TABLE 1 - Core Strategy Summary - North West Leicestershire ...

Represen 

tation ID 

Name of 

responden 

t/organisat 

ion 

Support/ 

Object 

Summary of response 

1 NFU Refers to paragraph 22.3 and points out that requiring new development to be accessible to public transport may 

be acceptable for large proposals but not for farm diversifications which may well not be on bus routes. Putting all 

of the development in the towns does not mean that people will get out of their cars or travel in them less. 

Issue 18 – Renewable energy – would welcome a policy that encouraged on farm renewables such as wind, 

solar, anaerobic digestion, biomass and biofuel production. 

Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure. Most land required for GI projects is owned or occupied by farmers and 

questions what approach the council will make to secure their cooperation. 

2 John R 

Barnett 

Question 3 

Do not agree that Swannington is unsuitable as some sites are near services including convenience stores, and 

these are actually closer to these facilities than many of the existing houses in Coalville. 

Question 7 

There is a lack of housing due to the economic downturn and this is likely to continue for a while. Suggests that 

applicants are asked to resubmit applications that have been refused in locations such as near villages or in the 

Green Wedge, so that they can now be considered favourably. Considers that there is potential Swannington 

including land located in the Green Wedge which has potential for inexpensive housing. 

3 Mr W and 

Mrs Y 

Williams 

4 Levi 

Bourne & 

Barbara 

Webster 

5 Chris 

Worman 

Object 

Object 

Question 15 

Possible residential development adjacent to the proposed site at Greenhill Farm has an inadequate drainage 

system, including inadequate gullies, surface water run off and flooding to properties. This needs to be taken into 

account. 

Question 15 

Object to the possible development at Greenhill Farm as it is within the Charnwood National forest area and 

would result in the loss of woodlands, farm and agricultural land. Other problems will include drainage and 

surface water problems, traffic congestion, increase in buses and heavy good vehicles, overdevelopment and 

development solely monetary gain. 

Question 14 and 15 

Acknowledge need for some housing growth. Object to a number of identified sites in the Coalville area.

6 Jonathan 

O’Farrell 

7 Hayley 

Essen 

Support 

Object 

Object 

Housing allocation should be distributed across district in smaller village development with less impact on the 

area. There should be no development around Coalville without the opening of the Ivanhoe railway line. 

North of Stephenson Way – no comment. 

Land Adjoining Donington Le Heath – acceptable. 

Land South West of Coalville – agree with principle of linking up Ravenstone but keep Green Wedge between 

Coalville and Ravenstone/Snibston. However do object to cart blanch approach to housing and development of 

this site will have traffic problems. 

Land South East of Coalville – area is too large, land off Grange Rd is mined and moves, traffic congestion loss 

of 2 distinct communities at Ellistown and Hugglescote, land would be an ideal area for a Country Park/urban 

forest. Area for development should be restricted to land to rear of Forest Road. 

Question 23 

Option 1 is preferable. Ibstock may be able to accommodate 100-200 houses. This would help the local 

economy and a school would be viable. However Ibstock cannot accommodate 1000+ dwellings. Option 1 allows 

for a reasonable planned settlement to be served by existing infrastructure in and around Coalville – existing and 

potential bus/rail corridors. 

Question 24 

Ravenstone Rd/Leicester Rd – site is too big and far away from village core, children go to Woodstone, 

prominent building, close to former mining works and active pig farm. 

North of Ashby Rd – fly tipping, disturbance to Sence Valley Park, loss of site for potential turbine installation, 

traffic generation. 

South of Ashby Road – traffic generation towards M1. 

Station Road – traffic generation towards M1. Impinge on allotment land. 

Pretoria Road – local roads will not be able to support extra traffic. Impinge on allotments. 

Leicester Road – nearer village commercial core, less traffic generation, Brownfield but may impinge on informal 

recreation. 

Question 17 

Object to the sites identified in Ashby. Major loss of open countryside and green belt. Brownfield sites elsewhere 

in the district should be utilised first. Adversely impact on Ashby’s status as conservation area and historic

8 Mark 

Gower 

9 Leicester 

City 

Council 

10 No name 

provided 

11 Roger 

Allen 

Object 

Object 

market town. Ashby does not have the facilities to support any more housing including inadequate school 

places, car parking facilities, doctors and doctors are at capacity, poor public transport and traffic congestion and 

safety concerns. Limited and poor leisure facilities i.e. football field, and no community centre. 

