waiting list. It is a needed site in terms of 

climate change and is used by local residents of different ages. 

North Ashy Road – includes the site of a football club and club house. It is a popular facility and is well used and 

a further pitch is needed. The field is also an important for wildlife as it is next to Sence Valley Park. Proximity of 

housing would be detrimental to wildlife and also the peace and affinity of the area. Noise is carried a long 

distance over the area of Ibstock. The only acceptable housing for this site would be ribbon development along 

the A447 with a wide margin give to the National Forest and the rest of the field to provide a playing field. 

South Ashby Road – This land is close to new woodland and is an important site for ground nesting birds and 

skylark numbers are decreasing. 

Off Leicester Road – Leicester Road is currently seeing some development which is causing disruption to the 

traffic. The road cannot take the volume of traffic proposed even at the lowest level of development. Both ends 

of the road experience congestion and there are difficulties in crossing the roads, making it extremely dangerous 

for children and the elderly. 

Suggest an alternative site on land on Melbourne Road following from Chandlers Croft to B.O.A.T and to rear of 

existing cottages just before the public footpath. This site could accommodate a number of houses with good 

access to amenities and opportunities for tree planting. Road improvements could be made as well as a footway 

link and cycle track. Housing should be targeted where it is needed and it is suggested that another village is 

created. A retirement village would help free up other housing and many older people would be glad to live in 

peaceful and secure surroundings near families and amenities. 

Question 14 

Vehemently protest to the proposal to building housing adjacent to Hermitage Road, Hall Lane and Stephenson 

Way. This land has never been previously developed and any buildings will be detrimental to anyone who 

resides along the perimeters of these roads. Notwithstanding the aesthetic considerations, there is also the fear

1296 The 

Building 

and Social 

Housing 

Foundation 

1297 R W 

Wilson 

1298 Ian 

Williamson 

1299 Mrs 

Amanda J 

Williamson 

Object 

Object 

Object 

of further subsidence and flooding. Given past problems there are underground sources of water such as springs 

and flooding will be inevitable if the land is developed. Development would result in urban sprawl and do not 

want the village of Whitwick to be forcibly reunited with other independent villages. These villages have been 

here since the Domesday and there are strong objections to these proposals. The majority do not want to be 

joined to Coalville in any shape or form. 

The Building and Social Hosing Foundation own three adjacent field on Agar Nook Lane (plan provided) within 

the proximity of the identified Greenhill Road site. Suggest this piece of land be considered as an additional 

possible site for sustainable housing development. The area is currently used for additional grazing by a local 

farmer with a one-year notice period. 

Question 23 

The village of Ibstock has grown far too big. Local schools, doctors and dentist are already oversubscribed. 

Traffic congestion is a big problem especially at peak times. Seems ridiculous that the Football Club spend 

money on a new clubhouse for the playing field to then be considered for dwellings. Would also devalue 

properties and affect views. There are at least one hundred homes for sale or for rent in the village. 

If building must go ahead, would suggest that Station Road is an option. It has the least interference with regard 

to traffic problems and is far enough away so as not to affect Sence Valley Park. 

Question 3 and Question 35 

Object to the LDF proposals including the 9,800 new homes in the Coalville area, the distribution of housing and 

the traveller’s site policy. Object to the County Council’s proposal to add 15,000 homes to the Coalville area in 

lieu of Pennbury. 


Object to the LDF proposals including the 9,800 new homes in the Coalville area, the distribution of housing and 

the traveller’s site policy. Object to the County Council’s proposal to add 15,000 homes to the Coalville area in 

lieu of Pennbury. 

1300 Representations from Persimmon Homes North Midlands Persimmon have an interest in the two proposed SUEs 

(land off Broom Leys Road and land south of Grange Road)

Question 1 

The favoured approach is sound and logical, building on the strengths of the District such as the Airport and 

National Forest whilst recognising the need to revitalise the town centre. 

Question 2 

The focus of new development must be in the most sustainable locations. In NWL this is Coalville, some 

additional development in the Rural Towns is appropriate 

Questions 3 & 4 

The level of housing proposed in the RSS is supported with an emphasis on Coalville which will assist with the 

objectives of regenerating the town centre. 

Question 5 

Agreed and Option 1 – the Coalville focus option is strongly supported. 

Question 6 

The priority should be to plan for the current period until 2026. It is appreciated that the RSS is subject to an 

immediate review to cover the period to 2031. At this stage it is considered sufficient to include an appropriate 

level of flexibility to allow the possible increases in housing provision. 

Question 7 

In supporting the Coalville option the implication is that the development will largely be accommodated in two 

potential SUEs. Whilst Persimmon support these proposals, the challenges involved in promoting, obtaining 

planning permission, dealing with multiple land ownerships and delivering significant levels of infrastructure 

before one house can be built should not be underestimated. Where appropriate early tranches of development 

should be identified which could be implemented as stand alone opportunities whilst not prejudicing the 

masterplan for the bigger scheme. This would allow satisfactory phasing of development, ensuring that early 

Section 106 contributions can be secured to assist the regeneration objectives. As the planning of large scale 

development takes many years the downside is that nothing happens on the ground. To ensure that the councils 

shorter term housing requirements are met Persimmon proposes two schemes that could be implemented in the

short term whilst being part of two larger proposals. These are land south of Grange Road near Hugglescote and 

land off Broom leys Road between Stephenson Way and the hospital. 


Whilst supporting Option 1 and the south-east Coalville SUE, there is an implication that the Bardon Grange 

development (allocated site) must be delivered as a first phase before the development to the south of Grange 

Road can occur. This illustrates the potential problem of relying upon large sites. A planning application has not 

yet been submitted and consequently the delivery of important infrastructure is being delayed. It may be 

appropriate to consider other opportunities that can be delivered in the short term, of the regeneration objectives 

for Coalville are not to be delayed. 


It is clear that as part of the LDF process Green Wedges should be reviewed as set out in the RSS. Given the 

history and location of green wedges in Leicestershire they are often in the most sustainable locations. It is 

considered that significant development can occur within this green wedge area whilst including a green area of 

separation to act as a recreational resource. As already stated, the site adjacent to the hospital should be brought 

forward without prejudging the wider aspirations of the green wedge. 

