issue 3 - North West Leicestershire District Council

Represen 

tation ID 

Name of 

responden 

t/organisat 

ion 

501 K R & D A 

Shatford 

502 Graham 

Rood 

503 Angela 

Theobold 

504 Peter 

Theobold 

Support/ 

Object 

Summary of response 

Object Refer to Representation 104 




505 Elizabeth 

Osborne 

506 G 

Boardman 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as there is already a regional distribution site with rail 

link located at the old Castle Donington Power Station. How many can there be in one region and the existing 

one is still ¾ empty. Further loss of Green Belt, countryside and bridleway. Other adverse impacts include noise, 

pollution, loss of countryside and paths, further traffic congestion and increase building. Would result in 

industrialisation across the area and loss of identity. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would devastate such a larger rural area. Unlikely 

to be a need for such a development and should not be unevenly located into this area. Do the Council regard 

this area as the general dustbin of Leicestershire? 

507 I D Highs Object Refer to Representation 104 

508 M J B 

Smutt 


509 Mrs Jayne Object Refer to Representation 104

Mitchell 

510 Mr John 

Mitchell 

511 Mrs I C 

Wilshire 

512 Sarah 

Hammersle 

y 

513 Roger 

Hammersle 

y 





514 G Tippier Object Refer to Representation 104 

515 G Tippier Object Refer to Representation 104 

516 William & 

Dorothy 

Murray 


517 J Sheppard Object Refer to Representation 104 

518 J Sheppard Object Refer to Representation 104 

519 Agnes 

Goudie 


520 P A Varley Object Refer to Representation 104 

521 Mrs Lydia 

Spurrier 

Object Refer to Representation 104

522 M 

Cunningha 

m 

523 M G 

Adcock 



524 C Bowater Object Refer to Representation 104 

525 Frances 

Caffrey 

526 & 527 M 

Cunningha 

m & Freda 

Dean 

528 Paul & 

Wendy 

Ticer 




529 GVA 

Grimley on 

behalf of 

Williams 

Davis Ltd 

and Jelson 

Ltd 

Support 

Support 

Question 1 

Support the favoured vision 

Question 2 

Support the favoured objectives. 

Question 3 

Support growth options which focus development primarily in and around Coalville, in accordance with the 

Regional Plan. However an acceptance that some development may have to be accommodated in and around 

other settlements, including the rural towns.

Question 5 

Sensible to regard 9600 as the minimum number of houses to be built in light of the Regional Plan review. 

However this in itself is unlikely to make the Core Strategy flexible enough to deal with any adjustments. 

Question 6 

Core Strategy should examine and note the long-term development needs of the District and describe in broad 

terms how the development strategy will address these needs. Suggest that general directions are identified to 

identify how certain settlements should expand in the long-term. Must make clear the distinction between 

direction in which developments might grow in the long term and which sites must be developed on the plan 

period. 

Question 7 

Coalville will have to accommodate significantly more development than any other settlement. This will pose 

challenges, not least in respect of infrastructure. Only a step-change in its growth will support the enhancements 

needed in the town centre and the various community facilities beyond, whilst ensuring infrastructure 

improvements and affordable housing. 

Question 8 

Support 

Support the favoured development strategy. 

Question 9 

The Council need to be satisfied that the numbers allocated to Coalville can be delivered. Clients will continue to 

work with Council to address deliverability issues in relation to Stephenson Green and in relation to the wider 

Coalville urban area. 

Question 10 

Not clear what the Council’s favoured approach is. Will need to weigh up amenity considerations and need for 

development.

Regional Plan requires Green Wedges are reviewed. Support the assessment of the Green Wedge which has 

indicated that it should be removed. Designation should be deleted and consideration be given to substantial 

parts of the Green Wedge be developed. 

Own analysis identifies that the eastern Green Wedge does not meet the relevant Green Wedge criteria. 

Advantage of this site is its proximity to Coalville and Whitwick centres, areas of employment, its accessibility and 

the absence of constraint or impediments. It is a highly sustainable site. 

Question 11 

Land in the eastern section of the Green Wedge is in private ownership with limited public access. The only way 

public access and amenity value of the area can be improved is on the back of development. A SUE would 

incorporate formal and informal public open spaces, National Forest requirements, recreation areas and 

improved links between Coalville and Whitwick centres. 

Question 12 

Essential that the Core Strategy identifies strategic development sites. Only by identifying sites can the Council 

ensure the Regional Plan requirements will be satisfactorily delivered in a coordinated, ordered and sustainable 

manner. 

Question 13 

Sites allocated in the Core Strategy must be regarded as key to the achievement of strategic development 

requirements and the Council’s spatial objectives. 

Sites capable of accommodating 100 dwellings cannot be regarded as strategic unless this allocation is key to 

[particular spatial objectives. Suggest that a thresholf of 700 is set for sites in Coalville and perhaps slightly lower 

in respect of other settlements. 

Question 14 and 16 

Only Options 1 and 2 appear to provide the Coalville focus demanded by the Regional Plan. Accordingly one of 

these two ought to be integrated into the Core Strategy. 

Several SUEs in Coalville should be released for development as soon as possible. Large viable sites that are

eady to deliver quickly are necessary to ensure housing supply is delivered appropriately. Stephenson College 

is such a site. 

The urban area should expand in a physically balanced manner and that which is the most sustainable. SUEs 

should be the most proximate to the town centre, areas of employment and community and other public facilities. 


Support the allocation of land identified as North of Stephenson Way. Has potential to provide neighbourhood 

facilities, employment development, affordable housing, National Forest requirements, recreation and amenity 

land. It is a sustainable site, with potential to deliver infrastructure improvements, improved access to town 

centre, areas of employment and community and other public facilities. 

The potential scale of the South East Coalville SUE may lead to a degree of detachment from the rest of the 

urban area, and may cause the coalescence of Coalville and Ellistown. 

Question 17, 23, 26 and 29 

Support development to be focused in Coalville. Whilst accepted that some growth may be required in rural 

town, care must be taken to ensure allocation of land outside of Coalville does not dilute developer interests in 

Coalville and undermine the Council’s ability to satisfy its strategic requirements. 

Question 32 

Likely that the Council will need to plan for accommodating and delivering more development in the District. It 

would seem reasonable for the Council to consider, albeit in broad terms, the long-term growth prospect of the 

town and for it to articulate in the Core Strategy how these long-terms needs might be addressed. 

Question 33 

Consultation document does not contain enough examination of the relative merits of the various long-term 

development options. Not convinced that a southerly expansion of Coalville is the most appropriate or 

sustainable. It would not lead to the most balanced growth, physically, and would be likely to result in the 

coalescence of Coalville with other settlements. It would also necessitate the construction of extensive highway 

and other infrastructure.

Question 34 

Support the favoured option in principle even though this will carry forward extant policy. Need to ensure that 

development viability is assessed. 

Support 

Support 

Question 38 

Support the favoured housing strategy. 

Question 49 

Support the favoured approach to town centre. A Coalville focused growth strategy demands an improved town 

centre offer to ensure that sped is captured within the town. 

Question 55 

Support 

Support the approach towards well designed, high quality development and in particular the use of CABE 

‘Building for Life’ standards. Considered important that the Council use a trained panel of experts to make an 

assessment. 

Question 57 

In light of the scale of growth being contemplated new transport and other infrastructure will need to be provided. 

Maybe appropriate to develop an infrastructure delivery plan couple with a contributions mechanism such as a 

CIL. Structure should ensure that landowners/developers are treated fairly and developments are not allocated a 

disproportionately high requirement to offset the cost of more expensive development elsewhere. 

Question 59 

Any approach to Climate Change needs to be underpinned by robust evidence. Viability assessments of new 

developments undertaken by experts are essential to demonstrate that zero carbon targets can be delivered 

without adverse effects to housing delivery. The Planning for Climate Change study does not reflect the most up 

to date climate and environmental date available and should be used with caution. 

Question 61

Any decision to include targets within the Core Strategy policies needs to be supported by robust and local 

evidence and tested against viability and overall deliverability. 

Question 64 

Object 

Object to the way the open space audit has been undertaken and the assumptions made, and that the standards 

derived from the audit are inflexible and make no provision for specific considerations or local circumstances. 

The quality and accessibility audit does not appear to lead to standards. The NWLDC quantity standards are 

blanket applied throughout the Borough. The two year review will need to address population demographics, the 

assumptions that have been made do not reflect an ageing population, the trend towards smaller households and 

single parent families. As a consequence the provision of open space and recreation in line with the quantity 

standard will artificially increase the amount of provision made. 

530 Mr and Mrs 

R J Connor 

Question 15 

Ravenstone has been subject over the years to further housing development and the open cast mine. Current 

proposals would result in one big housing estate stretching from Ibstock, through Ravenstone and onto Coalville 

and would impact on own property. Ravenstone is an old village and should remain as such. Should use the 

available sites in Ashby. Important to preserve the National Forest and the Sence Valley and to keep the Green 

Belt areas alive. 

531 E Handley, 

A Handley 

& 

J Handley 

Object 

Given the current economic climate cannot understand the need for so many new houses especially when 

businesses are closing down. There are a number of empty business properties and there are questions over the 

abilities of local services, such as schools and local employment, to cope with such a large number of houses. 

Question 27 

Object to the residential development of land to the rear of the former data centre, Packington Hill, Kegworth. 

Development would impact upon nearby houses by resulting in the loss of views of the countryside, loss of 

privacy and devaluation of property. Kegworth suffers from air pollution due to airport and highway networks. 

Existing traffic problems will be exacerbated and commuting is increasing as there are no businesses in 

Kegworth to offer jobs to new residents. Kegworth does not have the facilities to cope with such a number of new 

houses, for example, the school, post office, chemist, surgery and supermarket would not be able to cope. Lack 

of parking areas, bus route is inadequate and taxis are expensive. 

532 Roger Question 30

Etchells 

Chartered 

Surveyors 

533 S Hough 


Croft 


David 

Clements 

536 Ann 

Cooper 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Site north of Atherstone Road, Measham. This site is treated as having sole ownership and being completely in 

industrial use. However part of the site (identified on a map) is in commercial use and is available for immediate 

redevelopment without the constraints faced by the remainder of the site. Suggest that this part of the site should 

be identified as a separate entity. Site characteristics include its short tern occupiers, consists mainly of open 

land, commercial or residential use would be acceptable and the site does not require remediation. 

Question 24 

Object to any further housing development on Pretoria Road. The road is too narrow for additional traffic and 

there is no drainage system. 

Question 35/36 

Object to Gypsy sites being located in the area of Pretoria Road and Ibstock. 

Question 10 

Against any major development in the Green Wedge. Whitwick is a village separate from Coalville and should 

remain as such. If they merge, Whitwick will lose its separate identity. Queries why are so many houses needed 

when there are so many empty properties in the district? There are insufficient jobs for existing residents and 

there are concerns about the impact of newcomers on the existing community. Question ability of the 

infrastructure to cope with additional population, more schools will be needed, doctors and dentists are full, 

existing sewers and utilities are unable to cope, roads are unsuitable and public transport would need to be 

improved. Existing residents would suffer loss of privacy with an adverse impact on their quality of life with the 

loss of peace and quiet. 

Question 18 

Object to the development of the Money Hill area of Ashby. A development of this size will destroy Ashby. 

Existing houses and the school will be lost. Question the ability of utilities to cope with the extra drainage 

required. If green fields are lost there will be nowhere to walk and exercise. The land should be kept for crop 

production, the town’s amenities are already stretched and there are road network limitations. 

Question 40 

Object to the proposed rail distribution centre sited to the north of the airport. An example of Donington slowly 

becoming an industrial site rather than a village. Suggest that alternative sites are looked at and the views of 

residents are taken into account.

537 Ashby 

Woulds 

Parish Plan 

Committee 

The LDF should take account of our wish to keep the village identity and for it not to be joined up to other 

communities. 

Infrastructure needs to be sustainable in all ways e.g. school, roads, medical facilities, are needed if more 

housing is to be built. 

538 Linda 

Fairbrother 

539 Mr Smith 

540 Mrs 

Graham 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Must take account of the National Forest when new housing is planned. 

Housing allocation policy must take into account the affordable housing needs of younger people, particularly 

young single people. 

The Council should publish the Housing Strategy for the Ashby Woulds area and carry out a Housing Needs 

census in relation to their own housing stock, which will address the future housing requirement of the elderly, 

special needs and young persons in Ashby Woulds. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. There are already sufficient industrial units causing too 

much pollution, traffic congestion and noise. This is a rural village and not an industrial area. These villages 

must not lose their identities and should be kept for local people. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. 

The Council is only interested in Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington when they want to house 

travellers, build warehouses or new houses. They never invest in the community such as a sports centre, 

swimming pool etc. 

Question 26 

Object to proposed development plans for Kegworth and the surrounding area. They would destroy the 

community. If this type of development continues people will move away from the area. The airport, motorway, 

railway links and traffic are causing an intangible amount of stress on what used to be a rural community. These 

huge housing and industrial development are unwanted and in the current climate they are intangible. 

541 SWIP Ltd Issue 7 

Provision should be made for Gypsy and Travellers in appropriate locations. These should be sought using an 

‘area of search’ approach using set criterion including proximity to education, health care facilities etc rather than

the favoured approach outlined. 

Issue 19 

Support any policy which would enable the future expansion of the National Forest and promote opportunities for 

major recreation and other resources which will enhance the role of the National Forest. Facilitating development 

which enabled these objectives to be deliver should be encouraged. 

542 English 

Heritage 

Appendix 1 - Evidence Base – Advise that the County Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) any 

Landscape Character Assessments and the 6Cs and Local Green Infrastructure Strategies should be part of the 

evidence base. 

Issue 1 Vision 

Q1 – The vision says nothing about the aspirations for the Natural and built environment including: 

- That development has been undertaken in such a way that has protected and enhanced these resources; 

- That high quality development has been achieved that has protected and enhanced local character and 

sense of place and, 

- The National Forest, as the District’s key environmental project, has been successful. 

Issue 2 – Realising the Vision 

Q2 – suggest the following addition ‘securing mitigation or compensation for any….’ 

Issue 3 – Development Strategy 

Q3 – Broadly support the favoured strategy subject to the location of development sites, with Coalville being the 

focus for development. Development at Ashby, in particular, should be carefully considered. They question what 

the capacity of the town is to accommodate significant growth without having adverse impacts on the historic 

town centre, and suggest that it may be desirable to limit growth for this reason. Such impacts might include 

increased demand for car parking and new retail that affects both the character and viability of local shops which 

has occurred in other market towns across the Country. There is a case for undertaking townscape and heritage 

appraisals of Ashby and decisions should be informed by a Conservation Area appraisal and management plan. 

Advice on character and identity – townscape and heritage appraisal in housing market renewal areas’ has been 

prepared jointly by English heritage and CABE and is recommended.(www.helm.org.uk) 

Infill development should be informed by conservation character appraisals, village design statements and parish 

plans. 

Issue 3b – How much development and where

Question 5, 6 and 7 – The amount of development to be planned needs to be informed by the Environmental 

capacity of the area to support the level of growth and what would be needed in terms of infrastructure, including 

green infrastructure, to support that level of growth. Sustainable development includes avoiding adverse impacts 

on the historic environment including the setting of historic places, or allowing development where mitigation 

measures can be undertaken e.g. PPS16 measures for Archaeology. Refers to ‘Conservation principles – policies 

and guidance for the sustainable management of the Historic Environment’ – English Heritage 2008. 

environmental capacity can be relevant to the need to sustain the character of a place and Character 

assessments have a role to play in this process and can also be used to inform the design of urban extensions. 

Consider that Coalville has the greatest capacity to accommodate development from an historic environment 

viewpoint, but it is unclear whether Ashby and Castle Donington have capacity to accommodate substantial 

growth as proposed in Options 2, 3 and 4. 

With regard to Q6 there may be value in considering where post 2026 development might be located, as this 

could help plan for future infrastructure needs such as transport, water and green infrastructure, but is should not 

be prescriptive. 

Q8 &9 – EH would favour a strategy that limits the amount of development in the smaller settlements until it can 

be demonstrated that higher levels of growth will not have an adverse effect on their historic character and 

assets. 

With regard to the ‘sustainable villages’ the restriction of development to infill sites needs to be qualified, as some 

infill sites may be key elements of the villages character. The word ‘suitable’ could be added and the need to take 

account of conservation area appraisals/ village design statements and parish plans should be referred to. 

Issue 4 – Green Wedge 

Q10 and 11 – Green Wedges have been a useful tool and can have a variety of functions, such as preventing 

coalescence and can also be part of a Green infrastructure Network for the area. In this context it should be 

considered whether these areas potentially provide a different function from that identified as the original function 

of the Green Wedge. If development is to be permitted n these areas, there should be planning gain in terms of 

GI, with links to the wider countryside. 

Issue 5 – Areas and sites for development 

Q12 – EH supports the identification of major sites in the Core Strategy Point out that the County Historic 

Environmental record should be consulted if not done already. 

Q14 & 15 – Most sites do not affect designated historic sites. There are some undesignated areas of possible 

‘ridge and furrow’ within three areas – North of Stephenson Way, SW Coalville and SE Coalville. Ridge and 

furrow is a regionally distinctive survival of medieval agricultural practices. The survival and condition of these 

areas should be assessed and, if possible, they could become part of the Green infrastructure if these sites are

selected. There is also industrial archaeology on some of the sites such as disuse railway in SE Colville which 

may offer potential for non-motorised user routes. 

There is a Grade II* manor house and associated Grade II barn close to the adj. Donington le Heath site so its 

setting needs to be considered. 

Q17 &18 – EH supports the view in Appendix 4 that major development could have an adverse effect on the 

historic centre of the town. Of the sites, only South Ashby is likely to have an impact on designated sites in the 

locality (the Grade II Listed building adjacent to the site). There is also a ridge and furrow and Mill site in the area 

and Money Hill may have prehistoric remains and has an area of ridge and furrow. 

Q20 & 21 – North of Park Lane could have impacts on the setting of the castle mound (A Scheduled Monument). 

South of Park Lane lies adjacent to 14 Listed Buildings on either side of High street with setting issues and the 

impact on the historic character of High Street needs to be assessed. 

Q23 & 24 – Leics Road/ Ravenstone Road could have undesignated Roman Archaeology. 

Q26 & 27 – development in Kegworth would not impact on designated sites although if development of Station 

Road/ long lane required highway improvements then these might affect the Grade II listed Kegworth Bridge. 

Q29 & 30 – Land between Burton Road and new Street – the historic Ashby Canal is a feature that could be an 

asset to the site, with the potential for waterside development. Questions whether the disused Ashby and 

Nuneaton joint railway which abuts the site provides potential for non motorised user routes. 

Q32 & 33 – The area of land to SE of Sinope includes an area of possible ridge and furrow. 

Issue 9 – meeting sub-regional economic needs 

Q39 – EH supports the identification of a specific site albeit with reservations about some of the sites from a 

historic environment perspective 

Issue 10 – Site or location for strategic distribution uses 

Q41 – Lounge – will not have any impacts on designated sites, although unless carefully designed warehouses 

could have an adverse effect on the wider setting of Ashby Castle. 

West of J24 M1 – have serious concern about this. It would extend commercial activities beyond the boundary of 

the airport and even though its development is not being promoted as an extension of airport activities, its 

development would seem to be contrary to the airport masterplan and the recognition in Para 16.7 that this site 

‘has been promoted in the past as a location for strategic business parks’ and ‘the issue has been debated as

part of previous Regional Spatial Strategies and has been rejected.’ In view of this and the current economic 

climate it is questioned whether this site is still required especially in view of other major proposals in the region. 

They are concerned about the impact on the surrounding settlements and the setting of designated historic sites 

including the wider setting of the Castle Mound at Castle Donington (scheduled monument), 8 listed buildings in 

the south part of the village of Hemington, including the Grade II* Nunnery and the hemington Chapel scheduled 

monument and 5 listed buildings in the SE part of the village of Lockington, including the Grade I Church of St 

Nicholas. 

Sawley Crossroads – no objections 

Issue 11 – Strengthening the local economy 

Q42 & 44 – support option 1 as more sustainable to a market led approach and generally support the favoured 

economic strategy, subject to the impact on the historic environment of individual site proposals and any 

associated infrastructure. They would not support development outside of the boundaries of EMA or Donington 

Park and the sopted airport master plan should define the limit to development. 

Issue 12 – EMA 

Q46 – supports the favoured approach, including the restriction of development at Pegasus Business Park and 

efforts to mitigate the adverse impacts of the operation of the airport which requires working with other local 

authorities and partners such as South Derbys Council. There are a historic sites and settlements in the area 

vulnerable to the effects of noise and disturbance such as Calke Abbey and Melbourne. 

Issue 13 – Town Centres 

Q49 – the retail strategy for historic towns such as Ashby needs to address both the viability and vitality of the 

town and the historic character. 

Issue 15 – Transport 

Q53 – EH generally supports the approach of encouraging non road based transport subject to the impact on the 

natural environment. 

Issue 16 – Delivering well designed, high quality sustainable developments 

Q55 – EH Supports measure to improve the quality of new development with bfl including recognition of the 

importance of considering context. Landscape and urban characterisation should inform the design process and 

green infrastructure is a key element of new development. 

Issue 17 – Securing new infrastructure. 

Q57 – CIL can address the key infrastructure to be delivered thorough development but a site by site approach

might be more sensitive to issues such as archaeological mitigation. 

Issue 18 – Climate Change 

Q53 – English Heritage has a guide on renewable energy available at www.helm.org.uk . The Core Strategy 

should promote energy conservation and generation in existing built up areas and have advice to householders to 

improve energy conservation. 

Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure 

Q57 – GI can be considered at various scales – landscape (Charnwood Forest) down to site specific. Can 

provide many functions including access to and management of historic sites and historic landscape 

Characterisation can be used to inform the identification of GI networks, with guidance available in the new 

regional GI guidance document. 

543 John Irons Object Refer to Representation 200 

544 D 

Chapman 


545 Unknown Object Refer to Representation 200 

546 Ian Hunt Object Refer to Representation 200 

547 Scott 

Culver 

548 Dorothy 

Adcock 

549 Sam 

Adcock 

550 Mark 

Edwards 





551 Josh 

Edwards 

552 Claire 

Edwards 



553 O. Lardner Object Refer to Representation 200 

554 M J 

Lardner 


555 S Starkey Object Refer to Representation 200 

556 L Starkey Object Refer to Representation 200 

557 Chris 

Jones 


558 J Starkey Object Refer to Representation 200 

559 Ben Jones Object Refer to Representation 200 

560 Jonathan 

Jones 

561 T 

Woodman 

562 J 

Woodman 

563 Andrew 

Brown 





564 D Object Refer to Representation 200

Parkinson 

565 Anna 

Swalwell 


566 M Starkey Object Refer to Representation 200 

567 and 

2662 

Leicestersh 

ire and 

Rutland 

Wildlife 

Trust 

568 Nottingham 

City 

Council 

Comments relate to land off Leicester Road Ibstock but also point out that their comments would also apply to 

other areas where protected specie may be present. 

It is imperative for the Council to have surveys undertaken (at the right time of year) before this area is allocated 

for housing development, as the development site may provide a habitat for protected species. There are two 

ponds adjacent to the site one of which meets the criteria for a Local Wildlife Site and both of which could support 

amphibian populations including great crested newts. They refer to PPS9 and the Natural Environment and Rural 

Communities Act 2006 in support of their case. 

Q40 – Although in the Leicester HMA, its location and scale means it could serve all three HMAs. Considered 

that before individual sites come forward a more strategic view of the potential strategic distribution sites should 

take place particularly looking at demand for B8, existing supply and access to Labour across the Sub-Region/ 

Region 

For site of over 60HA the IPC would deal with applications and evidence needs to be in place as soon as 

possible. Nottingham, Derby and Leicester wish to capture the benefits of growth within the urban areas rather 

than seeing unsustainable development in the vicinity of the airport itself, and urban areas should be considered 

for a SFRI. 

A proposal of this size would need good access to labour (one of the criteria in Policy 21) and until a comparative 

study has been undertaken, it is not known how this location measures against other possible locations. Any 

retail element beyond ancillary would be at odds with the Regional Plan and PPS6 and could harm the vitality and 

viability of existing centres. 

This proposal would be likely to cause congestion for airport traffic so could harm the operation of EMA. There 

may be some merit in an SFRI close to the airport but only if the rail link is delivered. 

A proposal in this location is inappropriate in advance of a more strategic review. 

Do not consider that the locational guidance in Policy 21 will lead to the best sites coming forward as- 

• It does not provide guidance on the area of search for an alternative site assessment and questions 

whether it should be at HMA, sub regional or regional level 

• A housing market area is not a logical planning unit on which to base locational guidance for strategic 

distribution centres as they have regional and national significance 

• It is more important to consider the level of supply and demand (i.e. do you need one in each of the 5

HMAs?) 

• It is not clear how much weight should be given to each criterion 

• At least 50 HA of developable land is not consistent with the significant infrastructure projects definition in 

the 2008 Planning Act which sets out a 60 HA threshold for rail freight interchanges. 

• It is not specific enough as a development control tool 

As part of the Partial review of the RSS, EMRA and EMDA have been requested to undertake a comparative 

study of all possible rail freight sites in the sub region. 

Q46 – Support the approach to balance the development of the airport with other issues such as environmental 

concerns. 

569 Pauline 

Allcott 

570 & 571 Thomas 

Taylor 

Planning 

Ltd on 

behalf of 

David 

Webster 


Support 

Issue 3a, Question 3 

Whilst it does not meet the criteria proposed for a rural town, Moira currently provides a range of local services 

which meet many of the day to day needs of the community. Support the view that Moira should be identified as 

a sustainable village and will assist in the long term sustainability of the settlement. 

By allowing limited new development in such villages it will help support the existing local services and contribute 

to securing their future. Without such development, the future of these services would be under threat and 

undermine the aim of creating/maintaining sustainable communities. 

Issue 3b, Question 8 

Object 

No objections are raised to the general development strategy for housing development in the identified 

sustainable villages. However priority should be given to the efficient re-use of previously developed land. In 

particular the Secura Labels site in Moira should be considered for small scale housing development (Plan 

provided). 

The new proposals map should retain the identified Limits to Development for Moira. 