Question 15 

Object to the development of land at Greenhill Farm. Loss of and impact on National Forest. Flooding occurs 

from site onto adjacent residential area. Additional number of vehicles, traffic congestion and highway safety. 

Utility services, schools and shops would not be able to cope with extra houses. 

No specific comments to make on the strategy at this stage. 

Building on Green Wedges will go against the Council’s key mission statement of “ North West Leicestershire will 

be a place where people and businesses feel they belong and are proud to call home”. Such a proposal would 

result in the loss of countryside. 

Question 15 

Object to the development of land at Greenhill Farm. Access and highway safety concerns. Impact on wildlife. 

Infrastructure and service requirements needed. Site is susceptible to flooding. Too many houses. 

12 T Finney Object Oppose all of the proposed strategy. 

There are not enough jobs to warrant over 10,000 houses. Why build more when we have thousands of empty 

properties? The Green Belt around the forest would always be protected. This has now changed to Green 

Wedge. Building won’t stop at Greenhill Farm. 

Question 35 

Do not agree with the inclusion of Traveller sites within future housing developments. 

13 Professor 

D.T.Hope 

and Mrs 

Alexandra 

Hope 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to possible site for Strategic Distribution at Junction 24 of M1 as already suffer from noise from the airport, 

including night time flying. Development of this site will lead to an increase in airport traffic, both from aviation 

and lorries; increase in pollution and air quality issues and exacerbate traffic problems. Object to the loss of a 

Greenfield site, and query the need for such a use during the current economic recession and decline.

14 Richard 

Simmons 

15 Nigel 

Lindsay- 

Smith 

16 Greg Booth 

17 Ms Ann 

Stokes 

18 Mr K A 

Payne 

19 Michele 

Walker 

20 J K Adams 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Question the need for this type of development particularly when there is an existing distribution centre at Castle 

Donington. Availability of land is not reason alone to develop a site. Development of site would result in 

significant traffic congestion problems; loss of prime farming land, increasing food miles and ability to meet 

demands for food; increase in hardstanding and impact on water run off there is a need for this type of 

development, it should be on Brownfield land. 

Question 15 

Object to the development of land at Greenhill Farm on the grounds of traffic congestion and highway safety; 

part of the National Forest And loss of environment and wildlife. Brownfield sites would be more appropriate. 

Question 40 

There is already significant development around Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington. Current proposal 

is a step too far with adverse impacts such as loss of local amenity (open space and wildlife), noise, light 

pollution, flooding and rail links. 

Question 40 

Object to the proposed Strategic Distribution Centre to the south of Lockington. Unacceptable increase in the 

number of traffic movements and congestion. Road through Hemington cannot cope with this amount of traffic. 

Question 40 

Distribution Centre would be good in that it would provide local jobs and positive for the environment through the 

use of the rail network. In order for this project to be more economical, the Distribution Centre should be linked 

to the Burton Leicester railway in the Ashby area instead of crossing over the M1. 

Question 15 

Site at Greenhill Farm is unsuitable for residential development and would result in loss of environment and 

impact on adjacent forest. Lack of road capacity and insufficient level of services i.e. schools, doctors. Flooding 

problems would be exacerbated and there would be an adverse impact on residential amenity. 

Question 7 

An increase in 10,000 new homes in Coalville would be unmanageable. Road structure is inadequate and grid 

locked already. Also question how the road network could handle emergencies if this number of houses were 

built. A rail link is needed and shopping facilities are under par with retail leakage to other centres.

21 Susan and 

Philip 

Salaun 

22 Toni 

Harrington 

23 Claire 

Higgins 

24 Sport 

England 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Issue 7 

How can the Council support the provision of gypsy sites? Planning permission has recently been refused for a 

traveller site off Bardon Road. Aware of the potential issues caused by unauthorised encampments and 

concerned about devaluation of property. 

Question 40 

Strategic Distribution Centre to the south of Lockington would result in an increase in noise and atmospheric 

pollution; increase in traffic; detriment to environment and local recreational opportunities. Loss of Greenfield site 

and loss of public access. This area has already suffered significant environment impacts from roads, industrial 

development, airport, racetrack and housing development. 

Question 40 

Object to the proposal for a huge distribution centre in Lockington. Must be far more suitable locations for 

development. Appreciate that this is a consultation at present but do not underestimate the feeling of local 

people. 