Question 12 

Identifying specific strategic sites is helpful, although much master planning work is required to enable further 

dialogue with the public. 

Question 13 

This approach is supported. 

Question 14 

Persimmon support option 1, the Coalville focus, as it is the most sustainable option and will assist the Council to 

achieve its regeneration objectives. 

Question 15

Persimmon has an interest in the two proposed SUEs (land off Broom Leys Road and land south of Grange 

Road) 


Expanding Coalville is a logical strategy, given the regeneration objectives, and expanding to the south could be 

an interesting concept. 

Question 34 

Affordable housing should conform to national policy and the current figure of 30% in Coalville urban area may be 

considered to conform to national policy. Subject to this being shown to be underpinned by a robust strategic 

housing market assessment and a further separate viability assessment which is also compliant with PPS3 

policy. It is important that schemes are financially viable and affordable housing is part of a ‘planning gain’ 

package. The Council may have to choose its priorities and have a flexible approach to Section 106 matters. 


It should not be assumed in advance of detailed master planning that pitches can automatically be found on 

strategic housing sites. Our view is that specific sites should be found which meet the requirements of travellers 

and that a flexible approach should be adopted as implied by Option 2. 

Question 37 

Yes, Subject to comment previously made in respect of affordable housing and sites for travellers 

Question 49 

Yes, in respect of the town centre, Option 2 is logical 

Question 57 

The critical factor is the viability of a scheme and hence the need for flexibility. Should the Council be too rigid in 

its approach, there is a danger schemes will be delayed or even not delivered if the scheme is unviable. Planning 

obligations, including the provision of affordable housing, should be considered in the round. The system that is 

used is likely to be influenced by national legislation but flexibility in approach will be key to delivery.

Question 63 

1301 No representation with this reference 

The SUEs should be built in line with current national policy and legislation. The Secretary of State has resisted 

supporting RSS Proposed Changes which include any accelerated requirements. The same approach should be 

followed at the local level, especially where accelerated introduction of higher standards will be likely to deter 

investment in the construction of new dwellings. The emphasis on Coalville provides the opportunity to reduce 

CO2 emissions compared with more dispersed developments where integrated mixed land uses and public 

transport/cycle/pedestrian movement opportunities are less achievable. 

1302 McDyre & 

Co 

Planning 

Consultant 

s on behalf 

of St 

Modwen 

Developme 

nts Ltd 

McDyre & Co Planning Consultants on behalf of St Modwen Developments Ltd who have interests in the South- 

West Coalville site/SUE. 

Question 1 

The favoured vision is supported, particularly the emphasis on delivering significant new housing growth in the 

Coalville area which is the most sustainable town in the District. 

Question 2 

The favoured objectives are supported, particularly SO1 and SO9. Giving priority to previously developed land is 

a well established planning principle but the Council will need to release Greenfield land to meet its strategic 

housing requirement. The response states that it is Greenfield land which gives the best opportunity to deliver 

affordable housing. 

Question 3 

The favoured approach is agreed with, identifying Coalville and the other settlements in 8.4 as a focus for new 

development. Particularly supported is the emphasis on Coalville as identified in Policy 5 of the adopted Regional 

Plan as a sub-regional centre and hence to be the focus for new development. 

Question 5

They agree that for housing development 9,600 dwellings should be the minimum level of provision to be made 

up to 2026, but that this figure is reviewed, upwards, when revised RSS figures are published which seek to plan 

up to 2031. 

Question 6 

The Core Strategy should address potential development needs beyond the end of the plan period. However, the 

emphasis should be on identifying deliverable land within the plan period and particularly the next 3-4 years when 

large, allocated Greenfield sites in Coalville, such as Grange Road, are not able to deliver dwellings. 

Question 7 

Option 1 is firmly favoured as this is the most sustainable settlement in the District and where development is 

also consistent with the identification of Coalville as a sub-regional centre in the Regional Plan. The additional 

provision of 1400 dwellings over and above the strategic requirement to 2026 is supported to allow flexibility and 

planning for additional infrastructure. 

Question 8 

It is agreed that the most appropriate approach is Option 1 as this is the option most consistent with the Regional 

Plan and it will allow Coalville to become a genuine sub-regional centre consistent with NWLDC aspirations and 

the option will result in the best reduction in the District’s CO2 emissions. 

Although the favoured development strategy, at this stage, is not able to identify the amount of employment land 

required across the District and its distribution between the towns, the development strategy to concentrate 

development in the Coalville urban area is sound and unlikely to be changed as a result of the Leicestershire 

Economic Partnership Employment Land Study. Initial findings suggest that new provision would be best made 

as part of the Sustainable Urban Extensions referred to in RSS. That points in the direction of Coalville. 

Question 9 

The suggested wording for the development strategy is supported. 

Question 10 

Support is for retaining all of the Green Wedge as a Strategic Gap preventing the merger of Coalville with the 

surrounding built up areas. There is significant scope for accommodating the development needs of Coalville in

areas to the south of the town, particularly the south-west SUE, which is well placed in relation to the town centre 

and existing employment areas, particularly Ravenstone Road industrial estate and importantly, the south-west 

SUE is deliverable. There is no need to develop within the Green Wedge. 

Question 12 

The approach is agreed. The specific sites should be identified in the Core Strategy and in particular the St 

Modwen development site at Ravenstone Road, Coalville next to the Ravenstone Road Industrial Estate. This 

site would have been allocated for housing purposes by the previous Local Plan inspector were it not for the 

Grange Road site. However, that site has not come forward and in any event additional land is now required. 

Reference is made to details of the Ravestone Road site that have been submitted on several occasions at the 

early stages of the LDF and the Council’s call for sites, including the HLAA study carried out by Baker Associates 

and the more recent SHLAA. 

The Ravenstone Road site extends approximately 7Ha and could deliver 200 dwellings. It currently forms part of 

the South West Coalville SUE which has a total capacity of some 700 dwellings. The St Modwen development 

site can be delivered at a very early date and in advance of the rest of the SUE, should that survive. 

Question 13 

The general approach postulated for definition of a strategic site is agreed. Para 10.7 is strongly agreed with – 

that other sites may be ‘stand alone’ sites just for housing, but could still be considered strategic sites if they are 

sufficiently large. In this respect the land at Ravenstone Road which can deliver 200 dwellings may rightly be 

regarded as a strategic site. It could however form part of the south-west Coalville SUE as a first phase 

development. 