There are sites which are larger than 0.1 hectares that have a contribution to make to the provision of housing in 

rural areas. The development of previously developed land and/or infill sites should not necessarily be limited in 

size to 0.1 hectares.

The way in which the term ‘infill’ is applied to sustainable villages also needs to be carefully considered. 

572 The 

National 

Forest 

Company 

Disappointing that the forward makes no mention of the Districts Environmental quality and assets plus the need 

for new green infrastructure to accompany development growth. 

Evidences Base Appendix 1 – Landscape Character Assessment is lacking 

Vision 

Q1- The vision needs to include a statement about the need to protect and enhance the environmental quality of 

the District and a major omission is the lack of mention of the National Forest. The national and Strategic 

importance of the national Forest warrants inclusion in the main vision statement. 

Issue 2 – How can we realise the vision 

Q2- The NFC supports the overall approach to achieving the Core Strategy Vision and the inclusion of the 

national Forest in the objectives. Also welcome the focus on revitalising Coalville, rural diversification and 

creating healthy and strong communities and enhancing green infrastructure. 

Issue 3 – Development strategy 

Q8 – Recognise the wide ranging benefits that future growth can bring to the area, but also have concerns about 

the cumulative scale and environmental impact of growth across the whole forest area which would mean a 

minimum of around 33,000 new houses by 2026 including those in Burton upon Trent and Swadlingcote. 

Agree with the general thrust of the development strategy (Coalville Focus), but would also like to see significant 

housing allocations outside of the National Forest Area in sustainable locations (e.g. Castle Donington and 

Kegworth) which would balance the need for growth across the District. Major growth within the Forest should 

take the form of Sustainable Urban Extensions. 

If the favoured development growth option (1) was pursued they would resist any future moves for additional 

housing allocations to be made in the National Forest Area. 

Issue 3a – In which settlements should development take place 

Q3 – Support Colville as the main growth location with a tiered hierarchy below this of rural towns and 

sustainable villages. 

Issues 3b – How much development across the District 

Q5- Considers 9,600 up to 2026 should be the maximum considered and this figure should be justified on the 

basis of environmental and landscape capacity to take the growth proposed. A full EA of the sites put forward is 

required. 

Q7 – they would prefer to see an alternative option with up to 2,000 houses allocated at locations outside of the 

national Forest. 

Issue 4 – Green Wedge 

Q10 – On balance, if land in the Green Wedge has to be allocated, they would favour development in the eastern 

area as a degree of separation should be maintained between Coalville and New Swannington in the central area

and the western area should be identified as countryside. 

In all instances development in the green wedge should be accompanied by substantial areas of new accessible 

green infrastructure to be factored in as part of the site allocation process They recommend 30%, in line with 

national eco towns guidance, for all SUEs of over 500 dwellings. 

Q11 – Increased public access could be secured through purchase of land not earmarked for development 

(including National Forest planting) through collaborative approaches. Areas set aside for major green space 

should look to utilise 6Cs funding. 

Issue 5 – Which sites should be identified for development? 

Q12 – They support sites being identified in the Core Strategy. 

Q13 – Strategic Sites should factor in required GI provision which for SUEs of 500 or more dwellings should be at 

least 30% for Green Infrastructure. 

What are the options for Coalville? 

Q14 – would favour options 3 or 4 which would balance the need for substantial growth to be accommodated in 

Coalville, whilst limiting the overall impact of new development within the National Forest Area. They would wish 

to see limits on the cumulative amount of housing in the National Forest. 

Q15 – would prefer to see development at Colville directed towards SE Coalville, SW Coalville (particularly 

closest to the existing urban edge) and North of Stephenson Way with these locations offering the best potential 

to achieve sustainable urban extensions, which could be integrated into their settings with Green Infrastructure 

and in so doing are likely to have the least impact upon the National Forest. 

What are the options for Ashby? 

Favours options 1 or 4 with an emphasis on smaller growth around Ashby. 

Q18 – Would prefer not to have large amounts of housing at Money Hill or South of Ashby as both options would 

affect the strong rural setting of the town and would have impacts on the National Forest Landscape. 

What are the options for Ibstock? 

Favours options 1 or 2 with an emphasis on smaller growth around Ibstock. 

Q24 – would prefer to see land off Leicester Road developed first. Development sites to the west of the village 

should limit any visual impacts on the Sense valley Forest Park. The leics Road/ Ravenstone Road site would 

need substantial landscaping along its northern boundary to limit its visual impact on the open countryside, and 

land south or Pretoria Road appears least attractive due to its linear extension. Sites closer to the Urban edge 

would be more sustainable with less visual impact on the wider landscape. 

What are the Options for Measham? 

Favours limited growth at Measham and therefore supports options 1 or 2. 

Q30 – favours development on land between Burton Road and New Street as the most sustainable option with 

least impact on the National Forest Landscape. 

Issue 7 - G & T 

Sites for G & Ts should be integrated with housing allocation sites.

Issue 9 – Meeting regional and Sub-Regional Economic needs 

The lead shold come from the RSS to identify whether there is a need for further strategic distribution 

employment sites to be allocated in the Core Strategy. 

Issues 10 Sites for Strtegic Distribution. 

Q40 – Agrees with J24 of M1 (if a new site has to be identified) 

Issue 11 – Strengthening the local economy 

Pars 8.2 and 8.12 – pleased to see recognition of the National Forest 

Q44 – agrees with the overall approach 

Issue 13 – Strategy for town centres 

Q49 – Supports option 2 focussing on the revitalisation of Coalville Town Centre. 

Issue 15 – Transport Issues 

Q53 – supports the approach to reopening of the national Forest line for passengers together with improved 

walking, cycling and public transport provision. They recognise the issues associated with justifying the line 

through large scale housing allocations. 

Issue 16 – Design 

Q55 – Supports 

Q56 – Within the National Forest it will be important to reflect local design opportunities reflecting the setting of 

the Forest area, promoting wood fuel, green roofs and SUDs. 

Issue 17 – New Infrastructure 

Q57 - S106 has worked well for securing new National Forest woodland planting and would therefore recommend 

that national Forest related planning is not included in the CIL. 

Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure 

Pars 26.3 and 26.4 – pleased to see recognition of the National Forest re GI and also notes that national Forest 

planting is helping to meet Biodiversity Action Plan targets. 

Q63 – would strongly urge NWLDC to continue to apply the National Forest development planting guidelines with 

new development in the Forest area as the Council has a achieved a considerable amount of green infrastructure 

through this approach. 

573 DPP on 

behalf of 

Tesco 

Stored Ltd 

Issue 1 

With reference to Favoured Objective SO9, whilst it is acknowledged that Coalville has an important role to play 

as the focus of the District, this should not be to the detriment of the surrounding centres. The development of a 

clear hierarchy and network of centres is in accordance to PPS6. 

Issue 3

With reference to ‘sustainable villages’, the favoured strategy is supported where it states that convenience 

provision on an appropriate scale is important in the development of sustainable settlements and to the role and 

function of the centre. Food stores can play an important role in centres, providing a variety of service and 

facilities to the local community. 

Question 44 

The retail industry has an important role within the economy. The industry employs many people and can provide 

a variety of job opportunities at different skill levels. 

574 J C and E 

Wild 

Object 

Question 49 

Largely in favour of the favoured Option 2 as although the priority is the redevelopment of Coalville, it 

acknowledges the importance of other centres in meeting the convenience needs of the residents. 

Questions 51 and 52 

Town Centre boundaries have an important role in identifying suitable sites for development. They allow for the 

clear application policy particularly in relation to the sequential test. Suggest that primary and secondary 

frontages should be defined. 

Question 57 

Suggest that the CIL is predominantly aimed at housing development. Whichever route is followed regard should 

be had to the test outline in the Planning Obligations Circular. They must also take account of the viability of 

development proposals. In a changing market consideration must be given to the costs of development. 

Question 18 

Ashby is a market town and an excellent centre for leisure and tourism. Any major housing development would 

adversely impact on its unique character and damage its ability to attract tourists. Strongly object to any 

development on Holywell Spring Farm. It would destroy good agricultural land, reduce access to green 

infrastructure and open spaces, put a huge strain on over stretched resources/facilities, not provide any additional 

benefits to community, destroy an area of outstanding natural beauty, loss of a rural walk, damage to the local 

spring, and increase traffic into town due to distance from local schools and leisure facilities. Proposals appear to 

be an exercise in meeting some arbitrary government target. Are such vast numbers of housing needed in this

575 Michael 

Mathews 

Object 

country? New houses should be located away from already over populated housing estates. 

Question 18 

Object to any proposals at the Money Hill development. Unacceptable impact on the highway network and 

congestion and safety. There is also further development of Tesco in the vicinity and potential distribution centre 

site. 

576 Emma 

Winter 

577 Oliver 

Walton 

578 N 

Henderson 

579 Stuart 

Wakefield 





580 Sharron 

Dearle 

Object 

Refer to 

Mrs M C Hallam 

Representation 104 

581 David 

Dearle 

582 Rich 

Dearle 

583 Peter 

Dearle 

584 Mr G 

Messer 





585 P Haywood Object Refer to Representation 104

586 Lynn Ross Object Refer to Representation 104 

587 H Haywood Object Refer to Representation 104 

588 Mrs M 

Messer 

589 Thomas 

Bryan 

Higgins 



590 P D Button Object Refer to Representation 104 

591 Irene 

Button 

592 Mrs 

Maureen 

Bloor 



593 K J Hallam Object Refer to Representation 104 

594 Mrs M C 

Hallam 


595 Wendy 

White 

596 Mr D Smith 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Proposal will alter the area and create another blot on the landscape. An overhead tram would have a negative 

impact on the atmosphere of the village. Kegworth already suffers from traffic congestion due to commuters and 

also have to endure noise from the airport during the day and night. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. The preferred location for the distribution centre should 

be reconsidered:-

-There is already a large industrial estate near Trent Lane and only a third developed. It has a train link and is a 

brownfield site. 

- Development would impact on the value of houses in the area and will seek compensation for such loss in 

value. 

- Size of the development would cause noise, light and air pollution. 

- Additional congestion on the roads. 

- Loss of rural farm land. 

- Destroy the community 

597 The Coal 

Authority 

Within North West Leicestershire the main mining legacy issues which need to be identified are: mine entries, 

shallow workings and rising minewater. 

Core Strategy Issues 16 (Q56) – The Coal Authority have records of over 178,000 Coal mine entries across the 

coalfields (100, 000 in Leicestershire of which a dozen or so are cola mining related hazards) and there may be 

many more. Shallow Coal near the surface can give rise to stability, gas and potential spontaneous combustion 

problems with the principle source of guidance on these issues in PPG14 (unstable ground). Mine entries and 

mining legacy matters warrant investigation by the Local Planning Authority to ensure site allocations and other 

policies will not lead to future public safety hazards, although land instability and mining legacy is not a complete 

constraint on development. 

Issue 19 – Q57 – Green Infrastructure (mine water) – The mine water in the Leicestershire coalfield area has 

largely recovered and water levels stabilised. However in some areas minewater is nearing recovery and it is 

important that the emerging LDF ensures there is sufficient policy flexibility to support a scheme which is brought 

forward albeit that such a scheme is likely to be in the Swadlingcote area outside the District. 

There is an accumulation of mine water in the Oakthorpe Area which has begun to have an effect on the stability 

of the ground and is likely to lead to potential future subsidence issues. Discussions have taken place between 

the Coal Authority, the EA and Council Officers regarding this issues which could effect the SAC. 

The issues the Coal Authority would like to highlight in the Core Strategy area- 

• A positive approach which would support the proposal for a mine water treatment scheme to manage the 

rising mine water and prevent the potential risk for flooding 

• Reference for the need for ground investigation works in areas of former coal workings 

• An appropriate reference in the document to the potential need for specific written permission of the Coal 

Authority to enter Coal seams or interfere with Coal mine entries. 

Other issues – Surface Coal resources and Prior Extraction – they would not want coal resources sterilised by 

new development and in such cases the Coal Authority would be seeking prior extraction of the Coal. 

In areas of shallow coal resources, a positive policy option for removing the remnant coal as part of the site 

preparation works for future development would remove the potential public safety hazard prior to development

598 Swanningt 

on Parish 


taking place. 

Question 5 

Swannington Parish Council is horrified by the vast amount of dwellings proposed. It is considered that the figure 

of 9,800 dwellings implies that the majority of the Green wedge will be built upon not the minority. 

599 John 

Gardiner 

600 Governors 

of Manor 

House 

School, 

Ashby de 

Object 

Support 

Question 10 

The Parish Council strongly opposes the deletion of any Green Wedge; it must stay and be ‘ring-fenced’. 

Reference is made to the 2007 consultation where the Green Wedge was not specifically consulted on although 

there was support for development of the Green Wedge, a question is raised to ask where this support came 

from. They consider that just because the Council feels large parts of the Green Wedge are of little public amenity 

this does not mean it should be built upon. By altering the Green Wedge to ‘countryside’ makes it open to 

unjustified development. 

Question 14 

Swannington needs to retain its individuality and not become an integrated area of Coalville nor merge with 

Whitwick, especially as Swannington is a ‘Sustainable Village’. Some infill development is acceptable. 

Question 53 

It is considered that the National Forest Rail Line will never come to fruition so the increase in traffic on the 

already overburdened roads will be immense. 

Question 58 

The Parish Council do not think that enough thought and planning has gone into the effect on the environment 

and infrastructure. 

Question 15 

Object to the development of houses at Hensons Lane and Glebe Road, in Thringstone. The area already 

experiences busy traffic and congestion, Thringstone has grown by over 50% in last thirty years with amenities 

decreasing, erosion of local identity and loss of rare flora species from surrounding wet lands. 

Disappointing that the Three Cities SRC appear to have made the decision to locate major housing developments 

in Coalville and leaves little for the other areas in the District. 

Question 2 

The favoured objectives are reasonable.

la Zouch 

Question 3 

Agree with the favoured approach but not the conclusions that are drawn out later in the document. 

Question 7 

The scenarios are reasonable but do not agree with the preference to locate the bulk of development in Coalville. 

Option 1 would be a missed opportunity for Ashby to benefit from potential development gain, such as 

improvement to surgeries, library etc. Option 3 is a reasonable compromise and will permit this area to benefit 

from new developments. 

Question 8 

Cannot support the favoured approach since this would only bring 500 dwellings to Ashby. 

Question 12 

Identification of specific sites in the Core Strategy will give some certainty for their future. 

Question 17 

Option 1 will be a missed opportunity for Ashby to benefit from potential development gains, e.g., surgeries, 

schools, library etc. Option 3 provides a reasonable compromise and will permit this area to benefit from new 

developments. 

Question 18 

Favour the South of Ashby site as it is potentially close to National Forest passenger rail line if this is ever 

opened. It is also has closer direct access to the M42, would be a large enough to permit good sustainable 

drainage to be incorporated in the landscape design and help to reduce flooding issues downstream. Understand 

that the sewerage infrastructure on the potential sites was improved to cater for expansion some two years ago. 

601 Matthew 

Fox and 

Liza 

Stratford 

Question 21 

Concerns relating to the potential development of land situated to south of Park Lane. Development would 

impact upon nearby houses and result in the loss of views over the landscape and impact upon the public 

footpath that is enjoyed by many. Do not consider that this particular area is considered appropriate for future 

housing as opposed to the alternatives outlined for the area. 

602 Mrs Baker Question 15

603 Mr & Mrs Object Refer to Representation 104 

Bryan 

604 Mr T Booth Object Refer to Representation 104 

Development to the north of Thringstone would be in an attractive area, on land subject to flooding and with 

access via a busy road. The size of the development would swamp the village and put strains on services – 

there is only one small school, with few shops and no doctor’s surgery. Development should be of a smaller 

scale, where access is safe and on higher ground away from flooding. There should also be small scale 

development on Loughborough Road which is a safer road and closer to facilities. 

605 and 

606 

Mr and 

Mrs, Mr 

and Miss 

Nudd 

Object 

Question 40 

There is far too much development in Kegworth and Castle Donington. Proposals would also result in the loss of 

prime agricultural and rural land. 

There will be more congestion in the area and additional noise, light and air pollution over and above that which is 

already experienced by the airport. Loss of house values and loss of peace and quiet afforded by the villages. 

There is already a major distribution centre in the area and the Council’s plans are overkill. 

607 Ms K 

Rayns 

608 Deborah 

Meyrick 

609 Christine 

Heron 




610 D P Smith Object Refer to Representation 104 

611 E H Rayns Object Refer to Representation 104 

612 G Dickens Object Refer to Representation 104 

613 Mr R 

Johnson 


614 Mrs Object Refer to Representation 104

Geraldine 

Taylor 

615 Mr & Mrs 

Wilson 

616 Mrs A 

Booth 



617 Mrs L Stray Object Refer to Representation 104 

618 B C Smith Object Refer to Representation 104 

619 M Wright Object Refer to Representation 104 

620 Christine 

Brown 

621 Miss J 

Dakin 

622 Mrs F 

Caffrey 

623 D Smith 

(Mr) 

624 Catherine 

Booth 






625 M Winter Object Refer to Representation 104 

626 W Lodge Object Refer to Representation 104

627 Donald 

Clark 

628 Mr J E 

Booth 

629 Mrs C B 

Harrison 

630 Mr D R 

Harrison 





631 J K Turner Object Refer to Representation 104 

632 Mrs 

Margaret 

Hodges 



Schofield 

634 Mr & Mrs 

Croft 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as Castle Donington is already hemmed in by 

commercial sites and is bound by major roads. There would be a loss of rural countryside and flora and fauna. 

The village does not have a leisure centre accessible without having to use a car or public transport. The 

proposed development area provides a natural barrier to the site and sounds of the airport and such development 

would make Castle Donington and its surroundings an unattractive place to live and visit. 

Object to the proposed green wedge and gypsy policy. 

635 M A Fern Object Refer to Representation 104 

636 Mr F R 

Lane 

637 Mrs E A 

Lane 



638 M J Reid Object Refer to Representation 104 

639 Mrs M H 

Daniel 

640 Mrs M 

Worsley 

641 Mrs M 

Worsley 

642 Janice 

Barker 

643 Mrs P J 

Tomlinson 

644 Mrs M 

Bond 

(second 

rep'n) 

645 Miss S 

Pegg 

646 Miss S 

Pegg 

647 Mrs L 

O'Shea 

648 Leicestersh 

ire Police 

Authority 










This response does not directly respond to specific questions and issues raised within the Core Strategy Further 

Consultation Document. A standard response has been provided advising on the inclusion of community safety 

in the LDF and for contributions to be sought through the use of planning contributions.

LDF Documents should fully recognise the issue of community safety, contain policies and statements covering 

the principles of designing out crime and infrastructure requirements, identify the emergency services as a key 

public service provider within definitions of infrastructure and commit to engage with the Police and other 

emergency service providers in all relevant planning areas. 

Any portrait, the Vision and strategic objectives should refer to the promotion of safe and healthy sustainable 

communities and the delivery of community safety. The Core Strategy should also contain a policy covering the 

issues of planning obligations and infrastructure requirements that are generated by developments, a policy 

covering safe design and a policy covering town centres, in terms of their role, and the promotion of a safe and 

attractive night time economy. 

649 Packington 

Nook 

Residents 

Association 

An unincorporated organisation with over 300 supporters, concerned with the development of Ashby de la Zouch. 

In 2008 local people were asked key questions in support of this response to the local development framework. 

Of the 1456 response, over 95% of households stated they were against large scale development. 

Question 1 

Support the favoured vision but suggest the following amendments (bolded):- 

North West Leicestershire will recognise the importance business plays in a strong community and will encourage 

innovations, helping maintain and develop the district’s diverse business base. 

Protection of, and enhancements to, environments especially in the area of the National Forest. 

Question 2 

Object to SO1. Fails to emphasis the Regional and LCC LTP policies to reduce car journeys. Only mentions 

access to public transport. Reducing car journeys is a key issue that is ignored by objectives. 

The mere hope of the opening of the Ivanhoe Line must not be used to promote otherwise unsustainable 

development. 

Suggested wording for SO9 “Maintain, and where appropriate enhance the vitality and viability of Coalville and 

other centres across the district, particularly the revitalisation of Coalville town centre to perform as a vibrant sub

egional centre and a contemporary market town.” 

Question 3 

Object to the definition of a Rural Town as having a bus service every 15 minutes or better. This is inconsistent 

with the County Council LTP Policy of hourly services Mon-Fri daytime only. On this basis Ashby does not qualify 

as a Rural Town and should not be the focus of development. Development of Ashby should be subject to the 

required services being provided. 

Focusing development in Sustainable Villages without the defined bus services is not sustainable. 

Question 4 

Consideration of settlements for development must be considered along with their capability to absorb new 

development, taking account of environmental and transportation issues. Ashby experiences the traffic problems 

of a medieval road system, flooding problems and effects on the River Mease SAC. These will create 

unsustainability problems for approving new development and the strategy is deficient in this regard. 

Question 6 

It is not necessary to plan further than 2026 because of economic uncertainty and the economic boom of the last 

10 years is an unsustainable basis for projecting future housing needs. 

Development of this scale would lead to a permanent planning blight. 

Question 7 

Issue of flooding in Ashby and effects on River Mease SAC of increased development must be considered as 

part of the overall strategy. 

PTOLEMY assessment will not fully address the effects of increased traffic on Ashby Town Centre. It has a 

medieval network not capable of expansion or redesign to accept more traffic. 

The wording on infrastructure issues ignores the implications for schools. 

The development scenarios do not fully reflect the draft RSS8 requirements for development to be mainly in

Coalville. It is inconsistent with RSS8. 

Strategy is being developed without the necessary evidence base, for example the SFRA for Ashby is 

inadequate. Does not consider impact of all major developments considered, and impact of minor developments 

and creation of impervious areas. 


Provision of 9600 dwellings should not be a minimum and this word should be deleted, as its use opens the door 

for 9600 to be exceeded. This approach does not conform to the draft RSS8. 

Question 12 

Agree that specific sites should be identified in the Core Strategy. 

Question 13 

Agree the suggested approach for what should contribute a strategic site. 

Question 17 

Support Option 1 for the development scenario for Ashby. This is due to the lack of public transport, medieval 

road network, flooding issues and the effect on the River Mease SAC. Over 95% of the households who 

responded supported Option 1. 

Question 18 

Of the responses received the most preferred sites was that at Moira Road and the least preferred site was that 

at Packington Nook. 

The RA are of the view that the site South of Moira Road is the least visually intrusive, closer to the town centre 

and would not significantly extend the effective boundaries of the town. 

This site will be sufficient as there is already approval for 340 houses in Ashby. If the application at Leicester 

Road is approved there will be no need for further allocations. 

Question 19

Sufficient provision will be available under the preferred provision because of existing permissions. Oppose the 

concept of reserve sites. 

Question 34 

Object to the favoured option for affordable housing provision. The figurer should be 40% for Coalville as it has 

the best public transport provision. The balance should then be elsewhere. 

Question 35 

Option 2 for Gypsy and Traveller site provision is preferred. Option 1 will lead to unviable development sites. Of 

the responses received, 91.9% supported provision to be on specific free standing sites on the edge of rural 

towns. 

Question 36 

Are not aware of any potential sites and it needs the District Council to work on it. 

Question 37 

Gypsy and Traveller sites should be associated with industrial development sites. 

Question 38 

Support the favoured Housing Strategy except for the policies on affordable housing and travellers, which are 

unworkable. 

Question 53 

Support the favoured transport approach. However the re-opening of the Ivanhoe line should lead to a reevaluation 

of development opportunities along this line, not just Ashby and Coalville. There is also no real 

commitment to public transport improvement other than the Ivanhoe idea.

Question 54 

Should also consider a more positive view of the influence the District Council can have in improving public 

transport. 

Question 58 

A priority to be the provision of flooding protection to Packington to deal with progressive worsening because of 

development in Ashby. 

Question 63 

Green Infrastructure policies should address the Ashby Canal corridor and the value of landscape between 

settlements. 

650 Jillian F 

Newell 

(Miss) 

651 Mr & Mrs G 

Partridge 

652 Mrs K 

Spencer 

653 Margaret 

Frame 

654 Mr N 

Monahan 

655 Leicestersh 

ire Local 

Access 

Forum 






As background they point out that they are an independent statutory body set up as a result of the Countryside 

and Rights of Way Act (2000) and exist to represent the interests of everyone concerned with access to the 

Countryside and the public rights of way network. 

The development of public access policies in Leicestershire has been greatly helped with the establishment of a

656 Danielle 

Ward 

657 Carolyn 

Burge 

Rights of Way Improvement Plan (ROWIP) for Leicestershire which was published in conjunction with the Second 

Local Transport Plan in 2006. The Core objectives in the now adopted Regional Plan pick up on the threads of 

the ROWIP in seeking to- 

Protect and enhance the environmental quality of urban and rural settlements, to improve the health of the 

Regions residents, and to improve accessibility to jobs, homes and services through promotion and integration of 

opportunities for walking and cycling. 

Policies in the ROWIP include an aim that developers will be expected to maximise the potential for access 

within, to and from new development by walking and cycling (Policy P3), Infrastructure assessments to access 

new developments should include foot and cycle proposals (Policy P4), and consideration should be given to 

linking new housing sites into the surrounding recreational networks or where there isn’t one, creating routes that 

link to surrounding paths, communities or facilities (Policy P5). 

In terms of site specific proposals the forum 

• Would like to see the retention of the green wedge areas around Coalville. 

• Considers the south east Coalville area offers the least worst option for housing growth. 

• Proposes that a recreational masterplan be established for the area with the possible inclusion of the 6Cs 

Infrastructure Strategy and any designated Green Wedge areas. 

• Primary access routes should cater for all users. 

• Surrounding access networks, including Rights of Way should benefit from infrastructure improvements. 

• Viable non motorised routes be established into and out of Colville, including links with existing 

infrastructure 

• Green corridors with access should be provided throughout the new developments 

Any housing development in Measham should support and develop the Ashby Woulds Heritage trail. 

Question 40 

Object A strategic distribution centre would decimate the countryside around Lockington and dwarf anything in the 

vicinity by its sheer size. The plans to route a railway spur next to the A50 would result in the isolation of 

Lockington. The topography would exacerbate the prominence of such a development. The contour would also 

mean that the drainage of the rainwater would flood Lockington and Junction 24. Flooding will occur in the area. 