Question 40 

Object to the proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington/Hemington. Loss of green belt land, with access, 

and used for leisure and recreation. Development will take up part of an area developed for conservation in 

conjunction with East Midlands Airport. Increase in traffic congestion. Negative impact on Sky Lark. Suggest 

that the existing distribution site at Castle Donington is extended. 

The Sport England website includes policies for inclusion in core strategies as well as guidance on the issues 

raised below. It is noted that the District has an up to date Open Space Audit and this should ensure that the 

Core Strategy is sound in its regard to PPG17. 

Support Spatial Objective So13 but would suggest that Sport and Active recreation are added to Spatial Objective 

SO2. 

Issue 8: The Housing Strategy should make reference that provision of sport and active recreation within housing 

schemes would be supported. 

Issue 9 and 11: It is significant that sport has been identified as playing an important role in contributing to 

sustainable communities, reducing the need to travel and benefiting access by disabled groups. Sport and active 

recreation are also important contributors to national, regional and economic health. Can lead to regeneration by

engaging communities in area improvements, create employment and provide training opportunities. 

Issue 13: Important to recognise that those working in and visiting town centres will generate demand for sport 

and recreation activities. The peak times of the use of facilities should be fully considered and appropriate 

policies are included in the Core Strategy and Area Action Plans. Facilities close to town centres can provide 

additional attractions that can support the viability of centres. 

Issue 17: Other development can be required to contribute to the provision of sport and recreational faculties’ and 

this should be reflected in CIL policies. 

Policies should include an emphasis on designing quality places which include public places and the promotion of 

walking and cycling. A Sport England document ‘Active Design’ provides advice and guidance on this. 

25 Moira 

Furnace 

Trustees 

26 Elaine P 

Hall 

27 Charles 

Bishop 

Object 

Object 

Specific consideration should be given to the Moira Furnace site and its potential for future development as a 

tourist attraction. It is viewed an important feature alongside the development of the National Forest and Ashby 

Canal and is the only scheduled ancient monument of its kind in Europe. 

Question 40 

Object to the proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. A further enlargement of airport facilities. Loss of 

countryside and agricultural land. Do not need any more distribution centres. Increase in traffic. Pollution. 

Question 40 

Not against enterprise in general, welcome business initiatives but also need to consider the local environmental 

impacts as well as benefits. Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington due to its scale, noise and 

proximity to housing. Proposal would not result in less traffic on the roads nor are potential leisure facilities 

relevant. 

28 HSE Have no comments 

29 Swift Valley 

Partnership 

Support and recommend the inclusion of Money Hill as a residential development site for the plan period 

proposed under the LDF. The Iceni Projects (July 2007) clearly sets out the hierarchical importance of this site 

over other sites in the district. It would have benefits for the economy and environment of Ashby and the district. 

30 James 

McKay 

Question 7 

Kegworth is short of recreation space including organised sport pitches. Land that floods would be preferable as 

a cricket pitch rather than housing. Land between the village and river could provide additional recreational land

and also provide opportunities for water based recreational activities. 

Object 

Question 26 

The site to the north of Station Rd is affected by flooding so must be ruled out. The other sites are located close 

to the motorway/flight path therefore question the potential quality of living. Major concern is the impact of the 

number of houses on services and roads. Need a number of road improvements including village bypass and 

duelling of A453. 

31 Mrs M A 

Finch 

32 Mrs M A 

Finch 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Both of the areas identified near Kegworth will bring increased traffic congestion and volume, pollution and affect 

quality of life. Reduction of agricultural land and woodland and will bring town and villages closer to the airport. 

Loss of open character and green space and also loss of the character of Lockington. 

Question 50 

The biggest problem that affects quality of village life in Kegworth is the amount of road traffic. If traffic could be 

reduced there then maybe opportunities for improvement such as at Market Place. 

Question 24 

Object to proposed development at the allotments on Station Road, Ibstock. 

Question 24 

Object to proposed development of the football grounds at land north of Ashby Road, Ibstock. Loss of facility that 

is used by many young people. Hope David Wilson continue support of the clubhouse and car park and the 

football club must not be moved. 