Question 14 

Option 1 is strongly supported as it is considered the only practicable option given that it is the option which 

delivers the most dwellings bearing in mind that even dwellings at 9,120 fall short of the 9,800 required in the 

Coalville urban area under the Favoured Development Strategy consistent with the RSS. By contrast it is 

considered that options 2, 3 and 4 cannot deliver the dwelling numbers required. 

Attention is drawn to the South-West Coalville site (700 dwellings) and that it needs to be included in all four 

options – this would be supported. 

Question 15

The preferred identified site in the Coalville options 1-4 is South West Coalville. This site has good access to the 

town centre, and Coalville bypass which gives easy access to the wider road network and Coalville is a source of 

a variety of employment opportunities in different sectors of the employment market. The site lies next to 

Ravenstone Road Industrial Estate and the leisure areas next to the Discovery Museum. 

The site is also able to be developed at an early date as it is largely in the ownership of two developers, Clients 

St Modwen Developments Ltd and Miller Homes. A significant advantage is that the site has strong development 

boundaries and fits in more comfortably with the pattern of development in Coalville compared to the other sites 

in Option 1 or indeed in the other three options in Coalville. 

South West Coalville SUE does not have the infrastructure problems of the South East Coalville SUE, principally 

as the scale of development of the latter and which has delayed development there for many years and will 

continue to do so for the foreseeable future. 

South-West Coalville can also be phased between developers from a number of vehicular access points. The 

significant point is that the St Modwen Site can easily be delivered, either alone or as a first phase of the SUE. 

Question 32 

The southerly expansion on a much grander scale than Option 1 is possible for the future. However, the priority 

must be to deliver dwellings in the shorter term and that should be the main focus of planning policy. The South- 

West Coalville SUE is the best strategic site to achieve this. 

Question 33 

It is considered that a southerly expansion would be the most appropriate but tempered by the response given to 

question 32. 

Question 34 

Option 1 is preferred as it is much less likely to affect the viability of the sites, as would be the case in Option 2. If 

a site is not viable in the first instance it will never get developed and therefore not provide any affordable 

housing. 

However, it should be carried through to the Core Strategy that provision of affordable housing has to be 

negotiated to reflect Policy H8 (saved) of the Local Plan and the advice at Para 10 of Delivering Affordable 

Housing (DCLG, Nov 2006) that targets should be realistic. Where viability of a development proposal can be 

shown to be compromised by 30% affordable homes that target percentage should be able to be reduced. 

Question 49

Option 2 is supported as the favoured approach. It is considered extremely important to focus on the revitalisation 

of Coalville as a principal shopping destination as befits its role as a sub-regional centre. 

Question 57 

1303 J Dawson Object Refer to Representation 879 

1304 John King Object Refer to Representation 879 

It is considered that certain matters would still be best dealt with through Section 106 agreements where 

individual situations will determine the amount of financial contribution or service/infrastructure provision (e.g. 

affordable housing, education contributions, and infrastructure). Other matters, if appropriate, might be better 

dealt with through CIL (e.g. blanket contributions towards public art, libraries). It may be noted that CIL and S106 

are not mutually exclusive and it is recommended that NWLDC employs both. However, CIL should be subject to 

scrutiny and public consultation before it is introduced to make sure it is fair and appropriate. 

1305 R K 

Watson 


1306 B E Povey Object Refer to Representation 879 

1307 Eileen and 

Antonio 

Manini 


1308 C Huss Object Refer to Representation 879 

1309 Mr Platts 

and Miss 

Melvin 

1310 A J Straw 


Question 7 

Object 

Object to all of the proposed housing options. Support an alternative Option which would preserve the Green

1311 J M Smith Object Refer to Representation 1310 

1312 F Boobyer Object Refer to Representation 879 

Wedge and keep Whitwick and Thringstone separate from Coalville. 

1313 Holmes 

Antill on 

behalf of 

Parkridge 

Land Ltd 

1314 Holmes 

Antill on 

behalf of 

Paragon 

Support Question 40 

Particular support for the part of the vision that identifies the district will build on its unique geographic 

advantages and infrastructure strength. 

Land to the west of the M1, Junction 24 and north of East Midlands Airport represents the best and most strategic 

location for a rail freight interchange in the sub-region. Proposal can be delivered with the support of Network 

Rail and the Highways Agency and impact from development can be satisfactorily mitigated. Wholly appropriate 

for the Core Strategy to recognise the importance of the proposal in terms of the economy, both locally and 

regionally. 

Object Question 43 

For any urban extension to be truly sustainable it is important to minimise trips, including to areas of employment. 

Suggest an allocation of 25ha of new employment spaces be identified as part of a mixed-use SUE at Coalville. 

Existing employment development at Beveridge Lane is a major provision of jobs, with good accessibility to the 

M1 and being sub-regionally significant. 

Suggest the new employment and green infrastructure uses be south of Beveridge Lane, west of the railway 

(Identified on a map). 

Object to the omission of this site from the Core Strategy. 

1315 Holmes 

Antill on 

behalf of 

Paragon 

Issue 5 

Support the concentration of housing growth at Coalville. The most appropriate site is for a Sustainable Urban 

Extension is at “South East Coalville” for the following reasons:

• ease of access to employment 

• potential for high quality public transport connectivity to the town centre 

• size would facilitate appropriate and delivery of green infrastructure, and other services 

• development would not infringe on important landscape and environment constraints 

1316 Holmes 

Antill on 

behalf of 

Paragon 

Support Issue 1 

Appreciate the importance of business in a strong community. Question how will it encourage innovation and 

help maintain the District’s diverse business base? 

Support the part of the vision that refers to the district building on its unique geographic advantages and 

infrastructure strengths. 

1317 Ravenston 

e with 

Snibston 

Parish 

Council 

In addition to their responses to the questions in the Core Strategy Further Consultation the Parish Council 

submitted six pages of supporting evidence. The supporting pages raise issues regarding population estimates, 

housing growth, Parish boundaries, merging of settlements and employment. 

Question 1 

Very strong opposition to the Vision as it would impact upon Ravenstone’s rural village nature and there is the 

potential that Ravenstone would merge with Coalville. 