The rail link would have to travel uphill due to topography. The rail link would cut off Lockington from the East 

and also route through the Conservation Area. Increased noise would be noticeable. There would be an 

increase in road traffic volume as well as an increase in air pollution, noise pollution and light pollution (night time 

operations). Employment created would bring in more people in from outside the area as there us already full 

employment for the existing residents. Furthermore the proposed commercial operation is not wealth-producing. 


658 John Burge Object Refer to Representation 634 

659 Alex Burge Object Refer to Representation 634 

660 W Powell Object Refer to Representation 634 

661 H 

Thompson 


662 Michelle 

Walker 

Object 

Question 15 

Objects to the proposed site at Greenhill Farm. A large development of 250 houses and a Travellers site will 

cause major traffic problems and on-road parking along Greenhill Road in particular. The proposed number of 

houses would also need doctors, schools as there are no facilities for this amount of new housing. The proposed 

site is on the edge of Charnwood Forest and there is an abundance of wildlife, it is a valuable and useful 

resource. 

Question 35 

The favoured approach is not supported. 

Question 36 

A solution to the Travellers would be to source more sustainable sites; one currently could be Wood Lane, 

Ellistown. This is currently being used illegally but is locationally very suitable as it has the isolation that suits 

whilst being on a main bus route. If this site was legalised and converted accordingly it would suit the Council and 

the traveller. 

663 Mr M E 

Groves 

664 Mrs M E 

Groves 



665 P A Strutt Object Refer to Representation 104 

666 David 

Collins 


667 Mrs R A 

Dawson 


668 Steve 

Johnson 

669 Paul 

Siddals 

Object 

Para 6.3 – Disagrees with the Vision which has bypassed the democratic process. The government has scrapped 

planning laws, the East Midlands Regional Assembly is not accountable to voters and the District Councillors will 

vote for development in areas they do not represent 

Question 1 

The sustainability triangle image is not supported as there is nothing sustainable about creating a vast commuter 

belt with thousands of extra car journeys a day whilst destroying farmland, allotments and green spaces. The 

triangle seems larger on the housing side. Concreting over, quarrying and open casting large areas of farmland 

are not sustainable. The Vision is biased in favour of property developers. Figures published by the Council state 

there are 1300 empty homes in the District, which is more than there are people on the housing list. Suggested 

that developments will be filled mainly by commuters which is unsustainable. 

Question 1 

The favoured vision is supported 

Question 2 

The objectives are supported but the identities of the various communities in NWL should not be lost 

Question 3 

Considered that Whitwick and Thringstone should also be classed as sustainable villages 

Question 5 

9600 dwellings should be the minimum and maximum level of provision 

Question 6 

Disagrees, the Core Strategy should not look beyond the plan period as that would be too far into the uncertain 

future 

Question 7 

Option 3 is considered the best scenario as it provides the most balanced development and opportunities for 

growth and regeneration.

Question 8 

The favoured development strategy is not supported, strongly disagrees with option 1 as it would destroy the 

individual characters of Whitwick, Thringstone and Swannington by development of the Green Wedge. 

Question 9 

The suggested wording is not supported for the same reason as in response to question 8 

Question 10 

The favoured approach regarding the Green Wedge is not supported. Considered essential that all 3 areas of 

Green Wedge are redesignated as strategic gaps or areas of separation to retain the separate identities of 

Whitwick, Thringstone and Swannington. It is incorrect to conclude that they do not perform their original function 

or they are of little public amenity value. They are visually pleasing, crossed by footpaths and provide physical 

separation. The loss of the village’s identities would be incalculable. 

Question 11 

To secure increased access to the Green Wedge permissive footpaths could be negotiated with the developers 

and National Forest planting encouraged in some areas of the Green wedge. 

Question 12 

Agrees the specific sites should be identified in the Core Strategy. 

Question 14 

Disagrees with the development scenarios and an option 5 is suggested which does not involve any development 

on the Green Wedge by developing 

South East Coalville (4500 dwellings) 

South West Coalville (700 dwellings) 

Adjoining Donington le Heath (550 dwellings) 

Adjoining Greenhill (250 dwellings) 

Question 15 

It is essential that no development takes place on the Green Wedge to retain the identities of Whitwick, 

Thringstone and Swannington, proposes the same development scenario as above. 

Question 16 

To ensure sufficient provision of housing the south of Coalville could be developed, along with development in

Castle Donington, Ashby and Ibstock and some in the other villages but no development on the Green Wedge. 

Proposes same development scenario as in response to question 14. 

Question 17 

Development scenario options 2 and 3 are supported for Ashby. 

Question 18 

All of the identified sites in Ashby are supported 

Question 20 

Development scenario option 3 is supported for Castle Donington as the potential for employment there will need 

1200 houses. 

Question 21 

All of the identified sites in Castle Donington are supported. 

Question 23 

Development scenario options 3 and 4 are supported for Ibstock 

Question 24 

All of the identified sites in Ibstock are supported 

Question 26 

Development scenario option 3 is supported for Kegworth to diversify development in NWL and provide sufficient 

housing for the potential employment options 

Question 27 

All of the identified sites in Kegworth are supported 

Question 29 

Development scenario option 3 is supported for Measham to allow the settlement to grow 

Question 30 

All of the identified sites in Measham are supported 

Question 32

The possible expansion of Coalville is supported as long as it expands southwards and does not involve the 

development of the Green Wedge 

Question 33 

A southerly expansion of Coalville would be preferable to a northerly expansion in order to retain the individual 

characters of Whitwick, Thringstone and Swannington 

Question 34 

Affordable housing should be integrated into all developments in small groups and not placed in one place such 

as Agar Nook 

Question 35 

Option 1 is preferred as it is considered that option 2 will not work. 

Question 36 

In terms of potential sites previous proposals off the A511 at Sinope and near Ravenstone were reasonable. 

Question 40 

The favoured approach is supported 

Question 42 

Creating an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport is supported 

Question 44 

The economic strategy is supported 

Question 46 

The favoured approach regarding East Midlands Airport is supported 

Question 49 

The favoured approach is supported, option 2 is considered the best approach 

Question 50 

Other options to consider would be renovating some existing old industrial buildings for a new use (e.g. flats) 

others will need to be replaced. The balance of refurbish/replace should be carefully chosen to maintain the 

industrial character of Coalville. Redevelopment of redundant town centre buildings such as Grieves and Ford

Motors should be chosen for new town centre development ahead of the Broadway car park to provide a more 

vibrant town instead of a large soulless monolithic arcade 

Question 51 

The town centre boundaries should be defined as part of the Core Strategy 

Question 52 

The Coalville town centre should be changed to include 

• Memorial Square 

• Grieves factory and up to/including Mantle Lane Bridge and associated old industrial land 

• Ford Garage 

• Marlborough Square 

• Belvoir Centre 

Question 53 

The favoured approach regarding transport issues is supported. 

Question 54 

There should be more emphasis on cycleways 

Question 55 

The favoured approach to deliver well designed, high quality sustainable developments is supported 

Question 58 

An infrastructure issue is new street markets for Coalville and Ashby 

Question 61 

The Core Strategy should go further than the Regional Plan in terms of renewable energy targets 

Question 62 

There should be District wide renewable energy targets to be determined by experts in the field. 

Question 63 

In terms of green infrastructure the Green wedge should be retained

Question 66 

There is an obesity problem in NWL and is likely to get worse therefore the Core Strategy and LDF could include 

more facilities for exercise (inc, walking, cycling, playing fields etc) 

670 Robert 

Dilworth 

Para 2.2 – Parliament has urged that all major development schemes should be subject to a health impact 

assessment to make sure they are not discouraging walking and cycling. The Government has signalled that the 

planning system will have a major role to play in improving the nation’s health and tackling current obesity 

concerns. There appears to be no reference in the evidence base to acknowledge that there is a need for a 

health impact assessment of proposed development. 

Question 1 

The favoured vision is supported, the housing focus on Coalville is much the preferred option rather than 

piecemeal development in what should remain rural areas. 

Question 3 


Question 7 

The Coalville option ties in with the new Government strategy on the role of planning tackling obesity. Piecemeal 

development in rural towns as well as Coalville would mean the infrastructure costs of health provision would be 

much higher. The ‘new’ Coalville should be equipped with cycle ways and non-road footpaths which would offer 

the most chance to avoiding obesity for most new residents. 

Question 10 

The favoured approach regarding the Green Wedge is supported. 

Question 17 

The minimum level of development in Ashby is supported in order to maintain its status as a rural town. Options 1 

and 4 (500 dwellings maximum in Ashby) with a Coalville focus, are the preferred options. 

Question 18 

Holywell Spring Farm is the supported location for development as it has the best access to the north to the A511 

linking it with Coalville and Burton. It is also close to the town centre. 

Question 35 

The favoured approach on the issue of making provision for Gypsies and Travellers is not supported.

Question 40 

Disagree with the favoured approach. The area west of J24 is in a high noise location and also doubtful whether 

this is a safe location for a distribution centre. 

Question 41 

The east of Bardon Quarry and north west of M1 junction 22 are suggested as alternative sites. 

Question 42 

Donington Park is directly under the flight path and subject to a prevailing wind and noise. Some displacement 

well to the north or south of the flight line would be necessary but possible. 

Question 46 

The favoured approached regarding the airport is supported 

Question 48 

The definitions of operational and airport related development should continue to be used. 

Question 54 

Every village should have one non-road footpath and one non-road cycleway to access the nearest town and 

each proximate village. For example, Packington has not one single cycleway nor any marked cycle lanes on any 

road to other villages or towns. It is connected to Ashby by only one roadside pavement; no pavement exists in 

any other direction. 

Question 55 

The favoured approach in delivering high quality sustainable developments is supported 

Para 25.1 

Scientific evidence is not clear that human activity is the main cause of changes in the climate. There are many 

suspect motives but nevertheless, sensible reduction in energy use should be pursued. 

Question 59 

The favoured approach regarding the issues of climate change is supported. 

Para 26.4 

It is disingenuous to say that the National Forest provides recreation opportunities for walking. You have to get to

it by car. Likewise cycling – there are no non-road cycle ways yet. There needs to be separate off road walking 

and cycling routes. 

671 Chris Lewis Question 1 

The favoured vision is broadly supported 

Question 2 

The favoured objectives are supported, particularly SO1, the National Forest line is vital to give this part of 

Leicestershire a sustainable transport option. SO9 – the revitalisation of Coalville Town Centre is long overdue. 

Question 3 

Would prefer Ashby to be a Market Town to reflect its historical allocation as such. Agreed that Moira is not a 

town. 

Question 5 

It is agreed that 9600 should be a target not a minimum; once the target has been reached there should be no 

more development. 

Question 6 

Efforts should be made to get it right up to 2026, planning beyond that is of no value 

Question 7 

Option 1 is supported (500 in Ashby). The following points are made regarding infrastructure: 

• Ivanhoe Community College needs modernising, the building is no longer fit for purpose. 

• The Health Centre will need extending to cope with a growth in population 

• There is a current shortage of dentists and this needs addressing prior to any growth 

Question 8 

There should only be growth beyond 9600 with the appropriate infrastructure. The Local Authority should make a 

contribution to the infrastructure requirements. 

Question 9 

The suggested wording of the strategy is supported 

Question 10

The favoured approach is not supported. It is vital that the Green Wedge remains to prevent Coalville merging 

into Whitwick and Swannington 

Question 11 

The Green Wedge could be made into more of the National Forest. 

Question 12 

Specific sites should be identified in the Core Strategy 

Question 13 

Strategic sites should not be determined by size but by their location regarding the nearest town and their access 

to public transport etc 

Question 17 

Option 1 is supported for Ashby, as more growth is not sustainable and would ruin the character and environment 

of this market town 

Question 18 

As Holywell Spring Farm would accommodate the 500 dwellings needed in Option 1 then no other sites would be 

required. Therefore, the development sites East of Leicester Road and South of Moira Road are not supported. 

Question 34 

The provision of affordable housing is supported however the percentage should be for individual sites and will 

vary depending on the financial appraisal of each development. A Target of 40% is too high and is likely to make 

sites uneconomical to develop especially in the current climate. 

Question 35 

The Gypsy and Traveller community should be consulted – what is their preferred option? 

Question 36 

In general sites should be specific to the Gypsy and Traveller community and not part of the proposed new 

development. 

Question 38 

Compulsory Purchase Orders should be used to bring empty properties back into use. Gypsy and Traveller sites 

should not be part of the Strategic Housing sites.

672 Allan Reed Para 6.2 – NWL will embrace new and emerging ways of doing things to become a leader in green and 

sustainable communities – considered that this is not possible if 12,200 houses are built as the two diverge. NWL 

should build on its unique geographic advantages – considered that this should read disadvantages. The Council 

should support a strategy where the District remains a rural area surrounded by cities where the populated areas 

should remain. 

Para 6.4 – The sustainability triangle is wrongly drawn as the business third should be very small. The area 

suffers from a significant lack of well paid employment. This must be addressed before any new housing can be 

considered to employ the current workforce locally. 

Question 1 

The favoured vision is not supported. Coalville should remain a town; the vision sounds like a vision for a major 

city with corporate employment not a rural town trying to find its feet following the collapse of the mining industry. 

Housing is not required in the area, it will increase unemployment. 

Question 2 

Disagrees with the favoured objectives, in particular SO1 as there is no chance of the Ivanhoe Railway line being 

developed due to the cost impact. It is not a set of cohesive objectives; it’s just a list of ideas on how to make 

NWL a better place. 

Question 3 

The Moira bus service has been running hourly for several years now. Albert Village and Moira offer ideal 

locations for new housing close to the Heart of the National Forest and planned developments in Swadlincote. 

The bus service criteria are considered hopeful as no where in NWL has a 15 minute or better service. 

Question 5 

Disagrees with the level of housing growth proposed in the RSS. No further housing should be built in or around 

Coalville. Quality employment for the existing populations should be the Councils focus. Disagrees with the 

number of dwellings proposed. It will lead to higher crime, more daily commuting out of the area and loss of the 

rural feel of the area. The number of new houses should be based on the expected growth requirements of the 

current Coalville population, no more. 

Question 6 

The strategy should be shelved for 5 years due to the current economic downturn

Question 7 

Regarding employment land the area has had difficulties in attracting corporate employment. No further housing 

should be planned until a solution to this problem is found. Suggests that Coalville could be removed from the 

four options. The road infrastructure, employment opportunities, healthcare or transport will not accommodate the 

proposed growth. Suggested that the Council could ballot the local communities to see if the plans are supported. 

Question 10 

No Greenfield sites should be used for any future developments 

Question 40 

Supports the favoured approach, all three sites should be developed. 

Question 42 

Supports the creation of an employment zone at the Airport. 

673 Matthew 

Smith 

National and Regional policies should be subservient to local concerns. All changes (including at the Regional 

Level) need to be subject to public consultation 

Question 1 

The favoured vision is not supported. Destroying the Green Wedge does not help the District become greener, 

sustainable nor does it make communities stronger. The requirement for additional housing needs to be 

considered in the light of the current economic climate. The sustainability triangle diagram is meaningless. The 

District has been neglected by the County Council, the sewage system is 100 years old and is collapsing and is 

unable to cope with current demands. The Hermitage Leisure centre is deliberately being left to deteriorate; 

children have the worst educational prospects in the Country with only low paid jobs to go on to. The last thing 

needed is more housing or people. 

Question 5 

Increasing the number of dwellings is unnecessary, many houses in the area remain unsold and there are empty 

properties everywhere. 

Question 10 

The importance of the Green Wedge to the local population should be taken into account in the Core Strategy. 

Therefore, the spatial vision should be spread wider so that new building does not take place on the essential 

green lungs of the community. In 2002 the Council decided that the Coalville Green Wedge should be protected

at all costs, in order to safeguard the integrity of local villages, this document is missing from the evidence base. 

All later documents are clearly against the majority of people’s wishes. All greenbelt land should be given the 

strongest possible protection. Too many houses are being proposed in an unsuitable area. 

The Green Wedge must be retained and protected at all costs to prevent urban sprawl. New housing, if truly 

required should be spread more evenly around the District. 

Question 35 


Question 46 

East Midlands Airport is the only Airport allowed to fly at night which is a problem for many local people, it is 

imperative that East Midlands Airport is bought into line with the rest of the UK. 

674 Robert 

Keith 

Reaveley 

Question 1 

The favoured vision is not supported. The residents of Castle Donington already have to put up with the Airport, 

Donington Park and acres of unsightly warehouses, and all the associated noise and traffic. The development of 

the Power Station site will only make these things worse. To add more industry is totally unacceptable. If people 

are to get to work more easily then housing and employment should not be built at opposite ends of the District. 

Question 2 

Broadly the favoured objectives are acceptable. However, there should be something included about 

development being carried out in a way that is acceptable to the majority of residents. 

Question 5 

9600 dwellings should be the maximum, not the minimum. There will probably be revisions of the plan prior to 

2026, thinking longer term than that is a waste of time. 

Question 7 

Although considered that a bypass at Castle Donington would be beneficial, building south of Park Lane is 

ridiculous. It is far too close to a noisy flight path and Donington Park. No faith that large scale building would be 

accompanied by sufficient improvements to infrastructure. Of the options given Option 2 is favoured. 

Question 12 

Identifying specific sites allows more relevant feedback. 

Question 13

Agrees with the approach on what should constitute a strategic site 

Question 20 

If extra houses are needed in Castle Donington then Option 2 is supported. As identified in the response to 

question 7, there are no suitable sites for anything more. 

Question 21 

Land north of Park Lane has now got planning permission, in spite of overwhelming public opposition. Land south 

of Park Lane is too close to a noisy flight path and Donington Park. There should not be any development south 

of Park Lane without a bypass. Questions whether flooding is a potential issue for Upton Close. 

Question 26 

Considered that development so close to a motorway should not even be contemplated. 

Deleted: 

Question 35 


Question 38 

Disagrees with the favoured housing strategy. Seeking a minimum density, regardless of the type and density of 

housing that already exists is grossly unfair to existing residents, as it potentially devalues their properties. 

Developments should always be considered in their context, not in the abstract. 

Question 39 

Disagrees with the favoured approach as acres of unsightly warehouses and horrendous traffic movements are 

not something that the Council should be volunteering for 

Question 40 

The favoured approach is not supported as it is considered that the issues could not be adequately addressed to 

the satisfaction of local residents. The issues are too fundamental and serious. 

Question 42 

Disagrees with the proposal to locate an employment zone at the Airport/Donington Park if noise levels would be 

increased. 

Question 44 

As indicated in previous responses there are several items on the list that are strongly opposed.

Question 46 

The favoured approach is supported and would like to see Donington Park included in the efforts to make greater 

use of public transport and less use of the car 

Question 49 


Question 55 

The favoured approach is supported, unfortunately some of the other proposals are not consistent with this – 

impact on neighbouring properties, noise, pollution etc 

675 Penny 

Wakefield 

Question 1 

The favoured vision is not supported. Strongly opposes proposed housing plans which would cover Green 

Wedges and the consequent merging of Hugglescote and Ellistown into Coalville urban area. 

676 Steve 

Lofthouse Question 1 

It would be difficult to argue against any of the points raised in the Sustainable Community Strategy. In the 

summary a lot depends on what is meant by the word ‘significant’. If it means 12,000 houses in the Coalville area 

then it is strongly opposed. The other points are fine. 

Question 2 

SO2 and SO14 are fine. SO1 is exactly what the council should be doing but contradicts what the LDF is 

proposing. Very few of the proposed areas for development around Coalville are on previously developed land. 

There are Brownfield sites but designating large areas of Greenfield for development is the easy option. The 

objectives are agreed but the Council are not following the most important of them 

Question 3 

The favoured approach seems reasonable however questions why chemists that are or are not part of a GP 

practices are distinguished. Particularly supports the use of infill sites, this should be a priority in Coalville where 

sites much larger than 0.1 hectare could be used. 

Question 5 

9,600 dwellings should not be considered as this number is far too high. Questions the timescale for the building

of 2,610 dwellings from 31 st March. Without a specific date it is difficult to visualise how fast housing is actually 

being constructed. Suggests that a figure of 5,000 new houses in the next 17 years would be more than enough 

to satisfy the areas requirements. 

Question 6 

Isn’t 17 years long enough to project for? Perhaps in 10 years time the Council should see how successful the 

numbers have been this time around. The projections would or should have been different if this was carried out 

12 months before the current economic crisis. Suspects that the figures have not been revised in light of the 

economic downturn. Need to question ‘who is going to buy these houses?’, ‘why have so many local building 

sites been abandoned?’ and ‘who is going to employ those moving into the area?’ 

Question 7 

Why is there no box to say ‘none of the above’ an Option 5 is suggested to halve the number of Coalville 

dwellings in Option 1 and keep the rest the same 

Question 8 

The provision of 9,600 dwellings for Coalville is ridiculous. It will more than double the population and change the 

character of the area completely. Unsure as to what ‘XX’ Ha employment means – does it mean that more 

Greenfield sites will be destroyed to provide employment for the occupants of the 9,600 homes. The rural town 

figures seem reasonable 

Question 9 

The wording of the development strategy is not appropriate as it should specify development sizes for 

employment 

Question 11 

The area between Spring Lane, Stephenson Way and the old A447 from Hoo Ash roundabout down to the Robin 

Hood is certainly an area which could be used more. Sence Valley Park seems to be used a lot, it has good 

facilities and holds events, the same could be done here. It needs an identity; it could be Stephenson County 

Park, install facilities and a larger car park and increase security. Many Coalville, Whitwick and Ravenstone 

residents don’t realise what a large and accessible area it is. Publicise it in the local press, hold events, it could 

be linked to Stephenson College in some way. 

Question 12 

Pleased that the housing Background paper lists Brownfield sites as well as Greenfield. Supports the 

identification of specific sites, although the identified sites are not supported. In light of the economic turndown

the Council should be looking at Industrial sites where businesses are closed or might be forced to close, for 

example, Grieves site if not used by ASDA, Pegsons, British Rail Sidings, these could all provide large areas of 

affordable housing near the town centre. 

Question 13 

Agrees the approach of what should constitute a strategic site however all sites should be included in the Core 

Strategy. If all the sites are not presented then it is difficult to get an accurate picture if what’s happening. 

Question 16 

As previously mentioned there are a lot of potential sites around the centre of Coalville, which is where the focus 

should be initially. This will regenerate the town centre far more quickly than the other proposed sites and maybe 

some empty units along Belvoir Road will be filled again. If people are able to walk to the town centre they are 

more inclined to use the local shops. Whereas the big estates proposed will only encourage car users to travel to 

the surrounding cities to shop. 

Question 34 

Affordable housing is important, 30% of total new housing seems reasonable but the actual figures per annum 

should be about half of those quoted here bearing in mind previous answers 

Question 35 


Question 36 

Sites that should be considered need to be reasonably remote, possibly formalising and enlarging existing sites 

used legally by Travellers. One specific site is where Nailstone Road branches off from Bagworth Road. There 

have been travellers there for a number of years, although suspected to be an unofficial site. This could be 

increased in size and more facilities included. There maybe similar sites in the area. Travellers and Show People 

should be distinguished. 

Question 38 

This is a repeat of the other questions, however there are far too many houses, the rest is reasonable 

Question 39 

If there is going to be 9600 new houses, jobs will have to come from somewhere. More Greenfields will be 

destroyed in the process. Reduce the number of new houses.

Question 40 

The Rapid Loader site is preferred as this is a Brownfield site 

Question 42 

Option 1 seems to be the best. Need to wait for the market to lead, in the current climate it will go nowhere. The 

employment zone seems like a good idea but a lot of the jobs will be taken by people from Nottingham and 

Derby. The Ashby site is more central to the area and so the jobs will go mainly to people that live in the District. 

Question 43 

Unable to comment 

Question 44 

If the Council is proposing new businesses around Castle Donington what is the point of building 12,000 houses 

in Coalville. Surely the houses should be located in Castle Donington or Kegworth. Forcing people to travel from 

new developments in Coalville to where employment is located does not seem the greenest of solutions. 

Question 46 

Option 2 seems much more sensible 

Question 48 

The definitions contained in the Local Plan should continue to be used. 

Question 49 

Supports the favoured approach as long as the payoff is not the adoption of Option 1 – 12,000 houses in 

Coalville. 

Question 50 

Considered that the Grieves site is more logical for a supermarket development as it will bring the commercial 

centre of Coalville back to Memorial Square which is where it belongs. If this does not happen then the Grieves 

site and part of the Railway Yard should be used for affordable housing included in the plan 

Question 51 

Yes the town centre boundaries should be defined as part of the Core Strategy. 

Question 52 

The Coalville boundaries go too far west and north west. They should stop at the Town Hall or possibly the Parish

Church in a westerly direction and the Town Hall or Hermitage Hotel to the northwest. The eastern and southern 

boundaries seem fine. Doesn’t wish to comment on the other plan. 

Question 53 

Coalville town centre is heavily congested for the most part of every weekday. The continuation of the ring road to 

Bardon has been passed over yet again. Hugglescote crossroads are busy for most parts of the day. What will 

happen when the proposed estates between Hugglescote and the Birch Tree, off Standard Hill and at Donington 

le Health are built? Little thought has been put into the proposed developments. Cycle lanes are desperately 

needed to connect the country, especially the cloud trail. 

Question 56 

See comments in Airport section. Build the houses where the jobs are, cut down traffic pollution and build more 

cycle lanes in these areas. 

Question 57 

Not qualified to answer 

Question 58 

Concern that the hospitals in Leicester cannot cope with the current population let along 12,000 new households 

Question 59 

Wants to be as green as possible but wonders if the Coalville focus has been decided as the best option when 

Castle Donington, and to a lesser extent Ashby are where a lot of the jobs will be? 

Question 63 

There needs to be an Option 5 which allows for 3,000 houses to be built around Coalville on mainly Brownfield 

sites and 2,000 around the rest of the District. This will be ample expansion into the 2020s and will demonstrate 

that the Council is serious about green infrastructure which means keeping green fields green. 

Question 65 

Can’t see how the Council hopes to ‘maximise the potential improvements in the quality of life for residents’ if any 

of the 4 options under consideration are implemented. 