33 CgMs Act on behalf of Royal Bank of Scotland in relation to their computer centre site at Kegworth. 

Issue 3 

Support a focus of development in Coalville. Also preferable for the Rural Towns to accommodate a reasonable 

increase of new dwellings. These settlements are of a sustainable size and it would be sensible to spread the 

burden of development amongst a number of centres and maintain local facilities. 

Option 1 and 2 do not take account of the potential offered by Kegworth and represents only a small increase in 

the dwelling stock. There is potential to increase the number of dwellings using sites within the existing built up

34 Mr J F and 

A Evans 

35 Ian 

Strickley 

Object 

area. Option 4 with a figure of 400 dwellings is sensible and achievable. 

Issue 5 

Strategic sites should be identified in the Core Strategy. This will speed up delivery of new housing. Suggested 

threshold of 100 dwellings is too low and would result in too many and too wide a range of such sites. Suggest 

that the threshold be 500 dwellings. 

If Options 1 or 2 are followed and the Slack and Parr site comes forward, no additional housing will be required. 

However no progress has been made on the s106 agreement for over a year. 

Note that of the five sites identified, our client’s site is the most favoured. Comments are made of the 

disadvantages of the site, identified by the Council:- 

Land to the rear of the Computer Centre can be developed independently of the Computer Centre itself. It could 

generate 80 dwellings (30dph) with no loss of employment. A planning application is being prepared for this 

proposal. 

Consultants reports state that the development can have an adequate level of protection against noise, it is not 

within am Air Quality Management area and that the widening of the motorway will not materially affect air quality 

at the site. Noise and air quality toll improve upon opening of the proposed Kegworth bypass. 

Scheme will incorporate amenity space and play areas and improved pedestrian and cycle connectivity through 

the site. Would also contribute to community facilities through the normal s106 process. 

Site is in the defined built up area. Disadvantages of the other sites include location within flood zone 3, poor 

relationship with town and existing housing, proximity to motorway and oddly shaped. 

Comments submitted with reference to the Housing Allocation Site (H4g) within the Local Plan, to the north of 

Grange Road. Suggest that housing would be appropriate for this site and for industrial development to be 

located to the south of Beveridge Plane. There are options to provide good road access and would hope that 

provisions are put in place for the A511 to be made a dual carriageway. If a number of parties work together 

there is the opportunity for the comprehensive development of three sites to be secured. 

Question 15 

Site at Greenhill Farm is unsuitable. Loss of countryside, wildlife, visual amenity and residential amenity. 

Problems with surface water. Cars from the development will generate pollution and put strain on road

36 A 

Thompson 

Object 

infrastructure. Noise and eyesore. Set a precedent for future development. Schools are overcrowded. Design 

and size of development is unacceptable. 

Question 17 

No advantages to Ashby by building extra houses. Current financial crisis leaves people unable to buy and 

properties are empty. Infrastructure will need to be expanded and who will pay? New residents do not shop in 

the local towns. 

37 Equality 

and Human 

Rights 

Commissio 

n 

38 Mr & Mrs J 

W Steven 

No comments 

Object Question 23 

New houses are not necessary – there are currently plenty of homes for sale in the village of Ibstock. Local 

surgery, dentist and High Street car parks will not be able to cope with additional numbers. Will the new homes 

be Council houses or will they be for gypsy travellers? Council should concentrate on bringing back the district’s 

1300 empty properties into use. 

39 Mr M J 

Allsop and 

Mrs F M 

Allsop 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 7 

Given the change in economic circumstances the unelected Regional Assembly should revisit their plans and 

elected local authorities should have a greater say. 3 million homes is a rounded figure and why is the Regional 

Assembly not proposing a range of scenarios? Housing figures are based on assumption that net immigration 

will continue indefinitely although there is evidence to show the opposite. Due to economic situation there is 

limited scope for public or private housing investment and should utilise empty homes in the district. 

Question 14 

9,800 houses in Coalville are excessive. Unacceptable traffic consequences and there is no railway station or 

prospect of getting one. Where will these new residents work? Will Coalville become a dormitory town making 

use of its proximity to the motorway network? Each of the major settlements should bear a reasonable and 

proportionate share of the housing. Framework should allow the Local Authority flexibility to respond to changing 

circumstances. 

Question 15 

Greenhill Farm is not suitable for development as it is on edge of Charnwood Forest; outside the built up area of

Coalville and with land topography with potential for water run off. Proposal is for high density of development. 