Question 2 

The following objectives are supported: SO1 to SO6, SO10, SO13 and SO14. 

Regarding SO7, diversifying the Districts economy base will prove difficult; it needs to be approached creatively 

and innovatively if it is to be truly sustainable. It may be necessary to develop forms of economic activity that 

require substantially less dependence on traditional raw materials and minerals but are nonetheless productive. 

SO8 is supportable with the reservations previously stated, it may be that in the near future the Parish Council will 

support and affordable housing development. 

Regarding SO9 the Parish Council states there is scepticism as to whether Coalville has the vitality to enhance or 

it is viable. Locating supermarket outlets on the periphery have not helped. 

In regards to SO12 the reduction of social exclusion and deprivation is laudable and entirely supportable. 

However, this needs to be approached gradually and organically and sensitively managed. Communities must be 

allowed sufficient time and effective support to facilitate such newcomers’ assimilation as must those people or 

families who are to be relocated. With these reservations, the favoured objectives are supportable.

Question 3 

The favoured approach is supported but subject to earlier reservations about Coalvilles encroachment into 

Ravenstone. There is widespread support for further housing development in rural villages to be restricted to local 

needs housing. Affordable housing a stellar example. However, there is some inconsistency with the 3 or 4 large 

sites identified in and around Ravenstone 

And the statement to restrict development to infill sites of no more than about 0.1Ha. 

Question 4 

Not in this context however, it is considered that the potential for a large new settlement that would take the 

majority of new development should be re-examined. 

Question 5 

The figure of 9600 dwellings has been queried as development that has taken place sine 2001 will be deducted 

from the total number of new houses to be built. The Parish Council would like clarification of an exact figure for 

Ravenstone. 

The 9600 dwellings figure should be the maximum level and if this total is the minimum acceptable to higher tiers 

of government then it would be supportable. Reference is made to the economic climate in regards to the 

numbers. 

Question 6 

A 25 year period is generally quite sufficient as a safer period of projection. However the strategies relevance will 

reduce over time and will require regular reappraisal over the period. On balance at one level the plan should 

perhaps cover the period to 2034, realistically the plan should not seek to go beyond 2026. 

Question 7 

The Parish Council state there is a contradiction as Option 2 is described as rejected then seems to reappear as 

one of the 4 Options. Option 1 is supportable though subject to the earlier reservations about potential impact on 

Ravenstone. In every case there is concern for infrastructure provision dependant on population increase. The 

strategy could have been more explicit with various population numbers. Concern is specifically raised regarding 

capacity at Woodstone School and primary health care and A&E services although various public utility services 

are also important. 

Question 8 

The favoured approach to the development strategy is supported through subject to reservations about the 

impact on Ravenstone.

Question 9 

Generally the wording appears appropriate and provisions as to sustainable village’s especially concerning infill 

and local needs development are welcomed. It is to be noted that although Coalville is the un-parished part of the 

District this has been inaccurately represented as ‘The Limes’ has been included as part of the Coalville Urban 

Area when it is part of Ravenstone. Also ‘Whitegates Farm’ and ‘The Crofts’ have been included in the South 

West Coalville, when they are part of the Parish of Ravenstone. There is also opposition to the size of 

development which would potentially increase the size of the village. 

Question 10 

The Parish consider that it is not applicable to Ravenstone although they do state that an impermeable 

topographical separation should be sought between Coalville and Ravenstone which could be applied elsewhere 

in the District. 

Question 11 

Whilst not applicable to Ravenstone the inclusion of public footpaths and cycle-ways could increase Public 

Access to the Green Wedge. 

Question 12 

Identifying strategic sites in the Core Strategy is support insofar as it informs people of their location as long as 

these sites are not a done deal and can be amended in light of local considerations and that planning blight is 

avoided or minimised and the views of the people who are directly affected can be respected. 

Question 13 

This is supported however as Ravenstone is considered a Sustainable Village then none of the three potential 

sites within Ravenstone are ‘infill’ development, two of the sites could be classed as Strategic Sites and one 

qualifies for the restriction of being 0.1Ha in size. 

Question 14 

Essentially Option 1 is supported but modified to ensure that the rural landscape is not fundamentally altered and 

an area of separation is retained to prevent the merger of Coalville and Ravenstone. 

Question 15 

The Parish Council feel it appropriate to only comment regarding the South West Coalville site. It is advocated 

that housing in this area be kept to a minimum however, providing a area of separation is retained between 

Coalville and Ravenstone then villager objections may be fairly minimal.

Question 16 

If the use of the South West Coalville site is unavoidable and if elsewhere is more unacceptable to villagers then 

the South West Coalville site would be the least unacceptable answer would be the South West Coalville Site to 

be reduced in size. In such event a smaller site elsewhere may well be fairly readily available. 

Question 32 

The expanding of Coalville is supported in principle, but it is a matter of degree and in what direction. 

Question 33 

The Parish Council consider that due to the extent the development would have on Ravenstone, villagers would 

only consider a southerly expansion appropriate if the number of dwellings were reduced in number and an area 

of separation was included between Coalville and Ravenstone. 

Question 34 

In regards to affordable housing Option 1 is considered preferable given the allowance for local needs housing. 

Question 35 

In regards to Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Show People, provision should be made in communities. 

Mixed communities with a greater potential for their integration appears attractive in principle. However there are 

some reservations, these groups must be willing to integrate. Reference is made to Leicestershire County 

Council’s study which identified that these communities, in the most part, prefer relative separation or isolation 

from the general population. No only would there be issues around the locating of the pitches and their on-going 

management but there would also need to be a structured approach to foster and support the actual integration 

process. 

Question 37 

There are no other options which should be considered. 

Question 38 

Generally the favoured housing strategy is supported, there are the following reservations: 

• The affordable housing – it seems illogical to have a 10% difference in the target between Coalville and 

the rest of the District as it appears sensible to locate them closer to Town Centre facilities thus reducing 

expensive travel. 

• The 30 dwelling per hectare may be an acceptable minimal net density villagers cannot make an 

informed judgement without knowing what this looks like in practice. With more information it may well be

that a different figure would be supported. 

Question 39 

In principle the favoured approach regarding Regional and Sub-Regional economic needs is supported 

Question 40 

In principle the favoured approach regarding strategic distribution is supported. However it is questioned as to 

why the expansion on the EMDC is not proposed. 