677 Peter Elliot Question 1 

The favoured vision is supported. There are key assets to the District such as the National Forest and the Airport 

which have conflicting objectives but the vision is holistic and balances those objectives and the needs of the

District in a sustainable way 

Question 2 

The favoured objectives are supported 

Question 3 

To ensure sustainability development would be best placed adjacent to existing developments with sufficient 

services and infrastructure. 

Question 5 

Agrees 9,600 as the minimum provision as long as they are built in a sustainable way. The building will 

encourage growth and wealth into the District. 

Question 7 

Building should be spread around the District, although with a focus on Coalville. This will prevent a honey pot 

effect, encourage spending around the District and grow rural towns. Ashby has enjoyed significant growth over 

the last 5 years; therefore the rural towns of Ibstock, Castle Donington and Kegworth should be supported. 

Question 10 

Agrees with the findings of the Green Wedge Background Paper 

Question 11 

Management agreements could be secured with the landowners to allow access but keep the land managed. 

678 Le Bars 

Question 1 

Suggests an overcrowded sustainability triangle between Leicester, Loughborough and Coalville. The National 

Forest has little weight when it comes to building on the Countryside, no more ugly dormitory housing is needed. 

The favoured vision is not supported, Coalville is grim and NWL is surrounded by quarries, open cast mining and 

lorries which are not very green. It is close to two motorways and near an Airport which means more traffic, noise 

and pollution. Any place can consider its geographic position as an advantage. NWL is the least rated District in 

Leicestershire for housing for some reason. NWL is not a safe place. More houses and business warehouses will 

bring even more traffic to the area. Strong and cohesive communities are nice words – the reality is littering, 

excessive drinking, crime, dangerous and careless driving, selfishness etc. 

Question 2

The favoured objectives are not supported; the area does not need anymore houses. On paper it is all very nice, 

the reality is very different. 

SO2 – Travellers not tourists are coming here 

SO3 – How is NWL going to reduce its carbon footprint by allowing 12,000 houses to be built? Theses would not 

be built if NWLDC was serious about climate change. 

SO5 – There is not much left of the Charnwood Forest due to quarrying and open mining etc 

Question 3 

The favoured approach is not supported. The quality of life will worsen, local services will be more overwhelmed, 

traffic and crime will rise and Coalville will be a sprawling city. 

Question 4 

No large scale housing could be considered 

Question 5 

9,600 should not be the minimum, this number has been made up 

Question 6 

Disagrees, there is no need for more housing. 

Question 7 

As question 5. 

Question 8 

Objects to 12,000 dwellings for the reasons already outlined in question 5. 

Question 9 

Considered that a lot of people would not understand this section. There has been much talk about the 

revitalisation of Coalville but nothing has ever happened. NWL should concentrate on city centre development 

instead of promoting new housing development. 

Question 14 

None of the development scenarios are supported in Coalville 

Question 17 

None of the development scenarios are supported in Ashby

Question 23 

Does not support any of the development scenarios for Ibstock as the size of the village is adequate now. 

Question 24 

None of the sites in Ibstock are supported. If a site can accommodate 220 dwellings then they will be built – not 

just 100 

Question 25 

There are already houses being built along Leicester Road, no more houses should be built. 

Question 26 

Considers that Kegworth is already a no-go area, along with Castle Donington 

Question 29 

None of the development scenarios are supported in Measham 

Question 30 

None of the identified sites in Measham are supported 

Question 32 

Not supported, Coalville is already large enough, would be more beneficial to improve the town centre. 

Question 35 

Does not support the favoured approach to the provision for Gypsies and Travellers 

Question 38 

Does not support the favoured housing strategy as it will bring no benefit to the area and crime will rise. 

Question 39 

Does not agree with the favoured approach. New development does not bring quality of life, but pollution and 

danger on the roads. There are enough warehouses in the area. 

Para 18.1 – Diversification of businesses at present in High Street, Ibstock, 6 fast food and take aways less than 

100 yards apart, generating litter and ‘unwanted gatherings’

Question 46 

Considered that the Airport will continue to develop and there will be more flights and noise, although everyone is 

being told to change their behaviour to minimise global warming this does not apply to NWL and the Airport. 

Question 49 

Does not trust NWLDC on favoured approach two due to what is currently happening along High Street, Ibstock. 

Is Ibstock going to attract any businesses other than junk food takeaways? 

Question 50 

Supports the development of proper businesses in villages. 

Question 53 

People commute by car as buses are expensive, unsafe and slow. To tackle climate change NWLDC must 

review its housing plan. Cycling is no longer an option as it is too dangerous and new cycle lanes would mean 

even more concrete. In relation to the airport congestion is caused by never ending road works and it can be 

accessed from the M1 and A42 – is this not enough? 

Question 54 

Consider a bus service to Loughborough 

Question 55 

New houses cannot be good quality. The approach to seek to reflect important features through appropriate 

protection by the application of national policies seems a bit exaggerated but more attractive than the houses that 

are planning to get built in NWL. 

It seems good on paper that no more options have been formulated due to the strong steer provided by national 

policies. 

Question 59 

As scientific evidence suggests that human activity is the main cause of changes in climate it is suggested that no 

new houses should be built. Also zero carbon emissions is never going to happen, it is just a trendy word. 

National guidance is not to be taken seriously about any climate change issues. The National Forest has little 

weight when new developments are considered the example of the open cast mining in Ravenstone. 

Question 63 

Charnwood Forest is not visible in NWL, it is located in Charnwood Borough.

679 Packington 

Parish 


Question 1 

Agrees favoured vision 

Question 2 

Agrees favoured objectives 

Question 3 

Agrees favoured approach 

Question 4 

No comment 

Question 5 

Disagree – owning to the recent downturn in the economy for the foreseeable future, the Parish Council feel that 

9600 dwellings should be seen as a maximum to be built 

Question 6 

Disagrees, the core strategy should not address potential development needs beyond the end of the plan period 

Question 7 

The preferred view of the Parish Council regarding development scenarios is option 1 

Question 8 

Agrees favoured approach to Development Strategy 

Question 9 

Agrees with suggested wording of the Development Strategy 

Question 10 

Agrees favoured approach on the Green Wedge issue 

Question 11 

No suggestion as to how NWLDC could secure increased public access to the Green Wedge areas 

Question 12 

Agrees with approach to identify specific sites in the Core Strategy

Question 13 

Agrees with the approach to the issue of what should constitute a strategic site 

Question 14 

Support Option 1 (development scenario for Coalville) 

Question 15 

The Coalville area needs the houses and the Parish Council supports any/all of the sites. 

Question 16 

No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Coalville 

Question 17 

Option 1 – The Money Hill site 

Question 18 

The Parish Council supports housing on Holywell Springs Farm as this can take the number of houses identified 

in option 1 

Question 19 

No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Ashby 

Question 20 

Option 1 is supported in Castle Donington 

Question 21 

Land to the north of Park Lane as this has been allocated for housing in previous development plans 

Question 22 

No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Castle Donington 

Question 23 

The Parish Council supports Option 1 (development scenario for Ibstock) 

Question 24

Land off Leicester Road as it is already a brownfield site 

Question 25 

No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Ibstock 

Question 26 

Option 1 (development scenario for Kegworth) 

Question 27 

The land identified is adjacent to the Computer Centre - reason is that there are already houses in this area and 

there is only a need for 50 extra houses under Option 1 and therefore the number will be small 

Question 28 

No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Kegworth 

Question 29 

Option 1 (development scenario for Measham) 

Question 30 

Land between Burton Road and New Street as it is nearer to the Town Centre 

Question 31 

No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Measham 

Question 32 

The Parish Council support the expanding of Coalville very much 

Question 33 

Agrees that a southerly expansion of Coalville would be appropriate 

Question 34 

Agrees with the favoured approach regarding affordable housing 

Question 35 

Agrees with the favoured approach on the issue of making provision for gypsies and travellers

Question 36 

Not aware of any potential sites that could be looked at under option 2 

Question 37 

No other options which could be considered 

Question 38 

The should be a maximum of 9600 not a minimum 

Question 39 


Question 40 


Question 41 

No other potential sites are known 

Question 42 

The idea of creating an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport is supported but not south of 

the A453 

Question 43 

N/A 

Question 44 

Not know whether the possible economic strategy is appropriate 

Question 45 

N/A 

Question 46 

Agrees the favoured option 

Question 47 

No development south of the A543

Question 48 

Yes, the definitions of operational and airport related development used in the Local Plan should continue to be 

used 

Question 49 

Agrees the favoured approach 

Question 50 

No, there are no other option that we should consider 

Question 51 

Yes, the boundaries of the Town Centres should be defined as part of the Core Strategy 

Question 52 

N/A 

Question 53 


Question 54 

No, there are no other options to consider 

Question 55 

The favoured option is supported 

Question 56 

No, there are no other issues to consider 

Question 57 

Section 106 Agreements should continued to be used 

Question 58 

Not aware of any infrastructure issues 

Question 59

Agrees with favoured approach 

Question 60 

It is accepted that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines in the district 

Question 61 

No, NWLDC should not go further that the Regional Plan regarding renewable energy 

Question 62 

Yes, there should be a District wide renewable energy target 

Question 63 

Support green areas of separation and green wedges already identified with this plan 

Question 64 

Yes, the standard of open space provision as recommended in the Open Space Audit is supported 

Question 65 

Agrees with the favoured approach 

Question 66 

N/A 

680 Elizabeth 

Knox 

Question 1 

An increase in the business sector and strong community is required as well as protecting rural village life. 

Question 2 

The majority of the favoured objectives are supported, however there should be a consistent approach based on 

the communities and where fits where. 

Question 7 

Options 1 & 2 seem more suitable for Kegworth. Kegworth is a mix of town and village and any massive building 

programme would change the feel of the place and probably destroy the sense of community. With the amount of 

houses suggested in options 3 & 4 a lot more facilities would be needed as well as better public transport 

services.

Question 8 

Coalville is in need of urban regeneration and it makes sense to push towards this. The increase in housing in the 

towns is sufficient if local facilities are also improved. 

Question 26 

Option 1 or 2 is favoured as they will not change Kegworth’s community spirit. Adding too many houses could 

fundamentally change the village. There would be a need to increase facilities in the village. Road traffic would 

increase. 

Question 27 

Adjacent the Computer Centre and The Computer Centre are supported sites as development of these sites 

would be on the edge of the town so there would be little extra traffic on the side roads. 

Question 32 

Coalville needs development. 

Question 34 

Agrees the favoured approach regarding affordable housing. 

Question 38 

Supports the favoured housing strategy 

Question 39 

Supports the favoured approach 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as concerned about the impact on the local villages and 

whether there is a need for such a big distribution centre at this location. 

Question 42 

An employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport makes sense with the further developments that 

are taking place at the Airport. It is in line with the housing strategy. 

Question 49 

Supports the favoured approach in regards to town centres.

681 Harrison Question 3 

The favoured approach is supported however, some development should be allowed in the smaller villages to 

allow residents to continue to live in the village they were born in. 

Question 5 

Agrees with the minimum level of provision 

Question 6 

Agrees that the Core Strategy should address potential development beyond the plan period. 

Question 7 

Option 4 is favoured. 

Question 10 

The favoured approach regarding the Green Wedge is supported 

Question 11 

Build and maintain additional school sports facilities and sports facilities for the general community with public 

footpaths and bridleways 

Question 13 

Agrees with the favoured approach regarding strategic sites 

Question 14 

Option 3 is favoured as the other options would swamp Coalville. Option 3 is also better for transport (railway). 

Coalville should remain small and development should be carried out across the whole of NWL. 

Formatted: Font color: Blue 

Question 15 

South East Coalville is supported as there will be a railway line through it 

Question 17 

Option 3 as Ashby should be developed further 

Question 18 

Supports development sites in Ashby de la Zouch that would keep the town compact

Question 20 

Option 4 is supported in respect to Castle Donington. 

Question 33 

Agrees with a southerly expansion of Coalville subject to railway provision for use as a tramway into the centre of 

Coalville. 

682 Roy 

Stratton 

Question 3 

The approach in principle is alright but due to the Coalville focus the result would be the assimilation of Whitwick. 

Whitwick is in the process of developing its own parish council and would constitute a sustainable village. 

Question 5 

Questions why the majority of development (80%) is centred on Coalville which results in the assimilation of 

villages such as Whitwick. 

Question 7 

Firstly challenged is the number of dwellings for NWL and the excessive focus on Coalville and the surrounding 

villages. Would prefer it if development was shared out and the Green Wedge maintained between Coalville, 

Whitwick and Thringstone. 

Question 10 

The Green Wedge should be maintained in some form to maintain the separate identity of Whitwick and 

Swannington. If some of the Green Wedge is to be used the land bordering the villages should not be developed 

and could be converted to woodland. 

Question 11 

Buy the land and convert to woodland and provide public access. 

683 Michael 

Reid 

Question 10 

Considers that over many years the Council has forgotten the importance of local identity and would like to 

remove Whitwick, Thringstone and Hugglescote off the map. Considers that local planning has been encroaching 

on the Green Wedge over many years. Is concerned that national and local government plan not only to change 

the shape of Whitwick but propose significant changes in population and merged location that will remove all local 

identity and sense of community.

Question 14 

Supports development to the south of Coalville. 

Question 32 

Would support limited expansion of Coalville 

Question 39 

Does not support the favoured approach as it does not take into account the identities of the local villages. 

Question 60 

Suggests Bardon Hill as a suitable location for wind turbines. 

Question 63 

Village green areas, school playing fields and existing wooded out crops should be considered as aspects of 

green infrastructure 

Question 65 

Considers that the surrounding villages of Coalville have been ignored and amalgamated into Coalville urban 

area 

Question 66 

Regulated public transport, including trains, there could be a direct route to the East Midlands Parkway station 

684 Simon 

Jaggs Question 3 

Does not support the favoured approach 

Question 5 

9600 dwellings is considered too many and will significantly change the town, the road network is unable to cope 

presently 

Question 8 

Disagrees with the favoured development strategy. Understands the need for new housing but is disappointed at 

the high number. Coalville will be changed dramatically and the town’s identity will be lost. Many residents of 

Thringstone oppose the proposals as it will unsettle and change the village forever.

Question 10 

Strongly opposed to development of the Green Wedge. Coalville, Thringstone etc have their independence due 

to the Green Wedge. It is there to separate the villages and should remain. Building on it will remove the identity 

of the villages and turn it into one town 

Question 11 

The Green Wedge should be left as it is 

Question 12 

Disagrees with the identification of strategic sites. Thringstone should be left as the village it is 

Question 14 

Option 3 is favoured as it will be fewer dwellings, the smaller villages should not be expanded into one large area. 

Villages would lose their identity and their community spirit. The small villages are one of the greatest things 

about NWL. 

Question 15 

Development south of Coalville is supported 

Question 17 

Option 3 is supported for less dwellings so that Ashby does not get overpopulated. 

Question 20 

Option 2 but questions why there needs to be so many houses 

Question 23 

Options 1 or 2, expansion in the villages should be kept to a minimum to ensure they keep their identity 

Question 26 

Option 1, Kegworth is a village and needs to remain as such 

Question 32 

Disagrees with the possibility of expanding Coalville, the town should be left as it is 

Question 33 

Agrees that a southerly expansion of Coalville would be most appropriate if it would ensure that the identities of

the surrounding villages were retained. The number of dwellings is too high. 

Question 34 

Disagrees with the favoured approach. There are plenty of houses on the market in the towns and villages and 

also plenty of empty council properties. If new houses do not sell they will get bought by housing associations 

and Coalville will disappear. 

Question 35 

The favoured approach is not supported 

Question 36 

Not aware of any sites that could be considered 

Question 37 

No other options should be considered 

Question 38 

Does not support the favoured Housing Strategy, there are too many houses proposed and it will de-harmonise 

local villages. It would be troublesome to integrate traveller’s sites within new developments. 

Question 39 


Question 40 

The ‘third site’ on land north of the A50 at Sawley Crossroads is favoured. 

Question 49 


685 James 

Robert 

Powell 

Question 10 

Supports areas left as ‘countryside’ in the Green Wedge. The proposed development options on the central and 

eastern Green Wedge will have a damaging effect on the town and the local community. Growth of urban areas 

should be controlled to ensure future generations have access to large open areas within walking distance of the 

central urban locations. Development would have a huge impact on our local wildlife and way of life. 

Question 11

There are council owned allotments which are not in use (accessed via Wentworth Road) and this is an area 

used by many people to walk their dogs and gain access to Snibstone Grange and fishing lakes. There is a long 

used footpath from Highfield Street which if the land was levelled could allow parking for a number of vehicles. 

Minimal management of the land would be required. The Cloud Trail which comes to Snibstone Grange could be 

expanded and it would offer a larger area of conservation, This could be linked through to Coalville town centre 

from the access to the disused allotments mentioned above. This would put the National Forest in the heart of 

Coalville. 

Question 12 

Supports the approach of identifying strategic sites as the use of broader statements allows for much local 

confusion and lack of backing for proposals. 

686 Lee Smith 

Question 4 

Increased development of Brownfield land and possible demolition of Agar Nook and Greenhill for regeneration 

Question 5 

The minimum level of 9,600 dwellings is too high. There is not and should not be the demand for this level of 

housing. The District is not Telford or Milton Keynes and nor does it choose to be. The figures should reflect the 

requirement not the contingency. Planning should be done to allocated figures, if the demand increases then 

Brownfield sites can be used to bridge the deficit. Allocating higher figures is lazy, pessimistic and panders to 

developers. 

Question 7 

The obvious response is none of the scenarios. Least objection is for Option 3, subject to the Bardon bypass 

being installed south of the railway line and for the land between the proposed bypass and Bardon Road to be 

ring fenced for a green/conservation area, with tree planting etc. This will compensate existing residents by 

forming a sound barrier and will make the new development more attractive than locating 10,000 dwellings in a 

field. Concern is raised about the potential flooding/sewage issues that may be caused by Option 1. The area 

between Grange Road and Bardon Road is effectively allowing free drainage at present. Questions whether by 

hard landscaping over this it will cause flooding in Hugglescote and lower areas of Bardon Road? 

Question 8 


Question 10

The Green Wedge should be preserved as an essential part of the Districts landscape and for it’s functionally 

within the wider eco-system. It does not matter that the Green Wedge is in private ownership as long as the 

Council does not grant planning on it. The Council does not understand its value to the public and its overall 

aesthetic contribution. 

Question 11 

By allocating the areas as part of the National Forest and designating conservation areas/cycle paths etc. 

687 Graham 

Read Question 7 

There should be a fifth scenario where development is spread more evenly around the District. The extent of 

Options 1, 2 and 4 place undue emphasis on Coalville’s Development - there is a need for an Option 5. 

Question 8 

The extent of housing to be located in Coalville is disproportionate. By concentrating so many of the required 

houses in and around Coalville the respective identities of the constituent parts will be lost forever. 

Question 10 

The loss of the Green Wedge is sad as it epitomises the separate nature of the rural parts of the District. 

Question 12 

Disagrees with the identification of specific sites in the Core Strategy. 

Question 13 

Disagrees that there is no guidance in PPS12 and the approach to the issues of what should constitute a 

strategic site. The site identified as Greenhill Farm is not suitable for housing for a huge number of reasons; 

therefore it is not a strategic site. 

Question 14 

Disagrees with the strategy that centres all expansion on Coalville. Supports a development scenario which is 

none of those put forward, rather a spreading of development particularly along existing road and railway links 

between Coalville (by exit 22 of the M1) and Ashby (by the entrance to the A/M42). Supports options wider than 

1, 2, 3 or 4. Greenhill Farm or adjoining Greenhill should not be a strategic site as already stated. The other sites 

are enormous in relation to needs. There is a need for much more detail regarding the south east SUE as a broad 

brush approach in insufficient where such irrevocable damage is being perpetrated. Disagrees that the options for 

expanding outwards are limited. The restrictions referred to include the proposal for Greenhill Farm which either

abuts Charnwood Forest or is actually part of it. 

Question 15 

Supports none of the Coalville sites however, Option 3 is the least objectionable of the four but maintains that 

more options should be explored at this stage. Disagrees with a south east SUE and south west Coalville 

expansion as this is too huge a possibility. 

Question 16 

The favoured development strategy is not supported. 

Question 63 

The status of the Charnwood Forest should be enhanced and the area between existing housing and the upland 

area of Warren Hills should be protected against development. 

688 Andrew 

Heaton 

Question 2 

Objective SO5 is particularly important 

Question 7 

Option 4 is supported 

Question 8 

Agrees with the Coalville Focus Option 

Question 17 

Options 1 or 4 would be supported, the figure of 500 new houses would seem appropriate for the size of the 

town. The protection of the River Mease is extremely important, inappropriate development could cause the River 

Mease to be affected by surface run-off and by over loading the Packington sewage treatment works. 

Question 47 

There should not be any further development of the Airport due to environmental impacts 

Question 55 


Question 56 

Links to green infrastructure should be addressed

Question 59 

The favoured approach is agreed. This is an important issue and every possible measure should be taken to cut 

energy use/utilise renewable sources of energy. 

Question 63 

Rivers and floodplains should be considered as part of green infrastructure and special attention needs to be 

given to the River Mease SAC. 

689 Thomas 

McGibbon 

Question 17 

Development scenarios for Ashby are given in order of preference: 

1. Money Hill 

2. Spring Farm site 

3. South of Moira Road 

4. East of Leicester Road 

5. South of Ashby 

The list above is based on easy access to main roads for commuters. Sites 1 and 2 are close to the bypass 

whereas sites 4 and 5 are only accessible by small congested local roads. If development was to go ahead on 

the south of Ashby site then local roads would become heavily congested, school routes would be affected and 

on street parking is currently adding to traffic congestion in the area. 

690 Georgina 

O’Regan 

Question 17 

Strongly opposes the development proposed on Moira Road. There are lots of sites that are derelict and it makes 

sense to build on these areas instead of Moira Road.. The proposals will fundamentally affect the character of 

Ashby and place additional strain on infrastructure. 

691 Fiona Betts Question 17 

Options 1 or 4 appear to be the most realistic. Ashby is a historic market town and the level of growth suggested 

in the other two proposals would destroy this. The infrastructure changes required would alter the town beyond 

recognition and the bypass still struggles with volumes of traffic. The site at Money Hill would bring the local area 

to a standstill. 

Question 18 

None of the sites in Ashby are particularly supported. The scale of the Money Hill development would destroy a

significant proportion of the local environment and have detrimental effects on the infrastructure. Traffic 

congestion on the local road network will only worsen if proposed development goes ahead. 

Question 19 

Questions the need to significantly grow the population in this area. Places such as Coalville and Measham are 

better located to handle increasing traffic volumes without the destruction of historic environments 

Question 31 

The scale of development in Measham seems very small compared to local areas. Surely there is scope to 

increase this and reduce figures in other areas. 

Question 34 

The Council should consider the availability of mortgages on shared ownership houses as these are few and far 

between therefore the benefit of affordable housing cannot be felt by as many people as would be expected. 

Question 35 

Disagrees with the favoured approach for Gypsy and Traveller provision. 

Question 40 

The Lounge site would cause significant access issues and the volume of traffic would impact A42 Junction, 

therefore the favoured approach is agreed. 

Question 50 

Although many questionnaires have been issued regarding improvements to Ashby town centre, nothing has yet 

been done; acting on the information supplied would be beneficial to the local community. 

Question 58 

The volume of traffic around Ashby, along the bypass and Nottingham Road in particular. The bypass was 

supposed to alleviate traffic problems but it has been getting worse particularly since new developments have 

been built either side of Nottingham Road. 

692 Ken Arkley Question 20 

There should be very little further housing development in Castle Donington. The facilities, infrastructure etc 

cannot comfortably support more people. The amenity and character of the village would be irreversibly 

damaged. Only Option 2 is in any way acceptable. Building to the South of Park Lane would result in the loss of 

one of the few green spaces surrounding the village and would eliminate the natural buffer between the airport

and racetrack related activities. It would reduce the amenity and environmental value enjoyed by residents. 

Anymore than 350 additional dwellings in Castle Donington would make it a deeply unpleasant place to live. 

Question 21 

North of Park Lane is the only site supported 

Question 39 

Disagrees with the favoured approach as it can only result in further congestion with very few real jobs and a 

significant reduction in amenity to the population surrounding each site 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it can only damage the amenity and character of 

Castle Donington, Lockington and Hemington even more than at present. Strongly opposes any further 

distribution development around Castle Donington, the old power station is sufficient development of this type in 

the locality 

Question 42 

Agrees with the employment zone provided there is a green buffer zone between Castle Donington and the race 

circuit and Airport. 

Question 44 

The economic strategy should not include major distribution sites 

Question 46 

The favoured approach regarding the airport is agreed 

Question 47 

Should consider eliminating night flying in line with most other UK airports. 

Question 48 

The definitions relating to the Airport should still be used 

Question 51 

The town centre boundaries should be defined as part of the Core Strategy 

Question 53

The favoured approach is supported providing that proper care is taken to ensure that infrastructure 

improvements are done alongside any further development. No further planning approvals should be granted for 

the airport or racetrack without making the A453 a dual carriageway 

Question 55 

The favoured approach regarding well designed, sustainable development is supported 

Question 57 

A CIL should be introduced. 

Question 59 

The favoured approach to climate change is supported 

Question 61 

Disagrees, the Core Strategy should not go further than the Regional Plan 

Question 63 

Protection of green space around Castle Donington and in particular south of Park Lane. 

Question 64 

Agrees that the information in the Open Space Audit should be used. 

Question 65 

The favoured approach regarding Priority Neighbourhoods is supported 

693 Keith 

Hicklin 

Question 20 

None of the development scenarios for Castle Donington are supported unless there is marked increase in 

educational and healthcare facilities and improvements to the road network 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As the local road network is already overloaded and it 

would add to the air pollution problem in Castle Donington. The area already has a large amount of 

industrial/warehousing sites, racetrack and airport which is enough. Surely Ashby and Coalville Councillors would 

want the site in the centre of NWL to provide jobs for NWL residents. At present the majority of workers come 

from outside NWL...

Question 41 

There are other sites that should be considered; specifically the Lounge site which would be more central to NWL 

and the jobs it creates would be more likely go to NWL residents. 