Social housing is inappropriate given the high amount of social housing in the Greenhill ward. Excessive 

distance from shops and lack of public transport will make it a dormitory estate. Add little to regeneration of 

Coalville. Object to possible inclusion of gypsies and travellers. 

Development of this site will fail to meet Objective SO1 on grounds of sustainability and Objective SO5 in terms 

of the potential impact on the National Forest. 

40 Mr C T and 

Mrs N J 

Walsh 

41 Long 

Whatton 

and 

Diseworth 

Parish 

Council 

Object 

Object 

Question 34 

Issue of affordability has worsened due to irresponsible bank lending and that houses are seen as investments. 

This undermines the assumption that 30%-40% of new housing needs to be affordable/social. House building 

should be market led and social housing provision should respond to local demand and not national dictat. 

Would be better to use public money to buy sub-standard housing and bring it up to standard for tenants. 

Question 18 

Object to site at South of Ashby. Measham Road area is classed as an area of Outstanding Residential 

Character. Trees along Measham Road are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Highway safety and traffic 

congestion would result on this road. Development here would also overload roads, schools, social and medical 

services. Increase levels of out commuting along the A42 and Ashby would change from a small market town to 

an urban commuter town. 

Leicester Road site has an access road in place leading to land that could be developed. 

Money Hill and Nottingham Road sites have access roads in place and residents bought houses anticipating that 

further development would occur. 

Question 38 

The favoured housing strategy is supported. 

Question 40 

The preferred option for Strategic Distribution uses is the third option (North of Sawley Crossroads) as it would 

have the least potential impact on nearby settlements 

Question 46 

Option 2 is favoured in relation to East Midlands Airport 

Question 53

The Parish Council shares the particular concerns about the need to improve the road network in the vicinity of 

East Midlands Airport/Donington Park 

42 Michael 

Specht 

Representation is made with respect to land at Loughborough Road, Coleorton. The main issue appears to focus 

around the site sustainability. Coleorton is a widely spread village with its own character with a mix of housing 

types. Work on the Parish Plan has highlighted a number of concerns, including loss of the Post Office and store. 

Other village facilities include school, bus service, doctor, pharmacy, local community hall, chirch, petrol station 

and 3 public houses. Therefore it may well be considered that the village could be considered to be a sustainable 

location. New housing stock could also support existing facilities. 

43 EMRA Vision and objectives – issues to consider are health, cultural heritage, addressing social inequalities, urban 

regeneration and sustainable patterns of development. Acknowledged that these matters are included in the list 

of objectives, but the objectives do not specifically refer to the contribution of the location, design and 

construction of new development to reducing the impact of climate change. 

Issue 3a, 3b (Development Strategy) – refers to RSS policies re location of development and housing numbers. 

In terms of provision beyond 2026 they refer to the partial review of the RSS and governments new household 

projections in 2009 which along with advice on Regional Housing provision from NHPAU and analysis of the fist 

round of SHMAs will inform the basis of assessing likely future requirement for housing. 

Issue 4 (Green Sedge) – does not seem to be an option to allow some development whilst retaining part of the 

existing Green Wedge designation. 

Issue 5 – (areas or sites to be identified for development) – refer to general principles in the RSS (Regional Core 

Objectives and Promoting Better Design) which also apply to preferred locations for Strategic Employment Sites 

but do not comment on specific sites. 

Issue 6 – Affordable Housing – Refers to the very high figure needed as par the 2005 Housing needs Survey and 

emerging SHMA which is significantly higher that the Regional policy requirement. Consideration should be given 

of whether a higher figure in the district is needed subject to this not impacting on the viability of development 

sites. 

Paragraph 3.3.13 of Draft RSS provides a useful checklist of mechanisms to secure affordable housing provision 

in rural areas and Policy 15 sets out priorities for affordable rural housing. 

Issue 7 – (G & T) – Refers to additional pitch requirements and that these must be translated into specific site 

allocations in one of the DPDs. The Core Strategy should set out locational criteria which will be used to meet 

unexpected demand. In terms of the favoured approach of providing sites and part of strategic housing sites there 

is doubt over whether this approach will meet the need for immediate progress in site identification as referred in 

the East Midlands Regional housing Strategy (2008 – 2016) November 2008 

Issues 9 – 12 – Economy – Refers to Policy 21 re Strategic Distribution but points out that it not clear whether the

equirement to bring sites forward through partnership working has been met with the three sites identified. 