Question 41 

The Parish Council question why the expansion on the EMDC is not proposed 

Question 42 

The creation of an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport is supported however, the 

Donington Park potential may be overly optimistic. 

Question 43 

No comments apart from to support and encourage small businesses sensitive and unobtrusive location in rural 

communities 

Question 44 

Generally the Economic Strategy is supportable, particularly diversifying and upgrading the economy towards 

higher-value/higher-knowledge undertakings. More cautious support for provision of new land for employment 

development, as there are issues about size and potential location. 

Question 45 

The Parish Council state that since businesses of the future will need to be increasingly flexible and agile, it may 

well be advisable to place some stress on such units as opposed to larger undertakings 

Question 46 

The favoured approach is relation to East Midlands Airport is supported. 

Question 47 

There are no other options that could be considered 

Question 48

The Airport related definitions should continue to be used. 

Question 49 

The Parish Council consider that it makes sense to focus upon Coalville as the principal shopping destination. 

However at present the town is disjointed with no centre. It is considered major work would need to take place to 

improve Coalville Town Centre. Therefore there is concern that this may act as a driver for the housing proposals 

and the planning gain they may generate. Any improvements to Coalville Town Centre should not be at the 

expense of local residents. With these reservations, the favoured option is supported. 

Question 50 

There are no other options bearing in mind the practicalities. 

Question 51 

The Town Centre boundaries should be defined but there are reservations as detailed in response to question 49. 

Question 52 

The Parish Council consider that possibly squaring off the Town Centre boundaries would better facilitate the 

town centre’s future development 

Question 53 

The favoured Transport approach is generally supported. 

Question 54 

Account should be taken of developing technologies for carbon neutral forms of transport although it is 

considered that this will not necessarily reduce the number of vehicles. It is essential that an increased number of 

vehicles are planned for. 

Question 55 

The high quality, sustainable development approach is supported 

Question 56 

There are no other issues which should be addressed. 

Question 57 

It is unclear as to whether S106 and CILs are mutually exclusive and therefore to be deployed according to which 

is the more appropriate.

1318 Carter 

Jonas on 

behalf of 

Support 

Question 58 

There are ongoing land drainage/flooding issues associated with the Leascrofts development and the fields to the 

rear of the north side of Leicester Road and west of Wash Lane. 

Question 59 

The favoured climate change approach is supported. 

Question 61 

Insufficient knowledge to suggest level 

Question 62 

Insufficient knowledge to suggest level 

Question 63 

It may be appropriate to map rural BOATs, cycle ways, footpaths and bridleways to the fullest. Also account 

should be taken of established rural woodland to which there is public access. In regards to accessibility the 

major GI facilities are only accessible by private transport. Therefore a there is perhaps a need for numerous 

green spaces distributed throughout the District all within easy walking distance – this could also address the 

needs of disabled people. 

Question 64 

As a minimum, the standard of Open Space provision recommended in the Open Space Audit is supported. 

Question 65 

The favoured approach regarding priority neighbourhoods is supported, subject to the reservations expressed in 

response to Question 49 regarding Coalville Town Centre. 

Question 66 

More detail is required regarding improvements in priority neighbourhoods. What is understood to be the 

approach adopted fro new residential development could, wherever possible be extended to priority 

neighbourhoods. Volunteers from within communities could help ensure projects are realised. 

Question 3 

Particular support for the identification of Castle Donington as a focus for development. It has a range of facilities

the British 

Heart 

Foundation 

and employment opportunities. Additional housing and employment development would sustain growth, provide 

for new and existing residents. New employment land would also help retain balance between housing and 

employment. 

Question 7 

Support Option 3 that includes provision of 1,200 dwellings at Castle Donington. It will ensure development is 

evenly distributes across the District of a scale to support development of new facilities, services and additional 

employment. 

Support housing target of the Regional Plan to be a minimum with appropriate infrastructure and balance 

between housing and employment to ensure flexibility. 

Questions 20-22 

Object 

Although Development Scenario Option 3 is supported land to the south east of Castle Donington as a 

Development Site (Map submitted identifying land to the south of Stonehill) should also be considered. Choice of 

sites in Castle Donington is limited as they generally only provide a low yield. 

This site is not subject to any ecological, geological or landscape designation nor is it at risk of flooding. It could 

provide up to 300 dwellings and under development scenario 3 this site provides flexibility should one of the three 

identified sites not come forward. 

The site however would be more suitable for employment development of 125 hectares given its proximity to the 

Airport and Donington Park. This would be in line with RSS and also allow the commercial presence at the 

airport to expand. 

Alternatively the site could be suitable to provide additional car parking for Airport, as part of any comprehensive 

future expansion. 

Question 39 

Object 

Support Option 2 that suggests provision is made for regionally significant employment developments. This 

Option will encourage further employment at the Airport in line with PPG4 and daft PPS4. 

East Midlands Airport (EMA) is a regionally significant transport hub, a large employment site with the potential

for users numbers to increase as Donington Park becomes host of the Grand Prix. The Regional Plan supports 

the expansion of the location to be considered in more detail at local level. 

The Council has not given any indication of where the land required for the period 2007 -2026 (2008 Study) 

should be located. 

Questions 40-41 

Object 

The Airport site could be expanded to include other forms of employment development to provide flexibility in 

delivery with use of land to the north of airport e.g. south east of Castle Donington. 

A wider range of uses could benefit the demand-gap analysis identified in the 41.4 ha of industrial land and 4,318 

sqm of office space between 2007-2026. (Employment Study (November 2008)). Such development would be 

less noise sensitive. 

Proposal appears to be reliant on road links and other forms of transport to distribute goods from the site, such as 

rail, should be considered. 

Question 42 

Support the Council’s approach to expansion of the Airport and the surrounding area as an “employment zone”. 

However this contradicts the preferred approach under Issue 9 ( Region and Sub-Regional Economic Needs) 

1319 Fox 

Bennett 

Support Issue 9 

Acting on behalf of landowner (Messrs Walker and JW Investments) of land between Beveridge Land and South 

Lane (Location plan provided). In favour for development close to the existing Bardon 22 development. 