694 John 

Williams 

Question 20 

Option 2 is supported as there will be no increase in the provision of infrastructure services in Castle Donington 

Question 21 

Land rear of Upton Close and North of Park Lane. With no guaranteed increase in infrastructure in Castle 

Donington the local community can only accommodate these two developments. 

Question 35 

Supports the favoured approach for Gypsy and Traveller provision 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. . The Lounge site appears to meet all of the criteria 

although as with the others the increase in traffic and pollution would be substantial. 

The size of the site west of J24 of the M1 renders it totally impossible to preserve the character and amenity of 

the villages of Hemington and Lockington and would be a gross invasion of the countryside, in addition to existing 

development in the area. The existing substantial sites and their under utilisation raises questions about the 

analysis of the need for an additional site. The increase in traffic congestion even with the suggested 

improvements would be horrendous and add to the already unacceptable level of noise and pollution. 

Question 41 

Questions the need for an additional site. 

Question 46 

The favoured approach regarding the Airport is agreed. 

695 Steve Terry Question 5 

The figure of 9,600 dwellings should be the absolute maximum 

Question 6 

The Core Strategy should not look beyond the plan period. The Council should not plan to build a single house 

over and above the numbers already imposed. Spending time and money on something that has not been

imposed on the authority would be a serious misuse of public funds. Any future impositions would then be able to 

be consulted on separately. 

Question 7 

In Castle Donington, if 500 houses are developed in addition to the 275 already agreed for the Park Lane 

development this would place an intolerable burden on local amenities and infrastructure which are already 

stretched to the limit. Leisure facilities in Castle Donington are also poor. Surrounded by industry, with and 

expanding airport, a rejuvenated racetrack and recent housing developments at the bottom of the village it feels 

like Castle Donington is under attack from all sides. All of the development figures are in excess of numbers 

required by the Government, questions whether the figures take into account the 2,610 dwellings already built. 

Using calculations requiring the bear minimum would make the totals very different. If there was less housing to 

be built it could all be focused in Coalville without ruining the lives of everyone in all the other development areas. 

If an early review of the RSS requires an increase in housing provision only then should the figures be increased 

to match. Proposals to over-estimate are not consistent with prudent fiscal policy. The local road structures are 

inadequate to meet the needs of the racetrack, airport and M1 overflow. High Street, in Castle Donington is a 

regular rat run, there has been a need for a bypass for many years and any new build would make this 

mandatory requirement. In favour of any option with little or no new build for Castle Donington. 

Question 8 

Response as to Question 7 and additionally the various developments proposed for Castle Donington will, kill off 

the slowly evaporating village feel. 

Question 20 

The figures are based on the assumptions that a review of the RSS would require increased houses to be built. If 

the 9,600 is taken as the maximum the overall figures for the District would be reduced. Does not support any 

scenario that requires new build in Castle Donington based on the over estimated figures. Local amenities and 

infrastructure would be stretched even more. 

Question 21 

None of the Castle Donington sites are supported. Questions whether the 275 houses granted planning 

permission in the Park Lane area will be deducted from Castle Donington’s overall total. 

Question 22 

Coalville should be the focus for the entire build, it doesn’t make sense to spread the doom and gloom and create 

thousand of unsatisfied voters outside of Coalville. 

Question 34

40% affordable housing – considers that the developers must be desperate for planning permission. 

Question 35 

Queries the figure for the number of pitches for gypsies and travellers. 

Question 36 

If they are to be accommodated then one large site should be located near to the existing one in the Coalville 

area 

Question 38 

The proposal to reduce the number of vacant properties is supported as it the use of Brownfield sites, such as the 

proposed development on the former computer centre in Kegworth. 

Question 39 

Option 1 is favoured (no provision). The Council should be fighting to oppose anything that is not forced upon the 

District. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As there is no legal or Government requirement for the 

Council to champion any of these strategic distribution sites. 

Question 41 

There are no other sites that should be considered as the Council is not required to at this time. 

Question 42 

There is no mention of the additional disruption and misery for local residents or where it would be located. The 

market led approach is the lesser of these two evils. 

Question 44 

Disagrees with the economic strategy there are no balances and considerations for the local residents 

Question 45 

Questions where the small units would be located. 

Question 46

696 Lindsay Question 23 

The favoured approach is broadly agreed. Questions whether the people that responded previously and 

suggested that links with Castle Donington and opportunities for regionally significant freight facilities and airport 

related developments live in Castle Donington. 

Question 49 

The documents states there are three options to consider, yet only 2 are described. The favoured approach is 

supported although Castle Donington’s historic centre on Borough Street would need to be sensitively handled. 

Question 51 

The town centres should not be defined as part of the Core Strategy. 

Question 54 

Castle Donington is bordered by five major roads and desperately needs a by-pass from the Racetrack to the 

Industrial estate at the bottom of the village. Traffic is intolerable at times and heavy lorries are no doubt causing 

long term damage to some of the historic buildings such as the Key House. 

Question 55 

Disagrees with the favoured approach, it is only acceptable to those that agree with the principle of building new 

houses. 

Question 58 

Regardless of whether development is to occur in Castle Donington a by-pass is an essential to alleviate traffic 

congestion caused by local major roads, the racetrack and the Airport. 

Question 60 

Agrees that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines and there must not be any. Any energy 

savings they bring are far outweighed by their environmental impact. 

Question 65 

Agrees the favoured approach and it is the first time that any consideration for the quality of life of local residents 

has been mentioned. 

Question 66 

As already mentioned – a by-pass for Castle Donington is required.

Taylor- 

Haynes 

In relation to Ibstock, Options 1 or 2 are favoured as the local community services struggle to cope with the 

current population, let along adding another 1000 families. 

Question 24 

The site off Leicester Road is supported as it is the only location that is not outside the perimeter of the village 

therefore not encroaching on green wedge/separation zones or expanding the village footprint. Strongly opposes 

any development south of Ashby Road as it would destroy views and devalue properties. 

697 Denise 

Thornton 

Question 26 

Supports Options 1 and 2 for Kegworth. Does not consider that the village amenities will support 400+ dwellings 

and there is not really scope to improve these. 

Question 27 

The Computer Centre and Slack and Parr if it is agreed. 

Question 28 

Totally against farmland being taken to build houses or commercial sites. The countryside should be protected 

therefore does not support the Station Road/Long Lane site or the site next to the Cott Factory. New development 

should be on Brownfield land such as the unused factory site on the corner of Station Road and Mill Lane. This 

could provide a number of affordable/first time buyer dwellings and improve the landscape. Questions the 

provision of new houses in the current economic climate as finance is not available for people to buy. 

Question 38 

Agrees the favoured Housing Strategy but too many houses are planned. There should be a higher percentage of 

affordable housing within the current economic climate. 

Question 39 

The favoured approach is supported regarding economic issues. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Having seen an artists impression it is as big as a 

village and is also located on a floodplain which will cause problems for local villages 

Question 41 

Disagrees, does not have any alternative sites.

Question 42 

Agrees with the creation of an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport, should proceed with 

caution in case the Grand Prix is moved elsewhere in the future. 

Question 44 

Agrees with the economic strategy. 

698 Stephen 

Palmer Question 1 

Does not support the favoured vision. Suggests that many people are leaving the area due to intrusive and 

unecological expansion. States that existing social housing does not look good. Also there are empty shops and 

businesses would prefer to locate in Ashby rather than in Coalville. Regarding the Sustainability Triangle, states 

that EMA is not going to provide many jobs for Coalville and it is not environmentally friendly. States that 

enhancement in the National Forest is not permanent as the land is given back to the landowners. Creating urban 

sprawl does not create strong and cohesive communities. Suggests building a few new villages to create 

community spirit. Refers to Agar Nook and Greenhill and questions what is going to be done differently to ensure 

community cohesion. 

Question 2 

Does not support the favoured objectives. Comments below: 

SO1 – Considered unsustainable as there is no use of previously developed land, questions the reference to 

good access and states that congestion is already bad. 

SO2 – States that the National Forest is not permanent and that the rail line will be a white elephant costing the 

taxpayer millions. 

SO3 – The housing increase will cause huge climate change problems; affordable housing will be low cost and 

low spec. States that with housing development an incinerator will be built at Bardon which will not benefit those 

living in the District. Refers to health problems a similar incinerator caused in Nottingham. 

SO4 – The plan to build 550 houses in the vicinity of Donington le Heath Manor House should be crossed off the 

list. 

SO5 – SO14 is all flawed. 

Question 3 

Does not support the favoured approach. Ellistown and Moira have traffic problems. Disagrees with the allocation 

of those settlements outside of Coalville to be classified as Rural Towns. Small villages outside of the Rural 

Towns should be left alone. States that although Donington le Heath does not have any services to meet the 

criteria the Council has still suggested the development of 550 new houses that would destroy the community.

Question 4 

States that there appears to be a considerable number of options that have not been considered. 

Question 5 

Disagrees, the number of houses planned does not seem in line with past expansion rates and the average 

family size has reduced. Due to the current economic climate, questions who will buy the houses and where the 

people will work. The strategy is unacceptable as the largest numbers of homes are directed to NWL District. Has 

seen LCC paperwork which identifies housing for the Pennbury site in Coalville therefore the true increase in 

dwellings is nearer 24,000. Considers the number in the Core Strategy is unrealistic and 6,000 dwellings would 

be in line with previous expansion rates. Suggests that if it is left up to NWLDC and LCC the District will end up 

with 24,000 new homes. Past history should be used to calculate how many new houses are required. 

Question 6 

States that this cannot be done if it is based on flawed assumptions. Any plan that looks as far ahead should be 

very flexible. 

Question 7 

Housing numbers are too large. Brownfield sites should be identified first and Greenfield sites should be the last 

resort. There are no jobs available to support the population increase and there is no serious plan to generate 

jobs. If a dormitory town is created it will not be environmentally friendly and will increase traffic congestion. 

Considers that development of the Green Wedge is a joke and the use of the Leicester/Burton corridor will mean 

huge urban sprawl. States that a few new villages should be developed as small communities to provide a better 

quality of life and less crime than large urban areas. States that is unlikely that any employment land will be 

needed, just the odd retail site. Each area should be allowed to expand at its normal rate. The villages 

surrounding Coalville should be separate entities. If the Council cared what the implications were for each of the 

development scenarios it would set up a local panel or advisory group. Regarding infrastructure, there is not 

enough consideration about many essential infrastructure items that cost millions to develop that need doing 

before any development. 

Question 8 

Does not support the favoured development strategy as it would make Coalville too large, it will increase the 

CO2, traffic congestion and will result in the development of an incinerator. Everywhere in the County should be 

planning to increase at the natural rate of expansion, it should not all be directed at NWL. 

Question 10

Does not support the favoured approach. No Greenfield sites should be considered for development. Questions 

why the Green Wedge cannot be retained, and why it gets different treatment. 

Question 11 

Questions why access should be increased when people do not use the available areas currently. 

Question 14 

Does not support any of the development scenarios. The SUE would increase traffic congestion. Suggests that 

there is little point including employment provision in the SUE as existing properties cannot be leased. Donington 

le Heath does not have the facilities, road network or public transport provision to accommodate an additional 

550 dwellings. 

Question 15 

The only site that appears to be considered properly is Grange Road/Bardon Road. 

Question 16 

Does not support the strategy 

Question 32 

Considers that Coalville is big enough already and expansion is not required at the rate suggested 

Question 33 

Considers that a southerly expansion is the wrong way to go. Suggests that small, new, independent 

communities are the best option and they provide easier development potential for the future. 

Question 34 

Does not support the favoured approach regarding affordable housing. States the need for affordable homes is 

not that great and NWL is taking on more of the County’s allocation than it should. Considers that many people 

currently in council housing could afford to buy their own home, thus freeing up existing social housing. Incentives 

should be given to free up social housing. 

Question 35 

The favoured approach is not supported. Queries the figure for the number of pitch’s for gypsies and travellers. 

Question 36 

Suggests that there are plenty of available, private sites away from residential areas.

Question 38 

Does not support the favoured Housing Strategy. 

Question 39 

Does not support the favoured strategy. Most road links are almost at full capacity. Employment opportunities in 

NWL need to increase as the majority of commuters travel outside of the District to work. 

Question 40 

Considers that distribution is low employment and targets should be set at labour intensive business. Considered 

that the site is too far for Coalville. 

Question 42 

Questions why distribution and warehousing are being considered as they create few jobs, traffic and CO2 will 

increase. Target should be securing manufacturing, head office, call centres or other labour intensive businesses. 

Considers that the National Forest, Racetrack or EMA will not provide NWL people with many jobs. Considered 

that visitors to the Racetrack will not come to Coalville and questions why this is significant in the long term. Any 

benefit of an employment zone will be for Derby and Nottingham. Questions what is going to persuade 

businesses to come to the District and suggests that the market led approach will not work and NWLDC cannot 

compete with other authorities with development grants. Considers that Option 1 is not a working policy and 

employment opportunities should be NWL based. 

Question 44 

Does not support the economic strategy. If there is nothing special to offer then no one will be attracted. 

Question 46 

Considers that EMA is too far from Coalville to support local employment and the expansion of the airport would 

involve removing Donington Park. 

Question 52 

States that villages should not be included in the greater Coalville area. 

Question 53 

Does not support the favoured approach as it represents a heavy reliance on motoring. Work done in Coalville to 

help alternative transport is considered pathetic especially regarding cycle routes. If car parking in new 

developments is limited then this will drive people away. Questions the intended reasons for improving

accessibility to the Airport. 

Question 54 

Considers that there are lots of other options to consider, including a joined up plan. 

Question 55 

Does not support the favoured approach. Commends the objective to achieving good design. However, considers 

that NWLDC does not have a good history in preserving heritage. Considers that some of the new affordable 

housing is not well designed. 

Question 60 

Comments that wind turbines are used extensively in other countries. 

Question 63 

Questions how Green Infrastructure can be considered when the proposals include concreting and tramacing 

over Greenfield sites. The National Forest is temporary. 

699 Kevin Hall Question 35 

Does not support the approach to Gypsy and Traveller provision. 

Question 37 

There are disused airfields and redundant forces accommodation away from urban settlements that should be 

considered. 

Question 41 

Any Brownfield sites, for example Castle Donington Power Station, sites in neighbouring authorities for example 

Toton Sidings and Stanton Ironworks 

700 Johnathan 

Layton 

Question 7 

Favours Option 1. Options 3 and 4 seem to be ‘scatter gun’ solutions spreading the impact (fairly?) over the 6 

proposed regions inevitably increasing the costs of upgrading the transport infrastructure that connects them and 

also greater cost in upgrading facilities for each area. Option 1 will allow for a more focused capital expenditure 

upgrading Coalville and reduced regional environmental impact. 

Question 35, 36 and 37

Does not support the favoured approach to provisions for Gypsies and Travellers. 

Question 38 

Agrees with the overall strategy except that concerning Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People. 

Question 39 

Disappointed that despite the Councils admission that the infrastructure for the recent Castle Donington 

developments is inadequate they have not been addressed properly by the Council who are now proposing more 

developments with more promise to address infrastructure issues. Perhaps if the road network was improved this 

would promote confidence. 

Question 40 

Strongly disagrees with the proposed Strategic Distribution Centre adjacent to Castle Donington, Hemington, 

Lockington and the Airport. Any increased industrial polluting activity impacting on the local environment will 

result in the collapse of these already teetering villages. Already have their fair share of industrial and commercial 

activity and the local road network needs improving prior to any further considerations. 

Question 42 

Regarding an employment zone at the Airport Option 1 represents the most appropriate way to ensure a strong 

local economy 

Question 46 

Option 2 is favoured as it considers all of the various competing pressures and issues associated with the airport 

in a balanced manner. 

Question 48 

The Council should continue to use the definitions of operational and airport related development as used in the 

Local Plan 

Question 55 

The favoured approach is supported regarding sustainable developments. 

Question 59 

The favoured approach to climate change is supported 

Question 60

Wind turbines should be built instead of the proposed Strategic Distribution Centre, there are many areas 

surrounding the M1 J24 that could accommodate wind turbines. 

Question 65 

The favoured approach regarding priority neighbourhoods is supported 

701 Richard 

Saffell 

Question 35 


Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The land is good quality agricultural land and slopes 

steeply therefore the proposed development will be visible from the M1 and A50 travelling southwards. No 

amount of slip roads will assist the traffic congestion already suffered by local residents. It is difficult to see how 

the rail link could be extended to serve the airport. There are other Brownfield sites which should be considered 

before this site. 

702 Andrea 

Cole 

703 Malcolm 

Cartwright 

704 Sandra 

Dillon 

Question 35 

Disagrees with the approach being advocated by Central Government that sites are allocated. 

Question 35 


Question 39 

No further distribution parks are needed. There are plenty of empty sites in the Midlands. More distribution parks 

will lead to more freight traffic at the Airport and noisy night flights which should be restricted. The proposed site 

at Lounge would increase traffic congestion on the major roads, the local A roads are not suitable for increased 

traffic. 

Question 43 

New businesses need small units on short leases and flexible contracts not old style long leases where they are 

tied in. 

Question 44 

The economic strategy is generally fine. The needs of the increasing number of home based/small premises 

micro-businesses should not be ignored. For example Post Offices are key micro-businesses.

705 Glenn 

McGarry 

Question 46 

There should not be a restriction on Pegasus Business Park for airport-related business especially with the Grand 

Prix coming to Donington Park. It could be ideal for offices to support it and there is probably going to be a need 

for new hotels and hospitality suites. 

Question 48 

The use of the definitions is agreed but the restriction is not. 

Question 49 

Need to ensure that new retail development does not result in traffic congestion which prevents access to the 

town centre for other purposes. The small retailers and facilities in the Town Centre should also be supported. 

Question 53 

Supports more frequent bus services from villages to surrounding/supporting centres 

Question 58 

Coalville will need a new hospital for the proposed number of houses/families 

Question 63 

The existing green spaces and woodland that are owned/managed by the Council should be retained. Small 

areas of woodland are ideal for exercise for all ages and are easily accessed on foot. There is no point in 

establishing green spaces which people have to drive to, it would increase traffic/emissions and makes access 

inaccessible for some groups. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. If it was a proposal for a passenger train line serving the 

airport then perhaps. Why does a distribution centre need to be located near Castle Donington, it would be better 

sited near a city centre or a Brownfield site, why should even more precious countryside be carved up? The 

housing development on Park Lane should not have been allowed, the local opinions sought were ignored . 

Question 41 

Bristol Docks should be considered as a potential site for a strategic distribution centre. 

Deleted: . 

706 Gregory Question 40

Martin 

Taylor 

707 Stuart 

Barber 

708 Nicolas 

Moseley 

709 Michael G 

Terrell 

The Lounge site is supported. Does not consider that size will be an issue given the development of other 

distribution centres in the Midlands. The site west of J24 of the M1 is a poor idea. Environmental analysis shows 

that this area has an increasing likelihood of flooding in the future which would be exacerbated by development 

and increase the cost of access. In addition, there are already substantial effects on air quality, light and noise 

pollution and traffic congestion in the area which would be made worse by development and would have a 

negative impact on the quality of life in the area. The site north of the A50 is not feasible as the area is already 

liable to frequent flooding. 

Question 41 

Any area further away from residential areas, preferably south of the Airport. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as Castle Donington and surrounding villages do not 

need another industrial site as there is already the Airport, Racetrack and several industrial sites including the 

former Power Station which has rail links, road links and is also a Brownfield site. 

Question 41 

The Council should consider the former Power Station which has rail and road links already and is a Brownfield 

site. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Considers that it is time for somewhere else to share 

the burden for the rest of the Country. The airport already causes Kegworth an inconvenience. There are high 

levels of pollution, air and road traffic has increased and new rail links have been constructed. Queries the 

encroachment into the floodplain due to disasters to households in recent years. 

Question 41 

Perhaps consider the area between Shepshed and Diseworth 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the area already suffers from noise and air quality 

pollution from the Power Station, Airport and Motorways which will increase if development goes ahead. Traffic 

congestion will also increase. There should be a Kegworth bypass/M1 widening as part of the scheme. Rural 

balance will also be affected. Brownfield sites or near the Power Station could be considered along with dualling 

of the A453. 

Deleted:

Question 41 

If it has to be in the area why not next to the Ratcliffe Power Station and the new rail station with A453 and M1 

improvements to ease traffic flow. 

710 Alexandra 

Hope 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. There is already the airport and racetrack causing 

noise and pollution. Development would increase noise, light and air pollution and traffic congestion will be 

appalling. 

Question 41 

Does not know of any potential sites but understands there are existing industrial parks which would be more 

suitable than covering a Greenfield site in concrete. The Council has the ability to turn this proposal down. 

711 Paul Birkin Question 41 

The logical location for such development is alongside the existing DHL logistics centre at the Airport. 

712 Nick Burton Question 40 

Is not against development in the region. However, Hemington already has a number of large developments in 

close proximity of the village. The proposed site at J24 will be hugely damaging to the villages of Lockington, 

Hemington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. Also considers that a grossly unfair amount of development sites for 

housing and industry are proposed in or very near to Hemington Parish. 

Question 41 

The Council should consider several smaller sites instead to minimise impact on any one area and alleviate the 

congestion and localised pollution that would be caused by a large site. Alternatively, a location out of the region 

maybe preferable if there is a need for such a site, Tollerton Airfield in Nottinghamshire would seem an obvious 

choice. 

713 Simon 

Gibson 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington because it has not been demonstrated that there is a 

need for this development anywhere in the region, quite apart from at J24. There are masses of unused existing 

capacity at the former Power Station site. The current economic climate means that the existing capacity is likely 

to take years before it is exhausted. There is no justifiable need for the proposal at J24 other than that of greedy 

property developers. .

Question 41 

The Council should completely reject all proposals for any further industrial development until existing available 

capacity has been used up. In light of the current economic climate this will take some time. 

Question 58 

NWLDC fail to make provision for additional community facilities to be provided by developers. Strongly suspects 

this will be the case and nothing will be done about the urgent need for a larger surgery in Castle Donington 

especially in light of the two new housing developments granted permission. 

714 Elizabeth 

Hall 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the rural balance and the surrounding conservation 

villages, which are already impacted by the Airport, Racetrack and industrial estates, will be affected. There will 

be an increase in traffic congestion on already overloaded roads and villages will become rat runs. There will be 

an increase in noise, light and air pollution which the agricultural land currently provides a barrier. The area has 

low unemployment; jobs should be created in the areas that need them such as Coalville. There will be an 

increased risk of flooding as well as a visual impact. Plans to sink the development are a red herring and so much 

land removal would jeopardise the safety of the runway. The area offers a free walking, cycling and riding 

resource that will be lost. 

The RSS states that rural communities should be protected. 

Question 41 

The Council should give greater consideration to the Lounge Site which is already serviced by rail and fits the 

RSS criteria. The Lounge site is prime for development and fits with the objectives laid out in the LDF of 

protecting the environment and creating jobs in an area needing development. 

715 Sally 

Higham 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Further development around Castle Donington 

contradicts the evidence of low occupancy in existing locations. The land assigned to industrial estates is 

underused and both Willow Farm and East Midlands Distribution Centre have immediate potential for road and 

rail links with minimal disruption to local residents. It seems as if Castle Donington is becoming a housing 

inconvenience in the heart of a massive shed land. The village roads are already used as a short cut t by 

commuters and trucks that don’t even supply business to local shops.

Question 41 

Questions if there is any way of optimising the land already designated for such use on Willow Farm and the East 

Midlands Distribution Centre. This land is next to the rail line and within reach of a direct link from the A50. 

Question 42 

Does not agree with the idea of creating an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport. 

Question 43 

Suggests focus should be on using existing but unoccupied units and space on East Midlands complex, Trent 

Lane, Willow Farm and East Midlands Distribution Centre. If these are unsuitable for current demand they should 

be demolished and replaced before any new development takes place. 

Question 44 

Questions whether such a development would be staffed by local residents as specialist skill sets usually 

translates to commuters. This is not supporting the local community and will add to carbon emissions and traffic 

problems caused by those commuting. 

Question 45 

Suggests the usage of existing and unoccupied space at the industrial estates in Castle Donington. If existing 

provision does not meet current demand then the local government should ensure it is replaced by something 

that reduces the need for further expansion. 

Question 46 

In proposing Option one it is important to recognise that Castle Donington is a home for many people. Therefore, 

Option two is a more palatable option and one that makes the most of existing developments and land 

designated for such use. However, considers that Pegasus Business Park has a poor location and questions how 

a new development less than a mile down the A453 on the opposite site of the runway would be any better. 

Overall, support is for a plan which utilises existing developments. 

716 Nicola 

Singleton 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Considers that the former Power Station or other 

industrial estates in Castle Donington could be better utilised. This would have less impact on local people. The 

development is too close to housing in Castle Donington, Lockington and Hemington and there is already enough 

noise and light pollution. Development would increase pollution and there would be heavier traffic congestion and 

villages will be used as rat runs. House prices would suffer. There is an imbalance in favour of industry in Castle

Donington/Hemington/Lockington, the countryside should be maintained. 

Question 41 

Questions why the distribution centre site at the old power station can’t be extended. 

717 Tracie 

Whitmore 

Question 40 

Totally opposes the proposed development at J24 of the M1as the area is currently used as a recreational area to 

walk dogs. 

Question 41 

The airport is big enough without further development. There are plenty of empty industrial estates within the 

area, why are more needed? 

718 John Eaton Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington There is already too much development around Castle 

Donington and no more green areas should be lost that are valuable for recreation and act as a buffer around the 

villages. As the current power station site is yet to be completed, questions why more development is required. 

Question 41 

Questions why the Council needs to consider other sites when such development is not sustainable. 

719 S Jones Question 40 

The site at J24 of the M1 the area is considered to be totally unsuitable, it is too close to existing residencies and 

the road system is totally inadequate. The M1 is not now going to be widened even though public projects are 

supposed to be used to generate jobs to help the economy. It would appear that any projects that Coalville does 

not want end up in the northern provinces of Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington. The argument that it 

would generate jobs does not hold water as employment in the area is much higher than around Coalville. Also, if 

development goes ahead surface water will be a major problem as a huge area of natural drainage will be 

removed, exacerbating flooding problems. 

Question 41 

Sites in Coalville could be considered to improve local labour prospects. 