Re EMA and Donington Park, potential development should be restricted to the airport and motor racing related 

activities respectively as Policy 12 Draft RSS refers to focus other commercial development associated with EMA 

in surrounding urban areas. 

In terms of other local employment related development Coalville as a Sub regional Centre will serve a wide 

catchment and its vitality and viability should be protected, including its role in accommodating science based 

high technology industries. 

Issue 13 – 14 (Town Centres) – In the absence of a clear hierarchy, the distribution of additional retail floorspace 

should be in line with Policy 3 (Draft RSS) with the potential for Colville as an SRC to retain a higher proportion of 

local income and to reduce pressure on the strategic transport infrastructure. 

Issue 15 – Transport – refer to RSS policy and focus on behavioural change is welcome 

Issue 16 – Design – refers to Policy 2 Draft RSS and as well as bfl reference should be made to BREEAM 

standards including Code for Sustainable Homes. 

Issue 17 – Infrastructure – in connection with the CIL Hinckley and Bosworth’s submission Core Strategy is 

referred to as making reference to the County Infrastructure Plan and a summary of the main infrastructure 

required in the District. 

Issue 18 – Climate Change – Although opportunities for large scale wind may be limited there are opportunities 

for CHP, micro generation and smaller scale wind as business park level, contributing to Carbon neutral 

developments. There may also be opportunities for generating energy from waste through different techniques. 

Also refer to Policy 2 RSS. 

Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure – Consideration should also be given to the creation of new assets to link with 

river corridors, waterways, woodlands, nature reserves, urban greenspaces, historic sites and other existing 

assets. 

44 Neil Hagley There are a number of Faith Groups in the district and the Core Strategy should recognise that periodically there 

is a need to build, redevelop, convert or refurbish places of worship. The Core Strategy should recognise the 

needs and resource limitation of faith groups, and identify suitable zones and locations for places of worship. 

45 Mrs Emma 

Carter 

46 Leicestersh 

ire County 

Council 

Object 

Question 15 

Object to the proposals to build a substantial number of new homes within Ravenstone, particularly at South 

West Coalville. 

1. Vision 

Core Strategy is based on the Vision for the NW Leics SCS and generally aligns well with the Leics Sustainable 

Community Strategy. 

However whilst the sustainability triangle is supported as a general sustainability principle the application of this

to the geography of the district would lead to an unsustainable pattern of development particularly the rigid 

separation of housing in Coalville from new employment in the north. 

2. Objectives – support favoured objectives 

3. Settlement Hierarchy – Support favoured approach but points out that a one size fits all solution would not be 

appropriate. 

4. No 

5. Housing Provision 

Do not support the figure of 9,600 as a minimum provision as this is an overprovision in relation to the draft 

Regional Plan (Now adopted). It is extremely important that proper account is taken of the medium and long term 

effects of the recession on the demand and requirement for housing. They have made representations that the 

review of housing provision in the regional Plan should not go ahead until it can be informed by adequate 

evidence which takes into account the very substantial changes in economic and housing market conditions. The 

Core Strategy should therefore allocate an amount of housing that is consistent with the draft Regional Plan. 

6. Rather than an overprovision of housing within the plan period flexibility should be provided beyond the plan 

period. 

7. The Coalville focus option is supported for the reasons set out in paragraph 8.29 of the document. 

Any SUEs should contain provision for dealing with the waste arising within them which is worth reflecting in the 

Core Strategy which would accord with PPS10. the Regional Waste Strategy for the East midlands states that 

consideration should be given to ‘Sustainable Growth Parks’ which can lead to a coordinated approach to waste 

management preferably in conjunction with other forms of development. 

8. Favoured Development Strategy. 

Support the focus on Coalville for housing but considers that provision should be made for employment to be colocated 

to cater for new residents. 

Re Ashby the favoured option should be for a smaller amount of housing due to the towns constrained road 

system and it’s a dormitory settlement for the West midlands. Also concern re impact of excessive development 

on the Giliwiskaw Brook/ River Mease SAC, and exacerbate flooding downstream at Packington. An AA should 

therefore be undertaken. 

9. Yes. Since services could close/ change for commercial reasons it is appropriate that a settlements place 

within a hierarchy should be subject to regular review and the amount of housing allocated should be adjusted 

accordingly. 