1321 Thomas Issue 5 

The site is identified in the Housing Land Background Paper (2008) as a potential housing site but suggest that a 

mixed development would be more appropriate due to its location. 

Favour an approach which would deliver the required regional significant developments along the criteria that has 

been listed regarding the potential suitability of sites for strategic distribution centres.

Taylor 

Planning 

Preferred Option 1 is supported. 



Site to north of Thringstone should not be limited to the area identified in the Consultation Document. Land to 

the south west of Lily Bank should also be included within this Strategic Allocation. in this Strategic allocation. 

(Location Plan provided). 

1322 Mr S 

Blewitt 


Seaman 

1324 Richard 

and Sharon 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 


Object to the scale and unfair proportion of house building proposed in this region. This area already has a large 

number of empty houses and property on the market that isn’t selling. Whilst this remains the case, why is there 

the case for thousands of more houses to be built and to be built on green belt land? Wouldn’t a gradual 

approach to house building be more prudent? 

Question 8 

A key argument for focusing new housing in Coalville is based on the premise that there will be considerable job 

opportunities at the airport and the racetrack. There does not appear to be any evidence that these jobs exist or 

are in numbers which will warrant such an ambitious building scheme. There are currently thousands of houses 

available for sale or to let. Why assume everyone will wish to live in the Coalville vicinity? Derby and Nottingham 

would be equally accessible to the airport. People have moved to Whitwick due to the retention of its ancient and 

attracted character as a village community. Do not want to rival Birmingham as a sprawling urban conurbation. 

Open spaces such as the Green Wedge are valued. Building houses on this area would not attract people. It will 

deter people from living here and would destroy another area of habitat for ever. 

Question 10 

An argument for building hundreds of houses on the Green Wedge around Whitwick seems to be that an 

increasing number of people in the greater Coalville area would generate more business and job opportunities, 

particularly through retail outlets. Do not believe that Coalville can compete against Loughborough and Leicester 

in retail terms. 

Question 23 

Object to all of the proposed Ibstock housing sites.

Price 

1325 Mr B Smith 

1326 D J 

Christopher 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 24 

Particular concern with relation to the site at ‘south of Ashby Road’. This site covers three green fields which 

form part of the green wedge between Heather and Ibstock. If this development goes ahead these villages will 

merge into a huge community of town proportions without amenities and infrastructure. 

The proposal would result in loss of wildlife and loss of rural feel to the village. There are plenty of properties for 

sale in Ibstock which are currently not selling. There are already developments under construction or land with 

permission for development, and if the proposed sites are also developed there will be a massive influx of people, 

with inadequate doctor surgery facilities, inadequate school capacity and inadequate parking. 

The village already suffers congestion and the roads are currently unable to cope. There is insufficient parking 

available for residential properties as well as commercial premises. The village is also used as a short cut to the 

A42, including the use of the roads by lorries. 

The village does not have employment facilities and if people are able to buy the new homes they will have to use 

their car to travel to work outside of the village. This will increase the pressure on the road network and increase 

the carbon footprint. If housing development is brought to the villages suggest that it is also supported by real 

employment opportunities, and the building of new schools/extension or refurbishment of existing. 

The existing and proposed developments will change Ibstcok from a village to a small town. What type of 

properties will be built? Also concerned that properties will be devalued and what compensation will be paid to 

existing homeowners? 

Question 24 

Objection to the sites on the south and north side of Ashby Road. Ashby Road is a busy road and any excess 

traffic which exceeds the speed limit will add to the danger experienced by road users. Land to the south of 

Ashby Road is higher than adjacent houses and when there is heavy rain, the rear of adjacent houses is flooded. 

Lack of capacity at doctors surgery and will not be able to cope with an additional 3000 residents. If there must 

be development, which do not agree that there should be, the preferred option would be the land of Leicester 

Road. 


Object to the proposals for development for Coalville and the surrounding area. Building on the Green Wedge is

short sighted as this land is needed to sustain wildlife and to maintain the individual villages on order to prevent a 

‘Greater Coalville’. Question the ability of services and infrastructure to sustain such a scale of development. 

The countryside should not be spoilt. 

1327 J E 

Christopher 

1328 C E 

Christopher 

1329 J S 

Christopher 




1330 Wendy, 

Peter and 

Ruth Davis 

1331 Mr R Adkin 

Object 

Support 

Question 8, 10 and 15 

Object to the Core Strategy, especially the plans to build on the eastern green wedge. This amounts to ecovandalism. 

Development in the area has adversely affected amenities and increased crime rates. Adequate parking has not 

been provided for new developments and the areas of Green Lane, Silver Street and George Street suffer onstreet 

parking, restricting access by emergency vehicles. 

Whitwick residents wish to be kept separate from Coalville and retain historical identify. The Green Wedge 

allows this and should not be developed. Whitwick has suffered devastating flash floods, damaging and flooding 

houses. Additional development will increase the floods and their force. Local schools, doctors, dentist and 

public transport struggle to cope. There are also not many jobs available locally. Newcomers to the area will 

shop in Loughborough rather than Coalville. 

Large machinery involved in house-building could lead to instability to nearby properties as a result of previous 

mining under houses. 

Should consider building on Brownfield sites. Many new houses are lying empty and there is no longer the need 

for housing on such a grand scale. 

Question 10 

Support the development of the Central Green Wedge for housing. Residents of these houses would have easy 

access to Coalville town centre with its existing and expected developments. There would also be countryside

1332 Mrs Be E 

Bartlett 

1333 Thomas W 

Redfern 

(Planning 

Consultant) 

on behalf 

of Mr N 

Robinson 

1334 Julia 

Marshall 

Object 

Object 

within easy walking distance as well easy access to the Leisure Centre. 

Question 8 

Object to the proposal to build 12,200 houses in the district for the period 2001 to 2026. Are a third of a way 

through this building project and this is the first time that people in the area have been consulted. Why should all 

the new buildings be in the Coalville area and not distributed evenly throughout the district. Concerned that the 

decision has already been made. Concerned that the development of these green field sites would have an 

adverse impact on wildlife. Local people have a right to green areas and access to the countryside. The impact 

on local facilities such as schools, water, gas, roads, transport etc will be unacceptable. Also object to the 

County’s proposal to add 15,000 homes to the Coalville area in lieu of Pennbury. 