720 Mrs Jean 

Farley 

Question 40 Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it is too close to Castle 

Donington/Hemington. There is already the racetrack and airport in the area and the closest residents to the

proposed development will suffer light and noise pollution 24 hours a day. The proposed site at Sawley is 

preferred and seems to be the most appropriate area, if a distribution site is required at all, as no residents will be 

affected. In regards to flooding the site promoter at the public meeting assured that there are no potential flooding 

problems and the Council and site developers need to get their facts aligned. 

Question 41 

The Council should be trying to find a site that will not alienate the residents of surrounding villages. 

721 P R 

Farnworth 

Question 40 

The Council should consider whether there is a need for a distribution centre in the current financial climate. 

There will be a number of sites becoming vacant in the next year or so. Where is the demand for the site coming 

from? Castle Donington Power Station is a flat site with existing rail connections. The proposed development 

would blight the residents of Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington with excessive road traffic and noise, 

light and air pollution which is already caused by the Airport and racetrack. 

Question 41 

No other sites should be considered in the north of the District. Questions whether the site is required in NWL or 

within the East Midlands as there is a suitable site in Derbyshire at the old Stanton Ironworks adjacent to the M1. 

722 Paul 

Higgins 

Question 40 

Favours the Lounge site as it has had an industrial usage in the past so would hopefully impact the environment 

the least. 

Question 41 

Perhaps consider a site near Ratcliffe-on-Soar Power Station. There is already a rail line and has good access to 

the M1/A42/A50. 

723 Ian A 

Harrison 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Development of the site would put additional strain on 

an already congested area of the country. The quality of life in Kegworth has deteriorated over the years far 

beyond what would normally be accepted or expected in most communities. The noise and pollution levels are 

not acceptable now and further development would be intolerable. 

Question 41 

There must be derelict industrial areas that could either be extended or developed without using productive

agricultural land to provide these facilities. 

724 Shirley 

Milnes 

Taylor 

725 Philippa 

Lindsey 

Higgins 

Question 41 

The site that should be considered is the site at Sawley Crossroads. This site would not inconvenience anyone 

and is on reclaimed land from the gravel pits and filled up with fly-ash from the power station. Not prime 

agricultural land as in the second proposal. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will have a detrimental affect to the quality of life for 

residents of the nearby towns and villages. Kegworth is already subject to a substantial level of noise pollution 

from road and air traffic. This was noted in a recent survey of a property for sale in the village and the additional 

burden development would bring is not wanted. Kegworth offers a balance of rural life with easy access to 

essential communication networks, over the years this has eroded and what remains should be protected. 

Question 41 

The site at Lounge in Ashby is considered the best site as it has all of the required communication links and 

would disrupt fewer people’s lives. Alternatively sites near to Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station could be 

considered. 

726 Susan 

Nowak 

Question 21 

Castle Donington does not have the infrastructure to cope with large housing development. There would not be 

enough places for school children and no places for children over 14 years in the village. The surgery cannot 

cope with patients now. Parking in the village is very limited and there is very little in the way of social provision. 

Building houses to the south of Park Lane would diminish the countryside causing destruction of plants, trees and 

wildlife. Houses built would be undesirable due to the noise from the Airport day and night and the constant 

droning of the racetrack throughout the summer, people viewing show homes would not fail to notice. As houses 

now have 2 working occupants they are likely to want to live in a quieter area. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as there is already more than a fair share of industry 

and commerce in the area creating noise and disruption to the village. Major events at the racetrack cause traffic 

congestion and major delays getting in and out of the village. The development would deprive Castle Donington 

of an area of countryside and a natural barrier separating villages from the airport. It would increase further noise, 

light and air pollution, diminish the aesthetic appearance of the village, put more pressure on local road networks 

and infrastructure. It would make the area less desirable as a place to live, reducing house prices.

Question 41 

Perhaps consider Stanton Ironworks, Ilkeston. 

727 Steve 

Haberfield 

728 David 

James 

Hignett 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington because there is no infrastructure planned. 

Question 42 

Totally disagrees with the creation of an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. The protection of communities from developments like 

this is essential. Kegworth already suffers from heavy lorries rumbling along the A6 through the centre of the 

village all day and rat runners on all side roads at peak times. The construction of the long proposed Kegworth 

by-pass is essential in protecting the community. If the M1 widening doesn’t go ahead (which includes the 

Kegworth by-pass) then it should be included in the proposed Regional Distribution Centre. 

Question 42 

Increased employment opportunities will create increased traffic and Kegworth will suffer an increased number of 

heavy vehicles going through the centre of the village and increased rat running on side roads at peak times. The 

building of the Kegworth bypass must form part of the development plans. 

Question 53 

Congestion in Kegworth at peak times makes the construction of the Kegworth by-pass essential. 

729 Jamie 

Garton 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Questions what is happening with land at the former 

Power Station and whether it is supposed to be something similar to the proposal. 

Question 42 

Agrees with the potential creation of an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport. 

730 Johnathan 

Ibbotson 

Question 7 

All of the proposed developments would mean a significant number of new dwellings in Castle Donington. Castle 

Donington has very limited facilities compared to other rural towns in NWL (no leisure centre, no permanently 

manned police station). Significant consideration would need to be given to providing these services even for the

minimum proposed number of dwellings. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As the proposed development ruin the character of the 

rural area which is currently enjoyed by residents. The ‘village’ of Castle Donington already has a significant 

amount of distribution centre development, none of which brings services to the village, only additional traffic, 

noise and unsightly building. 

Question 42 

Agrees with the potential creation of an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport. Also agrees 

that the Grand Prix at Donington Park will provide potential for hotels and tourism establishments. 

731 Wm 

Morrison 

Supermarket 

s plc (Sarah 

Worthington) 

732 Karen 

Leeson 

Question 49 

Support for Option 2 and the revitalisation of Coalville town centre as the principal shopping destination within the 

District, as appropriate for its role as a sub-regional centre. Development within the rural towns should be on an 

appropriate scale and not adversely affect the revitalisation proposals or the vitality and viability of other local 

towns. 

Question 5 

Disagrees that 9,600 should be the minimum level of provision made 

Question 6 

Disagrees that the Core Strategy should address potential development needs beyond the end of the plan period. 

Question 7 

Objects to the intention to focus the majority of new build in Coalville. Fears the impact it will have on the lack of 

green space near the town centre and the loss of the green wedge which provides definition to each area 

(Coalville, Whitwick, Thringstone, Hugglescote, Donington le Heath, Swannington etc). If residents wanted to live 

in a city they would move to Leicester. Believes that Coalville can be a sub-regional centre without becoming a 

conglomerate. 

Deleted: . 

Question 8 

Does not support the favoured approach to the development strategy. 

Question 9

Does not support the suggested wording of the development strategy. 

733 Alistair 

Thorley 

Question 7 

Neither the road system, size of Doctors surgery, nor the number of school places has increased for several 

decades in Castle Donington, despite a sizeable increase in the number of residential properties over the same 

period. Adding in the numbers for any scenario will exacerbate the infrastructure shortfalls, with options 3 & 4 

bringing unthinkable problems to the area. None of the proposals seem to contain contractually binding 

requirements to improve the over stretched infrastructure. Equally the frequently over used road system might be 

alleviated under some options, but without any form of guarantee as to when it will happen during the 

developments, if at all. 

Even with growth at the Airport and Racetrack and other commercial ventures it is hard to understand the 

demand for this amount of residential development in Castle Donington. It is currently not a favoured location 

within the local housing market. 

Question 40 

The take up for distribution use at the Castle Donington Distribution Centre does not yet appear to be noticeable. 

This questions the desire of organisations to create strategic distribution facilities in this area. Junction 24 is 

without doubt one of the busiest interchanges on the M1; adding more traffic that the distribution centre would 

bring will create significantly more problems to the already large junction. The impact from increased traffic, light 

pollution and operational, road and railway noise will reduce the quality of life for a large number of local 

residents. It is likely to depress the local housing market and impact on the plans to increase residential 

development in the surrounding areas. 

734 Alyson 

Juliet 

Hunter 

Spent a long time trying to understand what the Council was consulting about. It is vague and confusing and the 

language used is deliberately trying to smoke the issues. Feels that the previous consultation that attracted 67 

responses suggests that too few people are being engaged. 

Residents struggle to understand the planning terminology used and as the website is not as user friendly as it 

could be the exercise was abandoned. 

735 

(Same as 

2479) 

Richard 

Spurr Question 1 

Fully agrees with the Vision. There is a need to understand NWL’s role within the Region and why people want to 

live here. NWL is in a unique position (centre of the 3 Cities), close to the centre of the UK’s road network and 

has a thriving European Airport. However NWL has no rail links yet high levels of commuting outside of the 

District for work. Refers to information regarding migration contained in the SHMA. Therefore, whilst the

‘sustainability triangle’ is useful it must be recognised that the ‘business’ point often translates to: easy commuter 

access to the wider region. 

Question 2 

Agrees, but has the following points: 

SO1 – Is very good but considers that the document goes on to misunderstand ‘sustainability’. Sustainable does 

not mean putting all the houses in one place and hoping that everyone will not need to use their car to get about. 

This is unlikely, unless there is some undocumented plan to open a large set of factories and offices in the 

sustainable settlements. Sustainable does equal developing communities and preserving village identities. 

Therefore, moderate and appropriate development will help promote village services to enhance their 

sustainability. People move into the District for village life, not to be part of a large urban settlement. 

To support SO2, housing needs to be compatible with the National Forest. Therefore high density housing with 

little green space its not appropriate. 

SO3 is a good aim. However, based on the ‘semi-rural commute to everywhere’ nature of the District, and due to 

the lack of viable alternative transport, it is hard to imagine how the traditional ‘reducing car use approach’ to 

climate change will work in NWL. A better way would be to invest in alternate technologies. The Council could 

encourage research and development in Green Technologies and help coordinate the take up of wind and solar 

power facilities with more green transport routes. 

Also agrees with SO4, SO5, and SO7, as previous comments indicate. Regarding SO6 – If tree planting is 

required as part of new development, this should be located close to the new homes and not miles away. 

SO8 – it is important, as previously stated , that the housing requirement is all over the District, including the 

villages. This applies to affordable housing more so as the people looking for affordable housing are at the mercy 

of high premiums currently on the few homes that come up in the more rural locations. 

SO9 – is okay but should not be at the expense of other parts of the District. It would be wrong to attempt to 

develop Coalville as competition for nearby city centres or out of town complexes (as previously suggested by 

NWLDC in other documents supporting the LDF proposal). States that Coalville is in a unique position between 

the 3 Cities and developing Coalville at the expense of the immediate areas current strength of community and 

rural setting would be a huge mistake. Better to evolve Coalville into a local service area to give people a reason 

to live there not shop there. Important that other regional centres such as Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, 

Kegworth etc are not ignored.

SO10 – is agreed and all the more reason for encouraging sustainable villages. This also implies a balance 

between the preservation of farmland with housing at a compatible density with the National Forest, and the 

development of facilities desired by the people that will be attracted to the area. 

SO11 – This is considered fine as many people live in the District due to its close proximity to EMA and 

Birmingham Airport. However, almost any expansion of EMA will impact on the environment. The idea of 

sustainable transport to access the airport is not practical as there is no way that due to the gradients a rail 

terminal could be connected to EMA. Rail isn’t that green. 

Suggests that any plan like this is an exercise in social engineering, but SO12 even more so. Considers that 

social exclusion is driven by economic exclusion, therefore, a strong and vibrant economy is needed, along with 

access to good schooling. SO12 is a good aim but has been done in the past and forcing different economic 

groups to live together often does more harm than good. 

SO13- is agreed as it is important that the Council develops the existing leisure centres, parks and recreation 

areas. This aim is also supported by having a policy of sustainable villages. The development of recreational 

facilities (gym, cinema) in Coalville, close to transport links is likely to gain more support than an additional 

supermarket. 

SO14 – Good aim but considered that it is difficult to see how it applies to the District, whatever happens with the 

volume and location of new homes. The only positive thing would be to open a public passenger train station in 

the District with links to the 3 Cities and Burton-on-Trent, Loughborough, Birmingham and London. 

Question 3 

Does not support the favoured approach for the reasons previously above. Sustainable villages need to be 

identified based on what the residents want, not what they have. The area identified as Coalville includes a 

number of historic villages that are already distinct communities in their own right. For this reason the over 

development of Coalville has to be kept in check. Development in Coalville should not be at the expense of the 

existing sustainable villages and rural towns. Sustainable villages are a key advantage for the District and should 

be developed as much as possible as they attract people to the area and are an economic driver. These 

shouldn’t be destroyed in an attempt to create what’s not really needed. 

Question 4 

Could consider creating an additional small town or village. The land close to Flagstaff Island would be a good 

Brownfield site with existing transport links in place. It would be far away from Packington as to not impact the 

rural town and it would be naturally separated from other settlements by the road network.

Question 5 

Does not agree the proposed minimum level of provision. Considers that the Council have taken the imposed topdown 

desired figure and inflated it in a naïve attempt to attract growth point bid money. In the present economic 

climate the figures are out of touch and demand will not return to a high level in the future. Top-down target 

setting and planning for demand so far ahead is likely to fail. If housing demand is measured by asking “what 

would you like?” the response will always be an inflated figure. There is a big difference between need and want, 

all too often housing demand is measuring want not need. 

Question 6 

Considered that the current plan already plans too far into the future to be trustworthy in terms of housing 

numbers and details. However, there is no harm in setting a longer term strategy or direction in high-level terms, 

as with SO1 – SO14 and where future development may go in general terms. 

Question 7 

None of the options are preferred but Option 3 is considered the least destructive. Much of the 5,400 homes for 

the wider Coalville area could be accommodated at the Grange Farm site. Development of Grange Farm could 

work well if: 

1. Separation to ensure development in Hugglescote does not join the back of the housing the other side of 

the railway line. 

2. Its ensured that development does not join Ellistown 

3. The developers proposals for a community centre/space is kept 

4. The housing density is kept to a low enough level to be compatible with Coolville’s location within the 

National Forest. 

Question 8 

Does not support the favoured development strategy, as per previous comments. 

Question 9 

Does not consider the suggested wording appropriate, see earlier comments. 

Question 10 

Does not support the favoured approach regarding the Green Wedge, see earlier comments. 

Question 11 

Does not consider that access to the Green Wedge is a big issue as there is access to much of the Green Wedge

area. Green Wedges are not all about public access; it is to stop communities losing their identities, providing a 

green lung for the town etc. 

Question 13 

See previous comments. 

Question 14 

Does not support any of the development scenarios for Coalville, see previous comments. 

Question 15 

Supports Grange Farm and South of Grange Farm, with some caveats, see responses to previous questions. 

Question 16 

Suggests that the Council does another market assessment in the present economic climate with someone that 

understands the difference between ‘need’ and ‘want’. Then recalculate the rolling 5 year requirement and 

provision for that and no more. 

Question 32 

Does not support the possible expansion of Coalville, see earlier comments. 

Question 33 

Does not consider that a southerly expansion would be most appropriate, see earlier comments 

Question 34 

Highlights the difference between need and want. Questions the housing list which lists over 2000 yet only 600 

have replied to ‘update your details’ request, this raises questions about the validity of the figures that are driving 

the ‘requirement’. Would prefer a combination of financial assistance (HomeBuy) and housing association homes 

to help provide for people who need affordable housing. 

Question 35 

Does not support the favoured approach to Gypsies and Travellers and queries the figures for the number of 

pitches. 

Question 38 

Does not support the favoured housing strategy, as per previous comments

Question 44 

The Economic Strategy offers some good ideas, but needs further work. In principle considers that the Council 

should lead economic development but not control it. 

Question 45 

The inclusion of small units is a good idea but needs more research to help balance the benefit against the costs 

for the developers market. 

Question 46 

Suggests that earlier comments are considered in response to this question. 

Question 49 

Supports the favoured approach 

Question 50 

Suggests that earlier comments are considered in response to this question. 

736 Adrian 

Lewitt 

Requests a list of key stakeholders that attended the meetings and workshops during 2006 – a summary for each 

category i.e. residents, planners, rather than listing all the residents. 

737 Claire 

Pickering 

738 Ann 

Cooper 

739 Daryl 

Morris 

Question 10 

The Green Wedge was allocated for good reasons and should not be so easily dismissed because it suits 

housing plans. Thringstone is a village, not part of Coalville and should be classed separately. The green areas 

around the village should remain protected. The area is part of the National Forest and the more housing goes on 

the less forest there will be. The Green Wedge needs to remain protected in order to protect village life. 

Question 40 

Objects to the proposed distribution centre north of East Midlands Airport. It is another example of Castle 

Donington slowly becoming an industrial site than the lovely village it once was. There are alternatives, urges the 

Council to take the views of residents into consideration, not ignore them. 

Question 10 

Considers that the potential loss of countryside to the rear of Thornborough Road is unacceptable. Objects to the 

loss of amenity and development would devalue property. Questions how work will be found for all the new

families that will live in the new houses. Also raises concern about the old mining seams under the fields as 

subsidence has already occurred in the area. Raises concern about the increased amount of traffic and existing 

road congestion. Questions what will happen to local wildlife. 

740 Steve 

Lofthouse 

Question 14 

Agrees that new housing is needed, however the proposals for local housing development will change the area 

completely and not necessarily for the better. Suggests that the Council should look much harder at smaller 

Brownfield developments rather than destroying greenery. A number of potential brownfield sites are listed 

including the proposed Asda site on the Grieves factory; the Fox and Goose site, Wilson Bowden’s old offices in 

Ibstock and the area between the Discovery Park and Ashby Road are all ripe for development and of a size that 

is less likely to generate so much concern. Understands that the Council needs to plan for the future but 

questions who will buy all of the housing and where people are going to work. Current developments have been 

started and abandoned as nobody is buying. Several of these sites are in Coalville; they are all small scale in 

comparison to the proposals but are of a size that Coalville can cope with instead of swallowing up acres of fields. 

741 Janice Ray Question 35 


742 Christine 

Jill Bryant 

Question 17 

Would prefer Ashby to have a small an increase in population as possible as genuine market towns are rare and 

it could loose its identity and attractiveness (especially in the setting of the National Forest and tourist trade) if the 

town expands too much. 

Question 18 

Concern is raised about the effect of additional building to the land west of Moira Road as the fields in this area 

hold a huge amount of water flowing down from the east side of Ashby/Boundary area. This would remove land 

currently as ‘holding space’ in heavy rains and would increase flooding problems for existing houses and 

elsewhere downstream. 

Question 56 

Considers that people need decent houses, therefore wherever development takes place it is essential for it to be 

of the highest standard. It should also preserve the privacy and peace of those already ‘in residence’ and provide 

much better sized houses and open space on the estates that will be built than is the norm. High requirements

743 Susan 

Forshaw 

744 Jennifer 

Lodge 

745 Mr J E 

Collins 

Object 

Object 

should be placed on any future developers wherever houses (social housing or private housing) are built. This 

almost certainly means reducing the density of housing/acre and the provision of ‘green’ standards in the quality 

of build. 

Question 21 

Do not support the development of land to north of Park Lane, Castle Donington. Concerned about the visual 

impact, land is on the flood plain and drains poorly, plans do not show how the site will be accessed and the 

roads in existing estate are quite narrow and any further traffic through these estates would be dangerous for 

residents. The Land registry indicates that land to the rear of Upton Close has a covenant on it until at least 2021 

and that any development should be of an agricultural nature and not housing. The site is unsuitable for 

buildings, e.g. poor drainage leading to standing water. 

Question 40 

If there is to be any new distribution centre in this area it should be on land that is not currently agricultural land. 

The site at Sawley crossroads would seem to be better although any major increase in traffic in the vicinity of J24 

would have major implications on the other major roads in the locality. This would affect the surrounding villages 

and result in a huge increase in noise and pollution. 

Question 20 

There are very few facilities within Castle Donington for recreational use for all ages, all year round. There is no 

viable swimming pool/leisure centre available all year round. The infrastructure is not suitable for more houses as 

most of the facilities are away from the proposed site. The road system has enough cars on it at the moment. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As there is already an incomplete site in Castle 

Donington, at the former Power Station . This site needs to be developed first before another appears on the 

already crowded industrial district. There will be enough lorries coming into Castle Donington from the M1 without 

adding more. Lockington will be dwarfed by such a complex with little or no facilities for the people who might 

work at the proposed site. Does not support the site at Sawley Crossroads either, for the same reasons as above. 

Question 40 

Does not think the Hemington/Lockington site is suitable. There are more than enough distribution sites in the 

area and these (former power station) should be filled before considering another. The proposed site is on prime 

agricultural land which is considered important to reduce food miles and carbon footprint. The disruption to the 

habitat is unthinkable. The proximity of this site to one of the busiest motorways and motorway junctions would

cause chaos. 

746 Paul 

Joseph 

Boshell 

747 David 

Michael 

Hall 

748 Susan 

Treece 

749 Troy Smith 

on behalf 

of Mrs J 

Smith 

750 Ruth 

Woods 

Question 40 

The proposals at Junction 24 and Sawley Crossroads are unacceptable additional development proposals on top 

of the extensive development currently within the Castle Donington area. The proposed development/s will add to 

the already high levels of noise, light and air pollution together with the adverse effects on congestion and 

property values. 

Is totally against further expansion of this nature within the castle Donington area. Establishment of this proposal 

will adversely affect the commercial/private balance of properties. 

Question 40 

In regards to the proposal at Sawley Crossroads the road structure in the whole area is totally inadequate for any 

expansion. It is marginally better than the proposed site near the Airport. Even if the M1 was made into 6 lanes 

and the A50 into 4 it will choke. Castle Donington already has to put up with 24/7 flights and the noise, air and 

light pollution this causes. 

Traffic congestion is caused by events at Donington Park and the road structure has not been improved even 

though there have been many industrial developments in recent years. The road structure cannot take anymore 

traffic and if a new road was put in it would only cause further problems to the current structure. The area has 

already had to put up with enough industrial expansion? 

Question 40 

Strongly objects to the proposals at J24 and Sawley Crossroads due to proximity to the surrounding villages in 

the locality that will suffer extra noise, light and air pollution. The area already suffers from over intensive 

construction and there is enough industry and commerce already. The local road network is inadequate and the 

rural balance of life should remain as it is. 

Question 40 

Objects to the proposal at Sawley Crossroads on the grounds of vehicle access, the proposal is not green as 

other areas/units/storage distribution sites are not 100% occupied and it is not in proportion with the area. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will exacerbate the many problems already present 

in the area. The area already has far too much industry and pollution. There are also significant traffic problems 

that will be made worse by this development.

751 Roger 

Zanker 

Question 40 

Considers that anything that brings employment is to be welcomed and the siting of it will cause little impact to 

the surrounding area. 

752 Tim Oaten Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will have a significant negative impact on the quality 

of life in Castle Donington and surrounding villages (noise, congestion, pollution etc). Castle Donington already 

has its share of distribution sites and local services could not cope with additional development. Suggests 

existing distribution centres are developed further. 

753 Melvin 

Kenyon 

754 Hilary 

Tansley 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. For too long the Castle 

Donington/Hemington/Lockington area has been treated as a dumping ground by Coalville. 


The area west of Junction 24 of the M1 is too close to the urban centres of Kegworth and Castle Donington. The 

area suffers from poor air quality and road congestion. The recent decision not to widen the M1 will mean that 

any additional traffic will add to this. 

755 Mark Object Question 15 

Question 42 

An employment zone at Donington Park/EMA would support local people. 

Question 43 

Some smaller starter units should be secured as part of new developments 

Question 46 

In relation to the Airport, environmental problems are recognised, but information does not seem to have been 

used in considering the site to the west of Junc. 24. The Airports master plan aims to have only 10% of people 

travelling to the site without using a car. A rail link is the only real option. 

Question 53 

Fully supports ‘green’ or ‘eco’ housing. The suggestion of introducing a scheme to use hydro power at Kegworth 

weir sounds like a great opportunity.

Gower 

Object to the proposed housing development of Green Hill Farm. It is a site of natural beauty. Extra vehicles 

would have adverse affect on local infrastructure. There would be a negative effect on the local community and 

loss of open countryside. 

756 John Lloyd Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it is so close to villages and the airport and would be 

have a totally detrimental effect on the area. Considers that there must be other areas available that would be 

more isolated, yet with the necessary transport links and therefore would not impinge on residential life. 

Question 49 

Considers that it is about time that the enhancement and vitality and viability of Kegworth town took place. Over 

the last 50 years nothing positive has occurred, only the loss of facilities and services. The Market Place has little 

vitality and positive improvements are needed. 

757 Alison 

Moore 

758 John 

Marshall 

759 Joanne 

Boshell 

760 Gloria 

Bradley 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. The proposal would bring additional noise pollution 

adding to that already caused by the Airports 24 hour operations. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington, as there is already more than a fair share of industry in 

the immediate area and is in desperate need of revised infrastructure. Even now the Government has cancelled 

the M1 extension plans and the proposed development would seriously affect the lives of all surrounding 

villagers. There is already serious air pollution caused by the Airport so the proposed increase in HGV traffic 

would further increase pollution. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will have a huge impact on the surrounding 

villages. The transport systems around the villages are already becoming inadequate and there is a possibility 

that these villages will become rat runs due to increased traffic. There will be an increase in pollution, something 

that is already an issue due to the Airport. Countryside will be destroyed and believes there has been enough 

industrialisation in the area. 

Question 40 

Castle Donington has enough industry. The local structure of the village cannot withstand such a large

development. 

761 Mr & Mrs J 

W Wright 


762 Mr Hollis Object Refer to Representation 634 

763 Mrs Hollis Object Refer to Representation 634 

764 James 

Brian, 

Marylyn 

and Gary 

Belcher 


765 E Wackben Object Refer to Representation 634 

766 Michelle 

Lister 


767 Brian John 

Rees 

768 Allan John 

Clarke 

769 Mark 

Gosling 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to the proposal as the area around Junction 24 is always congested. The proposal would add to these 

problems further. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As there is already too much industrial development in 

and around Castle Donington. The proposal would do nothing to benefit local residents. It would cause more 

congestion and noise, adding to existing problems. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as residents of Castle Donington and surrounding 

villages already suffer to much degradation of the environment from the airport alone. Air and noise pollution 

levels are much higher than elsewhere. Should not have to suffer these levels being increase.