Representation is made by Tom Redfern on behalf of Mr N Robinson who is a resident of Appleby Magna 

Issue 3a – Questions 3 & 4, para 8.4 – 8.12 

Agrees with the focus of new development in the 6 identified settlements and Local Needs development outside 

the 5 rural towns however, this raises questions about the sustainability of smaller communities. 

The concept of Sustainable Villages is a sound approach to distributing residential development among suitable 

settlements. 

Fully supports that Appleby Magna is deemed to be a Sustainable Village however, concerned about the 

proposed restriction of sites to 0.1Ha and the policy although flexible, should be made more flexible due to: 

a) Some sites may require a significant amount of infrastructure which could not be justified (viable for 

developers) on 0.1Ha 

b) Sites of 0.1Ha may not be available in the village to sustain it for the long term. Larger sites, if available 

and appropriately located should be considered as acceptable in principle and so be recognised in the 

policy wording 

Some proposed Sustainable Villages, such as Appleby Magna, have more than the minimum level of services 

required for designation. This should be recognised by a reference to the possible development of larger sites in 

suitably refined wording 

Question 8 

Question why more houses have not been proposed in the Castle Donington area. There is an industrial site in 

the region, plus the airport and easy access to London with Parkway station. These are all places that offer work 

for people. There is virtually no work on offer in Ibstock and therefore the expansion of more houses does not 

make sense.


R Hewitt 


Davinson 

1337 F R Smith 

1338 J Brearley 

1339 Professor 

TC 

Hodgman 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 24 

Oppose the proposed residential development on land ‘South of Ashby Road’ Ibstock. It will affect value of 

nearby properties, result in the loss of views, create noise and impact on amenities as well as the countryside 

and wildlife. The GP surgery is already overstretched and amount of traffic in Parkdale has increase. Suggest 

that the schools must also be under strain. 

Question 10 

The Green Wedge is valuable area of land and helps retain Thringstone’s identity. They are areas of natural 

beauty, a haven for wildlife and have significant historical value from the bronze age to mining activities. They 

belong to the community and should be left clear of development. Leave the Green Wedges alone. Do not bow 

to development and developer pressure. There are already enough overspill areas in Leicester. 

Question 8 

Object to the proposed vast increase in house building the district. Traffic lights on the Coalville by pass hinder 

the flow of traffic, negating any improvements as a result of the construction of the bypass. The farmland 

between the by pass and Hall Lane slows down the surface flow of rain water and prevents flash flooding. 

The Council advises that their priority is the regeneration of Coalville and the population needs to be increased to 

make a profit for the supermarkets to come. Therefore suggest that the Council say no to the supermarkets, 

houses are built on Brownfield sites and let the indigenous growth of Greenhill, Whitwick, Thringstone, 

Swannington, Snibston, Hugglescote, Bardon and Coalville, fill the places. Have watched the loss of green 

spaces and wildlife. 

Question 10 

Object to the LDF proposal. The balance created by the Green Wedges between town and village would be 

destroyed. This historic and natural separation would be replaced by urban sprawl. 

Question 8, 10 and 15 

Object to the plans to build development in the area and none of the four options are acceptable. The identity of 

villages such as Thringstone and Whitwick are threatened as is the green wedge and farm land. The Council’s 

plans to create urban sprawl will be to the detriment of those who live in the area. This is counter to the Council’s 

objectives for the area. Unacceptable that Thringstone Primary School is threatened by these plans. The school 

has a good Ofsted rating and the school is making an impact on the children’s community. Would expect the 

local council to seek to preserve and show case this. Whilst plans for infrastructure to support the proposed

1340/1958 Jenny 

Read 

1341 Matthew J 

Smith 

Object 

Object 

housing will come later it is ridiculous to destroy such a successful school. 

Question 15 

Object to the inclusion of Greenhill Farm for development. The land is located in an area of particularly attractive 

countryside on the edge of Charnwood Forest. Coalville needs to retain what is good about the town including 

this scenic route into town. Development would increase traffic and congestion and adversely impact on highway 

safety. The land is on steeply rising ground and water run could exacerbate the flooding that has been previously 

experienced. 

Object to all aspects of the Core Strategy. 

Too much housing is proposed and the greater Coalville area should have no more than 500 houses. There are 

plenty of available Brownfield sites and Greenfield sites should not be developed. Object to the building of an 

eco-town between Coalville and Shepshed. 

Object to the provision of gypsy and traveller sites as there are already enough in the district. There is also a 

suitable site at Lockington which was identified a number of years ago. 

The distribution of houses across the region is inequitable. Coalville and surrounding villages would loose their 

green spaces and village identities. Infrastructure is failing to meet current demand and there are no credible 

plans to improve infrastructure and services. 

Do not support the assertion that 11,200 new homes are required to justify the development of Coalville town 

centre. 

1342 Mrs S 

Bruce 

1343 Mrs R 

Gammon 

1344 S M 

Bennett 




1345 Mrs N Object Refer to Representation 879

Scott 

1346 T G 

Deacon 


1347 N Deacon Object Refer to Representation 879 

1348 Garry 

Smith 

1349 June M 

Gooch 

1350 A W T 

Gooch 


ER 

Grainger 

1352 Mrs M 

Taylor 

1353 Mrs M A 

Burton 

1354 P J 

Mulrooney 

1355 G A M 

Sleigh 









1356 M L Sleigh Object Refer to Representation 879 

1357 Jo Harding Object Refer to Representation 879

1358 G Tudor Object Refer to Representation 879 

1359 Mrs R B S 

Harding 


1360 Gary Cook Object Refer to Representation 879 

1361 Helen 

Cook 


1362 L Nichols Object Refer to Representation 879 

1363 Mrs A 

Duckworth 

1364 Stewart 

Duckworth 

1365 Mr S L 

Bonser 

1366 Stephen 

Scott 

1367 Mrs V 

Chambers 






1368 Mr R Allen Object Refer to Representation 879 


Pickering 

1370 Matthew 

Allen 



1371 A Noon Object Refer to Representation 879 

1372 Charlotte 

Christopher 

1373 D J 

Christopher 

1374 Jacob 

Christopher 

1375 Janet 

Christopher 





1376 G E Holt Object Refer to Representation 879 


P Allison 

1378 Mrs U E 

Birt 

1379 G T 

Brimson 




1380a 

Mrs Megan 

Cross 


1380b Lisa Curtis Object Refer to Representation 879 

1381 Paul Curtis Object Refer to Representation 879 

1382 Mr H Noon Object Refer to Representation 879

1383 John 

McDyre 

1384 Aimee 

Jones 

1385 Chelsea 

Smith 



Object Question 7 

Object to all of the building being located in Coalville. Concern over Greenfield sites being allocated for housing. 