770 Alan Harris 

771 Peter 

Stevenson 

772 Dr Rob 

Hogan 

773 Mark 

Francis 

Reddish 

774 Leigh 

Woods 

775 Richard 

Woods 

776 John 

Morgan 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will impact on the value of houses, massively 

increase congestion and cause light, noise and air pollution. This will cause significant harm to living conditions 

for those in the local area and infrastructure will be unable to cope. Loss of a residential area by the creation of a 

monstrous and ill-conceived industrial estate. 

Question 40 

There is too much noise and light from the airport as the area now also has Formula 1. If there does have to be 

strategic distribution centre why not have it on the brown field site of the old power station? Junction 24 of the 

motorway cannot cope and government has decided not to put 4 lanes in at this part of the M1. There would also 

light pollution. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Given the airport and the work that is required at 

Donington Race Track, this will put a severe strain on the road infrastructure. The best option for such a 

development would be Ashby where there is no flooding risk. 

Question 40 

Totally opposed to the development of this scale, in the preferred location, and so close to 4 traditional 

communities. Noise, light and emissions pollution will add to already high levels experienced from the airport and 

Donington Park. Do not see any benefit to be derived from this proposal in terms of long term provision of skilled 

jobs or wealth generation to the local area. 

Question 40 

Development would destroy a large area of agricultural land, destroy the local villages with increased noise, 

traffic, light and pollution. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would be overdevelopment in a busy, noisy area, 

further blighting the lives of residents in surrounding villages. There would be an increase in all types of 

environmental pollution where little is done to make the quality of life better for residents. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal will decimate the lives of local residents 

and the impact on the area, including villages, will be devastating. The area already suffers from traffic

777 John 

Hallam 

778 S 

Wimberley 

779 Lisa 

Austin- 

Matysik 

780 Simon 

Corley 

781 Nicholas 

Dubpck 

782 Lindsay 

Parry 

783 Mick 

Adcock 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

congestion and problems as well as noise pollution. The area also has its fair share of industrial uses. 

Question 40 

Do not agree with any of the proposals. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As the development would not allow the character and 

integrity of the villages to be preserved. Castle Donington would be engulfed by industry on all sides. With 

development being considered by neighbouring councils to the east of Kegworth, these beautiful villages would 

end up merging with other developments resulting in the area becoming an industrial suburb of Nottingham. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington for a number of reasons. The area is already polluted 

by the airport, racetrack and motorway. The proposal would also greatly increase the light and noise pollution. 

The identified site is the only large site in the area that is used by many people for walking, running, cycling and 

shooting. The area is a haven for local wildlife as it contains many hedgerows and small copses. 

Question 40 

Although not completely against the growth of the airport and infrastructure per se, the often mooted but never 

delivered Kegworth bypass is on hold. Not happy at the prospect of the A6 becoming even more congested. 

Joined up and long term thinking would help. It is ridiculous that the overstretched motorway junction 24 has just 

been denied expansion for a traffic management scheme. 

Question 40 

Do not support the favoured approach. Castle Donington does not need any more congestion. 

Question 40 

Do not support the favoured approach due to potential impact on myself and family in terms of traffic volume, 

pollution (noise, light and air) and impact on property values. 

Question 40 

Concern about converting good agricultural land to a distribution centre. The local infrastructure cannot cope with 

the Airport and race track. The bypass has not yet happened and the air quality in the village and poor and the 

proposal would make matters worse.

784 Sean Smith 

785 Adrian 

Cowley 

786 David Nigel 

Thornton 

787 Lydia 

788 Rachel 

Prince 

789 Annah 

Swinscoe- 

Daniels 

790 Jenny 

Pickup 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Do not support the favoured approach. 

Question 40 

Cannot support the favoured approach. Do not agree that the site west of j24 of the M1 is the best solution. 

Kegworth already suffers from noise, light and air pollution. During peak hours the roads within the village of 

Kegworth become gridlocked. The distribution centre will add to the weight of traffic passing through Kegworth 

and the surrounding villages leading to further traffic chaos. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will increase the problems of traffic congestion and 

pollution. Castle Donington has already been semi-ruined by industrial developments. Also object to the scale of 

the development. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as there is already enough industry and commerce in the 

area. The proposal would result in an unacceptable increase in pollution, traffic noise, freight vehicles and traffic 

that would have to be faced by Castle Donington residents. There would be an adverse impact on people’s 

health and quality of life. The existing fields and agricultural land must be protected to ensure balance between 

industry and village community. 

Question 40 

The residents of Lockington, Hemington and Castle Donington have suffered with enough industry on their door 

step. Castle Donington is treated as a rat run. The increase in heavy vehicle traffic, noise and light pollution 

would have an adverse impact on house prices and resident’s quality of life. 

Question 40 

Another distribution centre will add to congestion, noise, air and light pollution. The proposal will devalue homes 

and Castle Donington already has the airport and the race track. There is already too much industry and 

commerce that has spoilt the area and villages. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. The countryside will be spoilt and there will be noise 

pollution and light pollution at night. The airport and racetrack cause heavy traffic through the village and noise 

and extra light at night.

791 Tracey 

Persall 

792 Lee 

Pearsall 

793 Brigitte 

Baker 


Peter 

McConnich 

ie 

795 Joanne 

Birkin 

796 Sian 

Turner 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

There is already land set out for industrial development at the East Midlands distribution Centre site. Another site 

of the scale proposed will ruin the village and the surrounding countryside. There is already a large volume of 

heavy good vehicles that use inadequate roads around the village. More would cause traffic problems and more 

pollution. 

Question 40 

Given the existing Distribution Site at Castle Donington, the proposed freight terminal will bring further industrial 

traffic and associated problems with the preferred location. Already have to endure night flights. Question 

whether land at J29a off the M1 would be a suitable alternative. 

Question 40 

Brownfield sites should be used for development as a priority. There is an existing Brownfield site available with 

a rail link. Therefore neighbourhood areas should not be destroyed with the building on green field land. This 

suggestion shows no respect for local communities and question raised about the impact on the footpath, bridal 

ways and people living in the area. 

Question 40 

Deeply concerned about the radical industrial development of the local area. This distribution centre will be larger 

that the size of Castle Donington residential area. Increase in pollution and deterioration of air quality will 

adversely impact on people’s health. It would also increase noise in the area, decrease rural landscapes and 

damage the local habitats and environments. Can see no benefit to the community, the local environment or 

quality of life to those living in and around Castle Donington. There would be devaluation of house prices and 

Donington Park is already set to expand and add additional pressure on a small local community. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the preferred site is in green belt land and will ruin the 

semi-rural environment. The area already has to deal with a 24 hour airport without the additional noise and 

pollution of such a huge industrial estate. It would also cause traffic congestion alongside the approved 

expansion of Donington Park. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as Castle Donington already has land identified as East 

Midlands Distribution Centre at the old power station. It would result in an unacceptable loss of agricultural land

797 Paul 

Challand 

798 Linda Kirk 

799 Phillip 

Dawson 

800 Matthew 

Simmons 

801 Rebecca 

Lovern 

802 Gary 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

and does not take into account the needs of residents and the local environment. Numerous walking paths 

around the site would be lost and these paths attract thousands of walkers and families each year and throughout 

the year. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington on the grounds that the preferred location would result 

in excessive overdevelopment in the area. The current ongoing development of the old power station and Willow 

Farm estate are already strangling a once pleasant residential area. 

Question 40 

Do not support the favoured approach in this part of rural England. The village has become a rat run over the 

years and with this proposal it will get even worse. The area already has enough to contend with. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the area around these villages already has a large 

number of industrial units. The proposal would add to the traffic and pollution in the area. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the surrounding villages already have more than their 

fair share of industries destroying the surrounding area. Already experience congestion created by the airport, 

Donington Park (F1), Trent Lane and Willow Lane. There are also large areas of unused land near the land 

chosen for the preferred location. Castle Donington is not a city and cannot cope with all the new houses or 

industry. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would result in an unacceptable loss of wildlife and 

beautiful countryside and a Brownfield site should be selected. The area already suffers as a result of noise and 

air pollution from the airport, motorway and racetrack as well as light pollution from the areas many industrial 

areas. 

Question the need for such a site which would change the charm and character of the area from a beautiful 

village and devalue the area. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the land identified is agricultural and too close to 

three villages which will all suffer from noise pollution, air quality degradation, light pollution, and additional traffic

803 Jan 

Dijkstra 

804 Mr S Eaton 

805 Heather 

Raybould 

806 Joseph 

Alan 

Bucknall 

807 Ralph 

Mason 

808 Kevin 

Pritchard 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

on the already overcrowded M1 junctions 22 to 27. This is one development too far. The council should focus on 

supporting the businesses/development areas that are already established from which we already experience 

varying degrees of pollution. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it is unacceptable to put even more noise and air 

pollution in this area. There is already a fair share of industry and commerce in the area. Do not support the 

favoured approach. If you have to go for one it should be the Ashby option. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as building next to the airport would make the village of 

Castle Donington a town. Within the next few years it will be a city. The noise from the race track and airport is 

more than enough. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the village already suffers traffic problems due to the 

racetrack, Sunday market, music festivals, motorway and traffic. The roads are heavily congested and shall soon 

have the additional problems of a Formula 1 racetrack. Property values will also drop even further. 

Question 40 

Castle Donington is surrounded by the race track, the airport and a massive industrial estate in the Trent Lane 

area. If development takes place to the east, the village will be totally surrounded by industry. There has been 

no attempt to provide any compensatory factors, such as a leisure centre. Such facilities are available in many 

smaller places who do not suffer so many disturbances such as traffic congestion and noise. 

Question 40 

Area is already blighted by industrial estates and the airport with no control over night flights. Question the need 

for even more warehousing when the East Midlands Distribution Centre is opened but sitting idle. Proposal will 

lead to general degradation of the area, nature, flora and fauna. 

Question 40 

Castle Donington already has two good sized industrial estates, the airport and racetrack. The proposed site will 

damage the rural nature of the town and hard to imagine how the road infrastructure will cope. This area is used 

as a recreational area for horse riders and walkers and such a facility would be a loss to the community. Castle 

Donington should not become an industrial estate.

809 John 

Bradburn 

Object 

Question 40 

The existing Regional Distribution centre has rail access. The transport infrastructure, in particular the M1 and 

A50, are already overloaded and the expansion that is planned is only to cope with current and projected traffic. 

It has not taken into account the preferred location of a new distribution centre. The proposal does not take into 

account the impact on the surrounding settlements. Do not believe that development of this type will create local 

jobs. 

810 Trish 

Kershaw 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will result in the loss of prime agricultural land that 

forms a natural division between the villages and also acts as a natural buffer for noise from the M1. Loss of 

leisure amenity (public footpaths), increased noise/light pollution and the road infrastructure would need works to 

cope with such development. 

811 Lisa Davies 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as local people have had to put up with disruption from 

local industry and commerce. Do not need another massive structure to spoil the environment. It would have a 

devastating impact on the local community, in terms of the environment, health and quality of life. Another site 

should be found that does not impact on residential areas. 

812 Sue Allen 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal would significantly increase the traffic 

problems experienced by local residents. Major roads in the area are frequently gridlocked. There are too many 

empty units on the existing distribution parks to justify this type of development. 

813 John 

Cocking 

Object 

Question 40 

Castle Donington already has a massive site cleared for business development so why the need for another one? 

Add this to the number of new houses proposed along Park Lane, the village does not have the infrastructure to 

take cope with an influx of traffic, new residents etc. 

814 Allan 

Watson 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal will result in the loss of green space, 

Hemington being swallowed up into a larger urban settlement, flooding issues, and congestion on motorway 

corridor. The suggested site at Ashy would be the best option. 

Deleted: L

815 Alan Brown 

816 Victoria E 

Richards 

817 Sorrell 

818 Hamish 

McLeod 

819 Ian Coulton 

820 Andrew 

Dounglas 

Boyer 

821 Penelope 

Earley 

822 Jane 

Haggerty 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Already too much noise suffered from the airport overnight with cargo movements and also disruption from the 

race track. A rail distribution development will add to night noise and the site is too near the village of Castle 

Donington and Hemington. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will result in a loss of value to homes. Castle 

Donington already has enough industrial areas as well as a racetrack and airport. All these areas suffer from 

major road congestion. Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington are only small villages and already suffer 

enough, noise, pollution and congestion. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would result in an adverse visual impact and a loss 

of land that has recreational value and is used by large numbers of people. Development of a strategic 

distribution site would only benefit the land owners. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington 

Question 40 


Question 40 


Question 40 

Castle Donington is already surrounded by an industrial estate and a racetrack that is being developed further, all 

of which cause noise and pollution. The area does not need anymore. 

Question 40 

Castle Donington is already surrounded by enough noise and pollution due to existing industrial areas, a 

developing race track and airport. Such a further development will damage the whole environment beyond 

repair. 

823 Elizabeth Question 40

Osborne Object The Castle Donington Power station is already the regional distribution/rail link for the area. Any new 

development would result in more pollution, traffic, noise, less green belt and the destruction of the only bridle 

path in the area. 

824 Sheryl 

Tailby 

825 Keith 

Hickline 

826 Suzanne 

Woolmore 

827 Robert 

Corah 

828 Angela Lyn 

Watson 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Castle Donington already has enough to contend with due to the airport, race track and existing industrial units. 

The village’s roads are congested and noise and air pollution is high. Devaluation of properties and further 

development will destroy this and surrounding villages. 

Question 20 

Do not agree with the development scenarios for Castle Donington. There should be no housing unless there is a 

marked increase in education facilities, health provision and improvement to the road network in the area. 

Question 40 

The road network is already overloaded and cannot cope with existing traffic. The air pollution problems will be 

worsened and the area already has a large amount of industry/warehousing sites. Employment should be 

located so that Ashby and Coalville residents can seek jobs locally. 

Question 41 

The Lounge Site, Ashby would be a better site for a strategic distribution centre. It is more central within the 

district and the jobs it would generate would be more likely to go to residents in the district. 

Question 40 

Do not support a strategic rail distribution centre near junction 24 of the M1. Castle Donington already has an 

airport and the noise and air pollution problems associated with it. There will also be extra traffic on totally 

inadequate roads. Loss of prime agricultural land is unacceptable and Castle Donington will be surrounded by 

industry, commerce, industrial estate, the race track and airport. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the northern extremities of the District are being 

saturated with too much development. The roads cannot cope with the traffic. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as there are enough industrial areas. The area already 

has the airport and its expansion, the race track, power station site and Trent Lane and Willow Farm Industrial

829 John 

Restell 

830 Margaret 

Ann 

Dewhurst 

831 Adrian 

North 

832 Susan 

Furman 

833 Christianne 

Harrison 

834 David 

Evans 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Estates. A rural balance is needed and this area should now be left alone. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the infrastructure of the area is already under strain 

and development will cause a real reduction in the quality of life in the surrounding villages. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Concerned about traffic, noise and light levels and that 

such a proposal will decimate villages in this vicinity. The area already has to contend with the effects of the race 

track and airport with respect to noise and traffic in particular. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal will put untold pressure on infrastructure, 

doctors, schools and traffic. What has happened to the development at the site of the old power station? The 

development will not employ local residents and will have no community benefit. 

Question 40 

The area already has the airport, DHL and racetrack and associated noise. 

This development will not just be an eyesore but will destroy the woodland. 

Question 40 

The proposal takes no account of the social, recreation or ecological requirements of this area. It will only serve 

to create further detrimental impact on the surrounding area and villages. The area already suffers more than its 

fair share of industry and commerce – an airport with deregulation on night flying, race track with noise and traffic 

implications and two major industrial estate and business parks. Impacts include devaluation of house prices, 

increase in traffic congestion, and increase in lorries, noise, light and air pollution, inadequate road network, loss 

of rural balance, and dirt and dust. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as development will severely impact on the conservation 

areas of Lockington and Hemington, including access to the villages being altered. The brooks will be affected 

and this will lead to damage to their fragile ecosystems. The loss of fields will limit the range of birds – two 

species of protected birds have recently returned to the area. The rail links will also cause damage to the 

Scheduled Ancient Monument of Lockington Roman Villa and Iron Age Settlements and also the Lockington 

Barrow network.

835 Emma 

836 Helen 

Jones 

837 S Jenkins 

838 Colin 

Bucknall 

839 Lesley Ann 

Butler 

840 Mrs Jean 

Farley 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as there is already a vast amount of industrial land in 

Castle Donington. The proposal would increase flood risk, affect the water table and have an adverse impact on 

wildlife. The road network is already struggling with traffic levels and will be unable to cope with additional levels. 

It would also increase air pollution, devalue house prices, damage a nice area and Castle Donington will become 

a car park. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the area suffers the impacts of a number of 

industrial sites, high levels of use of the major road network, noise from the airport and events at the racetrack, as 

well as the air and light pollution these uses bring to the area. Concerned about the health and well being of the 

children and the unacceptable loss of green fields. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal will change the face of the village, add 

extra traffic and noise pollution. There are already enough lorries that pass through Kegworth and the proposal 

will add extra traffic to the M1 junction making more people use the surrounding villages as a cut through. Local 

house prices will also suffer. 

Question 40 

Castle Donington has played its part in local and national expansion of the distribution industry and any further 

plans should be turned down. Few quality areas remain. There is the absence of basic facilities, no leisure 

facilities and local services are at breaking point. The area also suffers from traffic congestion and the constant 

threat of airport expansion. Let the residents enjoy the limited countryside and the village. 

Question 40 

Castle Donington already has a race track that is expanding. 

Question 40 

Do not agree with the favoured site. The planned distribution centre is too close to Castle Donington and 

Hemington. Already surrounded by an airport and race track. Residents will also be affected by light and noise. 

Question 41

The Council should look at trying to find a site that will not alienate the residents of the surrounding villages. The 

site adjacent to Sawley Crossroads as there are no residents to be affected. 

841 Edward 

Way 

842 Mr John 

Parker- 

Sutton 

Object Question 40 

Do not support the favoured option. The site would be too close to Castle Donington which already serves a 

large number of similar sites. Castle Donington already has problems with local traffic and this site will only add 

to these problems. 

Object Question 40 

There was a previous scheme a few years ago to build a new village on this site of open countryside. This was 

scrapped amid of lot of opposition. There are enough warehouses in Castle Donington and another site is not 

needed. 

843 Peter Bell Object Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the location is too close to Lockington, Hemington 

and Castle Donington. 

844 Mike 

Thomas 

845 Alison 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the area already has its fair share of industrial sites. 

The addition of a massive development will have a severe impact on several communities. Also appears to be 

the most expensive and environmentally damaging, a perverse decision when other more suitable sites have 

been identified. 

Question 3 

Do not support any of the favoured options. 

Question 5 

Do not agree that 9600 should be considered a minimum level of housing provision. The many empty homes 

should be used first and no more building to take place. 

Question 10 

Do not support building on the Green Wedge. This land is used and it breaks up the villages giving an identity to 

each village. Strongly opposed to building in the Green Wedge and do not support the Council’s favoured 

approach on the Green Wedge issue. In addition, the traffic in and around Whitwick is terrible.

Object 

Question 32 

It is a ridiculous idea to expand Coalville. It is a run downtown and no amount of money will change that. 

846 Ann Adams 

847 Paul 

848 Linda 

Wesson 

849 Karen Mary 

Riley 

850 Philippa 

Lindsey 

Higgins 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Strongly disagree with the favoured site for this development. Kegworth has enough noise already and road 

structure cannot cope with more traffic. Will reduce value of homes and ruin village life. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As the proposal would be dominant in one of the few 

green rural areas left around Castle Donington. It will damage character and amenity and result in the loss of 

prime agricultural land. Development of this size will result in adverse impacts on noise, fumes, congestion and 

light pollution. There is already a large distribution site that is not over subscribed, on the old power station site. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will blight the surrounding area. Such a proposal 

would destroy green area. Too many assumption have been made and the Council has not done enough work 

on the proposal, e.g. transport links, viability of investments. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal takes no account of the social, 

recreational or ecological requirements and would have a detrimental environmental impact on the surrounding 

areas and villages. Already suffer from industry, commerce, airport, race track, major industrial estates and 

business parks. Local villages are also frequently used as rat runs due to the proximity of the major road 

network. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the area already has sufficient industry. The proposal 

would destroy the rural area, prime agricultural land, footpaths, wildlife and the buffer between the airport and 

surrounding villages. There will be an increase in light, noise and traffic fumes pollution as well as heavy traffic 

volumes and use of minor roads as rat runs. A distribution centre is a step too far and would have a significant 

impact upon the countryside and residents of local villages. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will have a detrimental affect of the quality of life of 

residents of nearby towns and villages. Residents of Kegworth are already subject to noise pollution from road

851 Susan 

Forshaw 

852 Lena North 

853 Richard 

Walker 

854 Ian Stokes 

855 Chris and 

Tracey 

King 

856 David Selfe 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

and air traffic and do not need the additional burden of this development. 

Question 41 

The ‘Lounge’ site at Ashby would be the best site as it has all the required communication links and would disrupt 

fewer people’s life. Council should also consider a site at Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station. 

Refer to Representation 743 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as this proposal will severely increase the already 

heavy traffic congestion, increase pollution, harmful emissions and noise. Castle Donington already suffers from 

an airport, race track and industrial estates and it is unfair to have to absorb another large industrial 

establishment. Need to look at ways to extend green areas, such as parks and fields. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the development would have an impact on the local 

area and villages. Rail links in addition to the new one at parkway and more works to the M1, seems an appalling 

waste of money. There are other more suitable sites in the district. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington on the grounds that the local infrastructure is not in place 

to support such a development. There are existing blights on the landscape, including Willow Farm development 

and development at the former power station sites. The area needs to retain its section of countryside in 

between local villages; otherwise the area will become one giant industrial estate. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will have a detrimental impact on our quality of life 

with adverse impacts including traffic congestion, noise and light pollution and loss of countryside. The village is 

being suffocated by industrial development. Improvements that have been made to Castle Donington are 

insignificant in comparison. 

Question 40 

Strongly disagree. Have seen the adverse impacts of development with increased congestion, noise pollution 

and reduction in air quality. Castle Donington is not equipped for this kind of infrastructure as will be proved with

the race track developments. 

857 Minorca 

Opencast 

Protest 

Group 

Part of the District is underlain by shallow coal reserves and coal producers are active in the area. However the 

Core Strategy lacks vital information in this respect. It does not show where the shallow coalfield is nor does it 

relate the presence of this coalfield to current and future areas of settlement. This information is important for 

three reasons. 

1) If future land that is designated for development lies above shallow coal measures, it becomes liable to be 

worked. All householders and businesses within 800m of a site should also be advised. 

2) Future householders and businesses within 800 metres should be advised of shallow coal measures. 

3) County Council, current and future, policy does not preclude any area of shallow coalfield in the District from 

being a future opencast coal mine, subject to satisfactory environmental impact and benefits outweighing costs. 

858 Gordon 

Johnson 

A partial solution would be a formal statement in the Core Strategy advising that in certain parts of the area this 

risk exists. This information should also be mapped to provide better access to this information for interested 

parties to assess the risk. 


859 Mr R 

Birkenshaw 

and Vicky 

Holt 

860 Mr R 

Woodward 

and Ms 

Fox 

861 M J Platts 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 15 

Writing regarding the development at Bardon Road, Coalville. This land should be set aside as a buffer zone for 

people to enjoy as amenity spaces and somewhere to walk and play. The area could be used as a nature 

reserve with trees planted and not turned into a concrete jungle. This is needed given the expansion of the 

nearby quarry and industrial estate, the increase traffic, noise of the trains and increase in pollution and dust 

levels. 

Question 10 

Concern regarding the proposal for twelve hundred of houses in green wedges. There must be another solution 

in other parts of the large East Midlands area as there is no benefit in putting all these houses in one location. . 


Object to the proposed housing development in the Coalville area. It is unacceptable for Whitwick and 

Thringstone to become part of the Coalville area. The village nature of these communities should be maintained. 

Object to the identification of Thringstone Primary School and its playing fields being identified as potential

uilding land. This is a successful school that makes a huge difference to the children. 

The Green Wedge between Thringstone and Whitwick is ancient and unspoilt land and it is unacceptable for this 

to become building land. 

862 Shelley 

Saunt & 

Chris 

Hooton 

863 J L 

Wallbank 



864 Michael I 

Hadry 

865 Ashby Park 

Investment 

Object 

Object 

Question 18 

The housing developments that have taken place in Ashby have stretched the town’s facilities too far already. 

For example, the car parking charges have been introduced as a money making scheme and to regulate the 

number of vehicles trying to use the streets of the town. Any more housing will make this situation worse. 

Also have comments to make on the proposed scheme at Holywell Spring Farm. Flood risk and drainage: – the 

capacity of the spring and stream to cope with substantial and rapid run off from hard surfaces has not been 

considered. It passes down through the Malborough estate and culverts before ultimately reaching the River 

Mease SAC. Community benefits: – will not be attracted as suggested. It will just be a dormitory development 

and will add nothing to the community of Ashby. Traffic: – It is a mistake to make the assumption that traffic will 

use the new access point onto the A515 Burton Road. It will use Smisby Road and this is already congested on 

any morning. Grade 2 agricultural land: – which is needed in the short and long term to feed the country, help 

with the financial crisis and reduce import levels. Visual impact of such a development particularly given the 

height of the land and its land levels. Wildlife and nature: – this site presents a number of natural obstacles. 

There are mature trees with established birdlife, bats and long established watercourses with amphibians. 

Development of Holywell Farm should not be developed as the long term physical and natural disadvantages 

greatly outweigh the short term pressure for houses. The Council should adopt its own preferred option of a 

maximum 500 homes in the Ashby area – most of which has already received planning consent. 

Do not support the Council’s favoured town centre strategy with Coalville focussed as the principle shopping 

destination in the District. This approach fails to recognise Ashby’s role as a higher order retail centre. The

s 

evidence base indicates the retention of a focus on Coalville and Ashby as main towns with no justification for the 

demotion of Ashby as a retail centre. The prominence given to Coalville is supported and it is not suggested that 

Ashby be positioned at the same level in the hierarchy as Ashby. However it is considered inappropriate to 

include Ashby within the same category as other smaller less important centres. Ashby clearly fulfils a town 

centre role with a larger catchment than the other Rural Centres included in Option 2. 