Adverse impacts on wildlife. Loss if rights and access to green areas and countryside. Development should go 

on Brownfield land, Adverse impact on local facilities such as schools, utilities and roads. Object to an addition 

15,000 homes in the Coalville area in lieu of Pennbury. 

1386 Jade Smith Object Refer to Representation 1385 

1387 Mrs H J 

Smith 

1388 Hayley 

Smith 

1389 H M D 

Bartlett 




1390 Kim 

Lawrence 

1391 Mrs 

Amaraows 

Object 

Object 

Question 7, Question 10 and Question 14 

Do not support any of the four options. Unacceptable that the identity of the villages of Thringstone and Whitwick 

are threatened and proposals would result in urban sprawl. It would result in an unacceptable loss of green 

wedge and farm land. It is also unacceptable that Thringstone Primary School is threatened by these proposals. 

It is rated as good school and the community will fight to preserve it. 





It is rated as good school and the community will fight to preserve it.

1392 Mrs F 

Pellant 

1393 Jane 

Hodgman 

1394 Mrs J 

Crance 

Object 

Object 

Object 
















1395 Karen 

Kaiser 

1396 Mrs M 

Foster 

Question 15 

Object Object to the Greenhill Farm Development being included in any future plans for additional housing in the local 

area. 


1397 Mary Norris Object Refer to Representation 755 

1398 Mrs D 

Griffith- 

Jones 

1399 Mr B.E 

Wyatt 



1400 R Griffith- Object Refer to Representation 755

Jones 

1401 Mrs S M 

Wyatt 

1402 Michelle 

Limb 

1403 Mrs Carole 

Lindsey 

1404 Catharyn 

Howe 





1405 R Holland Object Refer to Representation 755 

1406 Kay 

Holland 

1407 Chris 

Lindsey 



1408 John Potter Object Refer to Representation 755 

1409 Margaret 

Potter 

1410 Glenis 

Mutimer 

1411 N B 

Mutimer 

1412 Richard 

Gretton 





1413 Sylvia 

Gretton 

1414 Tracey 

Hughes 

1415 Mark 

Gower 

1416 S G 

Gibbins 

1417 Donna 

Rady 

1418 Mr P.D 

Toon 







1419 Jim Abbott Object Refer to Representation 755 

1420 John S 

Ree 

1421 Robert Ian 

Chester 

1422 James 

Ashcroft 

1423 Graham 

Gibbins 

1424 Annette 

Gibbins 






1425 J.R Knight Object Refer to Representation 755 

1426 M Chester Object Refer to Representation 755 

1427 V Ball Object Refer to Representation 755 

1428 Tracy 

Allsop 


1429 Wendy Ball Object Refer to Representation 755 

1430 Joanne 

Elliott 


1431 Trena Ball Object Refer to Representation 755 

1432 J Walker Object Refer to Representation 755 

1433 G Sleath Object Refer to Representation 755 

1434 K Kaiser Object Refer to Representation 755 

1435 Ian Martin Object Refer to Representation 755 

1436 Freda 

Allsop 


1437 Lucy Allsop Object Refer to Representation 755 

1438 Malcolm 

Allsop 

1439 Mr D M 

Bennion 



1440 T.Homby Object Refer to Representation 755 

1441 W. L Hill Object Refer to Representation 755 

1442 N Curtis Object Refer to Representation 755 

1443 Emily Ball Object Refer to Representation 755 

1444 B.M 

Webster 

1445 Levi 

Bourne 

1446 Mr Mc 

Bennion 

1447 Mrs G 

Bennion 

1448 Thomas 

Ball 






1449 M Bradley Object Refer to Representation 755 

1450 M Walker Object Refer to Representation 755 

1451 Keith 

Painter 

1452 Joan 

Painer 



1453 Ann and Object Refer to Representation 755

John 

Jacobs 

1454 S. G Young Object Refer to Representation 755 

1455 S Young Object Refer to Representation 755 

4556 Philippa 

Bennion 

1457 Margaret 

Palmer 

1458 Graham 

Fearn 

1459 Mrs C 

Fearn 

1460 Mrs E 

Challand 






1461 F Challand Object Refer to Representation 755 

1462 Kate 

Abbott 


1463 C Bradley Object Refer to Representation 755 

1464 Mrs V.M 

Todd 

1465 Mr S M 

Todd 



1466 Mr J P 

Corfield 

1467 Phyllis 

Margaret 

Bee 

1468 Jessica 

Partner 




1469 D Partner Object Refer to Representation 755 

1470 Michael 

Kalser 

1471 Mr M 

Kalser 

1472 Mr G 

Rollins 

1473 Michael 

Ball 

1474 Yvonne 

Burton 

1475 Mrs M E 

Woollett 

1476 Maurice 

Fennell 

1477 Maurice 

Fennell 









1478 Yvonne 

Ann Willars 

1479 Marie 

Luker 

1480 Stuart 

Burton 

1481 William 

James 

Williams 





1482 Jason Mills Object Refer to Representation 755 

1483 Mrs V 

Dagley 

1484 Joanne 

Burns 

1485 Pauline 

Lunt 

1486 HWK 

Colton 





1487 J Shakes Object Refer to Representation 755 

1488 D A Love Object Refer to Representation 755 

1489 A Shakes Object Refer to Representation 755 

1490 Colin Bates Object Refer to Representation 755

1491 Mr JP 

Corfield 

1492 Mr JP 

Corfield 

1493 Elaine 

Bates 

1494 Mrs S 

Hughes 





1495 R A Ellis Object Refer to Representation 755 

1496 Roger 

Allen 


1497 P Allen Object Refer to Representation 755 

1498 Mrs E 

Robson 

1499 D J 

Goodenou 

gh 

1500 Mrs K L 

Sleath

issue 3 - North West Leicestershire District Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?