It also does not appear to reflect the PPS6 sequential approach that allows for retail development in edge of 

centre and out of centre locations in certain circumstances. Policy should recognise the sequential test. 

866 M A 

Jessop, K 

B Jessop & 

L L Jessop 

An alternative option would be to elevate Coalville to a new ‘sub-regional centre’ position in the hierarchy, with 

the following hierarchy of Ashby as the main centre and Castle Donington, Measham, Kegworth and Ibstock as 

Rural Centres. 


867 Karen Land Object Refer to Representation 634 

868 Mrs M C 

Partridge 


Council appear to be influenced by developers and landowners whose sole aim if profit. Any financial gain will 

not compensate for disruption to infrastructure and services and also for the damage to existing communities. 

Large housing estates with few amenities do not make a community. Do not want the creation of ghettos. The 

proposed level of social housing may impose a greater financial strain on services. 

Council have not commissioned full geographical, environmental and geographical surveys for each of the sites 

that have been identified. The impact of mining, quarrying and heritage factors have not been considered, with 

these matters to be the responsibility of English Heritage. The villages of Whitwick, Swannington, Thringstone, 

Hugglescote and Donington le Heath all have their own characteristics, histories and peculiarities and yet are not 

designated Conservation Areas. Whitwick have 5 listed buildings and a scheduled ancient monument. These 

villages need to retain their green buffer zones to maintain their status quo and current quality of life.

Object to the options to build over 80% of the total housing in the Coalville Urban District and the number of 

traveller sites proposed. Who will buy these properties? Where will they work? Lead to high levels of out 

commuting and traffic congestions. Empty properties should be brought back into use. 

Object 

Object to the development of the Central and Eastern sections of the Green Wedge. The Green Wedge was 

implemented to provide a green buffer between the two different communities. The Council’s documents are 

inaccurate when identifying the locations. They do not mention ancient or industrial historical sites nor do they 

define the separate Civil, Ecclesiastical and Ward Boundaries. 

The Council have in the past allowed development on land that has acted as a ‘soak away’ preventing or 

mitigating flooding in lower landscapes. As a consequence areas of Whitwick have experienced flooding after 

only a few days of heavy rain. Pingle Brook which flows through the Central Green Wedge section supports a 

variety of wildlife. Development would increase surface water run into this brook which later becomes a narrow 

gorge. 

869 V Henney Object Refer to Representation 634 

The document also indicates that the Leisure Centre is at risk. This centre provides much needed indoor and 

outdoor facilities, for a range of local residents and is always busy. 

With reference to the eastern Green Wedge. It has been incorrectly identified as Coalville. It is the only open 

space to counteract the surface water run off from the large urban estates once known as Whitwick estates. In 

light of previous quarrying and mining, and addibg climate change into the equation, the risk of flooding 

increases. Flash floods were experienced in 2002. 

Will the Council and developers guarantee that new properties will be safe from flooding and there will not be an 

increased risk to existing properties? 

Council are unaware of the historical significance of both the Central and Eastern sections of the Green Wedge. 

Both are all that remains of the Medieval Open Strip Fields plus some Ancient (Tudor) Enclosure for Whitwick 

and Swannington. It appears to be good arable land and important in reducing the carbon footprint. 

A legacy has been left by extensive mining in the area, such as mining subsidence, settlements problems. These 

are still occurring.

870 Mr Stephen 

& Mrs 

Tracy 

Jackson 


871 John Smart Object Refer to Representation 634 

872 Mr & Mrs R 

I Hoden 

873 Richard 

Hoult 

874 Mrs C J 

Mander 

875 Mr & Mrs R 

Stacey 

876 Pauline 

Birch 

877 Mrs J 

Thorpe 

878 Mr L 

Thorpe 

879 Lydia 

Christine 

Adams 

880 Dawn and 

Ian Dewar 










881 Mrs Gina 

Newbold 


882 Mr G Smith Object Refer to Representation 634 

883 Mrs P 

Wilkins 


884 D Beniston Object Refer to Representation 634 

885 S Wilkins Object Refer to Representation 634 

886 D Preston 

& T Spiers 

887 W 

Symonds 

888 Mr A 

Cooper 

889 Mrs D 

Moon 

890 Mr Leigh 

Newbold 

891 Mrs M 

Swan 







892 M Love Object Refer to Representation 634 

893 J M Bird 

Object 

Question 24 

Comments made with respect to development adjoining Parkdale, Ibstock:- Impact on the environment and 

decline in the residential ethos of properties bordering the development. Loss of open rural aspect. Adverse

894 Mr T Smith Object Refer to Representation 879 

impact on quality of life. There will be a huge increase in traffic in the area and Ibstock and associated problems 

of noise, stress and pollution. The loss of views and open aspects will reduce property values with no 

compensation. 

895 F J 

Denham 

Object 

Object 

Object to the proposed development for future housing in the district. Why are so many houses proposed to be 

put in Coalville. Is it NIMBYSISM by the council and cabinet? 

Question 15 

Object to the development of 250 houses on fields at Greenhill Farm. The fields form part of the lagoon that the 

Council has passed. Flooding has occurred at the end of Dauphine and Vercer Closes. The fields are also part 

of Charnwood Forest and in the past have been described as particularly attractive countryside. 

896 F Kovacs Object Refer to Representation 634 

897 V A Little Object Refer to Representation 634 

898 P Goacher Object Refer to Representation 634 

899 P Goacher 

(2nd Rep # 

898) 

900 Mrs R C 

Kovacs 



901 Mr P W Object Refer to Representation 634 

902 The 

National 

Trust 

Q1 – Object - The Vision has not had regard to earlier submissions that have been made and in particular fails to 

demonstrate an approach that is consistent with sustainable development as required by s39 of the 2004 Act, 

with no link to- 

• Addressing Climate change 

• Safeguarding and enhancing natural assets, including valued landscapes 

• Prudent use of natural resources

• The focus on environmental limits 

• Sustainable consumption and production 

As presently drafted it is considered that the Vision is over-focussed on economic growth. 

Q2 – Object – SO3 is satisfactory in terms of emissions but does not set out the objective in terms of adaptation 

to impacts that are now unavoidable. 

SO5 – Should be supplemented to refer to ‘landscape character’ to accord with PPS7 and emerging RSS. 

SO11 – should be reworded to ‘meet the reasonable operational needs of’ (the Airport). 

It is unclear why there is no longer an objective relating to energy (as previously proposed in EN8). Given the 

requirements of the supplement to PPS1 on Climate Change and the new Climate Change Act it is appropriate to 

reinstate the aim of reducing energy needs through improved energy efficiency/ conservation and promotion of 

appropriate renewable energy technologies. 

Q3 – Support – Consider the proposals and intent are appropriate with regard to national planning advice, the 

RSS and the situation in North West Leicestershire. 

Q10 & 11 – Object – The Coalville Green Wedge should be retained, at least in part, as a multi-functional open 

space and public access within it improved as part of new development elsewhere in the centre. Access issues to 

the parts in private ownership could be addressed through negotiation with the owners or a case could be made 

to compulsorily aquire access rights over the land. 

Q20/21/22 – Object – are unconvinced by the amount of development being considered in Castle Donington and 

consider a maximum of 150 dwellings south of Park Road is more appropriate. 

Q39 – Object – The approach taken appears opportunistic rather than planned, with no formal consideration of 

climate change issues, the impact on landscape character or the feasibility of providing appropriate rail access. 

Any policy in the Core Strategy needs to be based on a wider assessment of potential site provision across the 

whole HMA. 

Q40 – Object – The extent of the assessment of the three individual sites identified is inadequate as it is unclear 

how these sites have been chosen and there is no detailed consideration of their suitability. 

The key consideration of rail access has not been adequately investigated for any of the options and it has not 

been demonstrated that this is viable. 

Significant potential flood risks have been identified but not addressed. 

The locations are generally remote from significant centres of population and heavily reliant on car travel for 

employees. 

The preferred site requires significant works on the M1 which again raises a number of issues that have not been 

investigated to date including the views of the Highways Agency. 

Emerging RSS policy 12 seeks the focus of new development being within the three citiesand outside these 

locations it should be within and adjoining settlements. Suitable sites would be better located within/ adjoining 

major settlements in the HMA, in particular Leicester and it is not clear that such as site does not exist in such a

preferred location. 

Q42 – Object – The reliance on employment development related to Donington Park/ EMA is over optimistic and 

has not considered the wider implications of such development which would not accord with adopted and 

emerging RSS policy. 

Q44 – Object – The fifth and sixth bullet points should be deleted as respectively the airport is considered 

separately under issue 12 and for reasons given in response to Q42. 

Q46 & 47 – Object – The RSS requirements are more exacting than those in the Consultation document , 

particularly in respect of environmental impacts. The Core Strategy needs to be amended to ensure conformity 

with, and take forward the requirements of the RSS (Policy 55). They suggest the following wording- 

‘Prior to any new operational development being proposed and Environmental Action plan shall be prepared and 

implemented. The Plan will include arrangements for regular involvement with partners, including local 

communities, to ensure that new development is sensitive to the impacts upon the surrounding communities, 

including visitor attractions, and that steps are taken to minimise environmental impacts.’ 

Q48 – Support – The existing definition of operational development remains relevant and appropriate – it should 

clearly be set out in the Core Strategy. 

Q53 & 54 – Object – The approach at paragraph 22.6 does less than re-state the comments on Airport access 

earlier in the document. That approach is inadequate to conform to the requirements of RSS Policy 55 – see 

response to Q46 & 47. 

Q55 & 56 – Object – The approach to environmental issues are referred to in this part of the Core Strategy is 

inadequate, does not include consideration of Regional issues and fails to consider a strategic response based 

upon the characteristics and assets of NW Leicestershire. 

Q53-56? –Support – Draws attention to their earlier advice and views at the previous consultation stage. 

Q57 & 58 (63 & 64) – The approach to Green Infrastructure needs to be more all-encompassing both in terms of 

the assets that are included and their potential value to the District. 

903 Miss B 

Thorpe 


904 C R Little Object Refer to Representation 634 

905 Mr T Smith Object Refer to Representation 634 

906 Patricia 

Smith 


907 Mrs Y E 

Gray 

908 M P W 

Gray 

909 M P W 

Gray 

910 L Goacher 

(2nd Rep 

#909) 

911 Mr & Mrs M 

Ball 






912 John Bee Object Refer to Representation 634 

913 John Bee Object Refer to Representation 879 

914 Norman 

Pepper 


915 Bill 

Sherwood 

Object 

This is one of 1460 responses received as part of the Ashby Local Development Survey. The responses are 

summarised as follows:- 

Question 7 

The preferred option was for no more than 500 houses to be built in Ashby for the period up to 2026. 

Question 17 

The preferred site for development was identified as Moira Road and the least preferred site was identified as 

Packington Nook (South of Ashby Road).

Question 34 

Approximately 29% supported for 40% of development to be affordable. Approximately 27% supported for 10% 

of development to be affordable and 27% for 20% of development to be affordable. 

Question 35 

Over 90% did not support the Council’s preferred approach to include provision of gypsy and traveller 

accommodation within housing sites. 

Question 58 

Over 70% of respondents thought that health services were in most need of urgent expansion. Other 

infrastructure issues included the improvements to the road system, car parks and public transport as well as 

improvements to the sewage system. 

916 Mrs Mary 

Sherwood 


917 Mrs 

Coleman 

918 Roger 

Allen 

Object 

Object 

Question 24 

Object to the future building of homes especially in the Parkdale area of Ibstock. Loss of fields and outlook. 

Question for need for new homes when there are 1300 empty homes in the district. It is through greed that the 

Council have decided to make plans for more housing. Don’t want any more traffic and noise in the area. Want 

peace and quiet and enjoy the fields and views. Ibstock does not want or need any more housing. 

Understand the allocation of 12,200 houses for the district is a fait accompli imposed by the regional authority. 

Question 14 

Incomprehensible why Option 1 is supported and the amount of development suggested for the greater Coalville 

area. The area already has 40% of the district’s population and would question the impact of an additional 9,600 

houses. Query the employment opportunities and the effect on the local infrastructure such as water supply, 

refuse disposal, roads schools, hospitals, doctors etc as well as the precious environment. More sensible to 

expand other towns such as Ashby and Kegworth with easier access to the M42 and greater employment 

opportunities. The growth areas in the area include the airport and racetrack. Therefore question why the bulk of 

housing expansion in Coalville which already has high unemployment.

Question 7 

Support Option 4 which proposes 5000 new homes in Coalville. This number could be contained in the proposed 

area near Grange Lane. This area has excellent road links and employment opportunities and would require the 

provision of just one surgery, dentist, shopping area etc. Processing just one application would save time and 

costs. 

Question 10 

Understand that green wedges are sacrosanct. The proposed developments will impinge upon them and have a 

tremendous impact on wildlife and local environment, adversely affecting our lifestyles. 

919 Mr W J 

Smith 

920 Graham 

and 

Margaret 

Cameron 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 35 

Do not support the provision of gypsy and traveller sites. 

Question 24 

Concerned about the possibility of high density housing at the fields between Ashby Road, Station Road and 

backing onto Parkdale, Ibstock. Development would result in the loss of a green field area which is part of a 

pleasant open space enjoyed by a large number of villagers of Ibstock and Heather. It would have a devastating 

effect on the value of our property and would destroy one of the best areas in Leicestershire. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As the area has had its fair share of industry and 

commerce. Need to maintain the rural balance. Adverse impacts will include noise, light and air pollution. This 

area currently acts as a natural barrier between the airport and Hemington. Increase traffic congestion from 

people travelling to work and lorries collecting and delivering freight. Hemington and Lockington should be 

protected as an area of environmental importance. The land around the villages should be in a conservation 

area, retained for agricultural use and recreational use such as horse riding and walking. 

921 Julie 

Armett 

922 Margaret 

Armett 

Object Refer to representation 879 

Object Refer to representation 879

923 Susan Y 

Sutton 

Object 


Object to the Local Development Framework for the district and its Green Wedge and gypsy site policy. Alarmed 

at the lack of understanding of local issues and implications of this proposed development. 

924 Miss 

Deborah 

Wintrip 


925 G Curtis Object Refer to Representation 879 

926 Mr R J 

Smith 

927 Mrs Anne 

Smith 

928 Derby City 




Generally support the overall approach being pursued. However, they raise objections to Issue 10, Strategic 

Distribution and Issue 11, Strengthening the Local Economy. 

Issue 10 – have a number of reservations about the usefulness of Policy 21 of the regional Plan as a site 

selection tool which are- 

• Policy 21 does not address the issue of assessing which are the most appropriate sites in the region/ Sub 

region, particularly if sites are close to HMA boundaries and there may be more suitable and sustainable 

sites in adjoining districts both within and outside the HMA. 

• It is not clear how much weight should be given to each of the criteria listed in the policy. 

• It is questionable whether the HMA is an appropriate and logical planning unit for such locational 

guidance, given the regional and national significance of such development. 

• The Regional Plan does not make clear whether each of the HMAs listed in Policy 21 have to allocate a 

strategic distribution site in order to be in conformity or whether there should be a limit on the size of 

proposals being put forward – e.g. does a scheme of 150 HA amount to 3 ‘minimum’ schemes and hence 

an oversupply. 

• Have concern regarding any additional uses that may co-locate with the strategic distribution site (e.g. 

retailing) 

• Policy 21 in isolation is not specific enough as a tool to aid site selection.

Whilst strategic distribution sites are generally located near major transport infrastructure hubs, isolation from any 

major urban centre will generate demand for employee car travel from a dispersed area. It will need to be 

demonstrated how any major strategic distribution land use in this location can be sustained which needs to be 

tested and guided at a regional level in order to ascertain whether this is the most sustainable location. They are 

therefore concerned bout the proposed allocation of the J24 site particularly with the Inquiry on the Burnaston 

Cross site in S Derbys and the potential of other sites to come forward outside of the development plan process. 

Further work is needs at regional/ sub regional level to establish which sites are the most sustainable before sites 

are allocated in DPDs. Allocating sites before this risks prejudicing potentially more sustainable sites coming 

forward. It is also possible that without further guidance Core Strategies could be deemed unsound because 

either too many or too few have been allocated in the Region/ Sub region. 

Issue 11 – Strengthening the Local Economy 

929 Derbyshire 

County 


Refers to the proposed employment zone at Castle Donington / EMA. The maintenance of aircraft needs to be 

closely related to the EMA site with Policy 55 of the regional Plan allowing for further expansion of EMA within its 

boundaries. However Policy 15 of the RSS (Policy 12 of the now adopted Regional Plan) stipulates that 

development associated with EMA should be focussed where possible in surrounding urban areas (Derby, 

Leicester, Nottingham and Loughborough) 

Therefore have concerns that employment development associated with the airport outside of the airport 

boundary would not be in accordance with the Regional Plan, would potentially prejudice development in Derby 

and would lead to unsustainable mainly car based journeys. Also concerned that this option conflicts with spatial 

objective SO1 to concentrate the majority of new development in the most sustainable locations that have good 

access to services, facilities and public transport. 

Key issues with implications for Derbyshire are- 

*The proposed Development Strategy 

*Scale and location of new development; 

* East Midlands Airport 

Development Strategy – Considers that the four broad options for Strategic Growth are in accordance with the 

(Draft) Regional Plan. 

Away from Colville and the rural towns development is proposed to be restricted to sustainable villages. In terms 

of development adjacent to Albert village, they point out that Albert village has very few of the necessary services 

capable of meeting the day to day needs of local residents and businesses. They note the proposal not to include 

Albert Village as a suitable location for new housing development and to keep this matter under review which is

930 Mrs Carol 

Hart 

931 Karen and 

Steve 

Yates 

932 Tom & 

Zena 

Chambers 

933 Clare 

Horne 

934 Mrs Sharon 

Smith 

935 Mrs G 

Horne 

supported. 

Meeting regional and Sub-Regional Economic needs- At present the Regional Plan does not include any specific 

requirements for regionally significant employment development in any district, with Policy 21 which highlights 

broad locations (including Leicestershire). They point out that there is not a requirements that potential site(s) be 

identified in each of the areas of search listed but that sites are brought forward through partnership working 

between public and private sector agencies. In bringing forward any specific proposals through the LDF, more 

detailed guidance and evidence is needed to help identify specific needs to justify the release of any particular 

site. A comparative study is required of the various potential regional strategic distribution locations already 

identified in order to provide to context for LDF preparation. EMDA is considering the potential for such a study 

and it may be prudent for NWLDC to await its outcome. 

Transport – Refers to the two options being consulted on re the Airport and considers that Option 1 does not 

conform with Policy 55 of the Draft Regional Plan and as such Option 2 is considered more realistic. 







Formatted: Font: 10 pt 

936 A Cook Object Refer to Representation 879

937 John 

Hammonds 


938 Alan Dolan Object Refer to Representation 879 

939 G Smith Object Refer to Representation 879 

940 Richard 

Williams 


941 B Williams Object Refer to Representation 879 

942 Dan Hall Object Refer to Representation 879 

943 S J Turman Object Refer to Representation 879 

944 Ian 

Horrobin 

945 Michelle 

Leeson 



946 J Waldram Object Refer to Representation 879 

947 S Kellett Object Refer to Representation 879 

948 M 

Brackenbur 

y 


949 L Waritt Object Refer to Representation 879 

950 Unable to 

read 


951 Russell 

Carrington 


952 Jake Green Object Refer to Representation 879 

953 John 

Green 

954 E A G 

Maxwell 

955 Mr R 

Collier 

956 E 

Woodward 

957 Mrs C 

Collier 

958 Andy 

Cooper 

959 Simon 

Chadwick 

960 Kate 

O'Conner 

961 Matthew 

Walton 










962 J Page Object Refer to Representation 879

963 D A King 

and P A 

Clarke 

964 Jane 

Hodgman, 

Chair of 

Governors, 

Thringston 

e Primary 

School 

965 K Goode 

966 Patricia 

Allen 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 15 

It appears that a section of land in Hugglescote has been highlighted as a potential development site. We would 

wish to retain our land for our own personal benefits. 

Question 15 

Are aware of the plans that identify Thringstone Primary Schools and the schools playing fields as potential 

building land. The school is rated by Ofsted as a good school with outstanding features with potential to 

become excellent. Children are ranked as some of the most deprived in the County and the school is making a 

difference. Would have hoped that the Council would have been proud of this fact and would have sought to 

preserve the schools. 

Whilst plans for infrastructure to support the proposed housing would come later, it would seem ridiculous to 

destroy such a successful school. The community will fight to preserve this school. 

Questions 10, 15 and 35 

Object to the proposed building of new homes, loss of green wedge and traveller sites in the Coalville area. 

Coalville will loose its make up of individual villages and become similar in character of what has happened to 

Birmingham over the years. Development should not happen on the Green belt/wedge and would question 

where the consultation is regarding this issue. The green belt has become part of the national and local planning 

environment and if Council are planning to build on it, this should form part of a separate consultation. 

Question 15 

Extremely worried about the housing plans for the Coalville area. Do not understand why Coalville has to take an 

allocation of 9,800 houses when it should be more widely split amongst neighbouring villages. Support the option 

of 5,000 houses for Coalville. Do not support the proposal to develop 250 new houses and land at Greenhill 

Farm. It would adversely impact on the surrounding green wedge and natural habitat, and cause traffic chaos on 

already extremely dangerous roads. The Council should not accept the imposition of another 15,000 new houses 

should the proposed Pennbury development be shifted our way. 

Question 35 

Do not support the provision of gypsy and traveller sites. 

967 C Atkinson Object Refer to Representation 879

968 Mrs M 

Aldridge 

969 John and 

Ann 

Jacobs 



970 J Atkinson Object Refer to Representation 879 

971 F Atkinson Object Refer to Representation 879 

972 V Atkinson Object Refer to Representation 879 

973 Patricia 

Allen (2nd 

Rep #966) 

974 Roger 

Allen 

975 Jean 

Marsden 

976 Christine 

Peatling 

977 David 

Peatling 

978 Anthony 

Marsden 







979 Jane Kim 

Davies 

Object 

Question 24 

Object to possible building on land at Leicester Road Ibstock This is a land fill site. How can planning permission 

be passed on contaminated land? The land is not safe, there are pipes in and around the land that are letting off

some sort of gas. 

980 David 

Lowe 

981 Elizabeth 

White 

982 Gareth 

Gamble 

983 Stephen 

Gamble 

984 Cheryl L 

Gamble 

985 Mrs L M 

Kenny 

986 Mr R A 

Kenny 








987 Rod Stacey Object Refer to Representation 879 

988 Robert 

Parkes 


989 J E Trotter Object Refer to Representation 879 

990 Christine 

Stacey 

991 Mrs 

Margaret 



Kent 

992 Mr W J 

Kent 


993 C R Little Object Refer to Representation 879 

994 V A Little Object Refer to Representation 879 

995 Katie 

Ratcliffe 

996 Christopher 

Reeves 




Simpson 

Object 

Questions 23 and 24 

Strongly object to the proposed development on North and South of Ashby Road and Station Road. Appreciate 

there is a need for new housing but am extremely concerned about the intention to develop green belt and 

causing undesirable urban sprawl. There must be brown field sites available rather than building on the beautiful 

countryside which is now only recovering from coal mining. Particularly concerned about development in Ibstock, 

a village mentioned in the Domesday Book, and the impact on its community. 

Development on land to the north of Ashby Road would result in the loss of a valuable football/playing field. Loss 

of view and openness from own property. Development near the Sence Valley Park would be damaging to the 

natural local environment, countryside and wildlife. Value of existing property will be affected as would the quality 

of resident’s lives. There will be considerably more traffic, with far more noise and adverse impact on pedestrian 

and driver safety. 

There are no proposals to increase local resources. Schools and doctors surgery are up to capacity and will be 

unable to cope with any increase in population. Facilities would be extremely overstretched. 

The village of Ibstock wants to keep its own identity as do all surrounding villages. To link up Ibstock, Heather, 

Ravenstone, Ellistown, Hugglescote, and Coalville with new housing is not what people want. Ibstock does not 

want to be a suburb of Coalville which will happen if developers continue to encroach on the green wedge.

998 Mrs 

Melanie 

Goode 

999 Graham 

Findell 

1000 Ian 

Strickley 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 10, 15 and 35 

Object to the proposed building of new homes, loss of green wedge and traveller sites in the Coalville area. 

Coalville will loose its make up of individual villages and become similar in character of what has happened to 

Birmingham over the years. Development should not happen on the Green belt/wedge. 

Question 15 

Object to proposed development of houses in Coalville South East. Have been a resident of Bardon Road since 

1988 and quality of life has been greatly affected by a number of issues. Traffic is a major concern, with heavy 

vehicles using Bardon Road. Grass verges are churned up into mud baths or used as car parking areas. Toxic 

gasses blight air quality. Suffer constant noise and light pollution. Appreciate that there is a need for future 

development but would prefer development to be on a smaller scale due to other concerns i.e. stretched services 

and sewerage/flooding problems. If development is given the go ahead it must incorporate a road by-pass to join 

up Stephensons Way to the Birch Tree roundabout. Also like to see any development built entirely on the south 

side of the railway and not include any houses between existing Bardon Road houses and the railway. This strip 

of land is one of the few left for walking pets etc and should be made into a wooded area for people to enjoy. 

Bardon Road should be designated with a weight restriction and traffic calming measures. 

Question 15 

Request that the Greenhill Farm area is removed from the options in the Local Development Plan. This area of 

land forms an important barrier between Coalville and the countryside. It is clear that the majority of development 

is going to occur within Coalville. It was explained at the public meeting that any new housing had to meet a 

number of conditions. It must be sustainable, provide an opportunity for Coalville to grow and regenerate the 

town centre, and for a strong emphasis on the increase of non-car journeys and to ensure that new houses were 

close to amenities and reduce carbon dioxide. Greenhill Farm would not fit into any of these categories. Its 

location is as far away as you can get from the centre of Coalville compared to any other area being considered. 

It is halfway up a very steep hill and cycling would not be a feasible option. Building on land classed as 

Charnwood Forest would result in an adverse impact on the environment and loss of wildlife. This area of fields 

also suffers from surface water and a resident also built a lagoon for the single purpose of trying to relieve the 

area of some of this water.

issue 3 - North West Leicestershire District Council

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?