10. Green Wedge. 

The statement that large parts of the Green Wedge are of ‘little public amenity value’ is unjustifiably pessimistic 

as it is largely the result of current land management practices which have the potential to be changed. 

If development does take place between Whitwick, Agar Nook and Coalville there would be significant 

requirements for Green Infrastructure which should both reinforce the links between the Urban area and the 

southern margins of Charnwood Forest and offer local, readily accessible multi functional GI. The latter would

help to relive the potential increased pressures the new housing might otherwise bring to the southern margins of 

Charnwood Forest (e.g. the Charnwood Lodge SSSI) 

11. Public Access to the Green Wedge. The Stepping Stones Project provides an example of good practice and 

its publication ‘ Creating a Green and Prosperous Future: a green infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Stepping 

Stones’ can be regarded as a robust evidence base for any Green Wedge Review. 

12. Identifying Specific Sites – Agree with the approach which is consistent with advice and the approach in other 

districts. 

13. Definition of Strategic Site – Consider the threshold of 100 dwellings is too small resulting the Core Strategy 

losing its Strategic Focus. 

14. Option 1 is supported for Coalville as its consistent with the Coalville Focus option. 

15. Refers to their SHLAA response in January 2008. Further assessments would be required (e.g. Transport and 

Archaeology) 

16. No Comment. 

17. See Q9 and 15 

18. See Q9 and 15 

19. No comment 

20. See Q15 

21. See Q15 


23. See Q15 

24. See Q15. 


26. See Q15 

27. See Q15 


29. See Q15 

30. See Q15 


32 – Expanding Coalville. 

Any further growth over and above that proposed as part of Option 1 should be considered within the context of 

the partial review of the Regional Plan, which will explore alternatives for housing growth across the HMA. 

33. See Q15. 

34. Provision of affordable housing should reflect the findings of the recently completed SHMA. 

35. G & T – Specific mention is needed in the Core Strategy of the urgent need to address the issue of G & T 

site accommodation paying attention to the outcomes of the Needs Assessment process and the Black and 

Minority Ethnic Housing Strategy recommendation (Particularly the recommendation for immediate action) but

also extending accommodation facilities and options to G & Ts to reflect unanticipated future mitigation 

processes. Attention should be given to community cohesion, monitoring and setting in place mechanisms to 

address tensions. Is it necessary for the Core Strategy to mention the need for socially rented pitches? 



38. Support housing strategy subject to reservations set out earlier. 

39. Proposed SFRI is in accordance with the Regional Plan and the recommendations of a recent employment 

land study (50HA of rail linked strategic warehousing in NW Leics), and is therefore supported. 

40. The site north of EMA appears the most appropriate provided proper provision is made for rail connection and 

non car access is integrated with the airport. 


42. The Policy for an Economic Activity Zone at Donington Park/ EMA is contrary to the policy of Urban 

Concentration in the regional Plan and the policy of focussing development associated with East midlands Airport 

in surrounding urban areas. Also concerned that the provision of an economic activity zone in this location away 

from the proposed concentration of new homes at Colville would not be the most sustainable location. 

The PACEC Study supports this view (2.3.8 & 2.3.54) 

43. The amount of small business space should accord with local need. 

44. No. See Q42. 

45. Should accord with evidence of local need. 

46. Support approach to EMA but refer to Q42 re the Economic Activity Zone. 

47. No 

48. Yes 

49. Yes 

50. No 

51. No. 

52. No. 

53. Transport- The County Council has commissioned a study into the feasibility of the national Forest Line for 

passenger transport which the Core Strategy will need to take into account. 

54. No 

55. Yes 

56. Aspects such as energy, renewable energy and sustainable construction may be addressed though County 

wide supplementary planning documents. 

57 CIL or S106. 

Proper consideration needs to be given to how services and infrastructure provision for the proposed SUEs and 

to support housing development in rural areas will be resourced. 

A robust policy re developer contributions is required although not necessarily in the Core Strategy which should

47 Ian M Ward 

Object 

cross reference to policies for major development proposals and address major developer contributions. The 

Leics Infrastructure Plan will form an important part of the evidence base for such policies. 

The Core Strategy needs to strengthen its reference to proposed changes to developer contributions and should 

be adaptable to future changes to enable developer contributions to be secured. 

In considering a CIL and joint approach with other Leics authorities would be more efficient and effective. 

58. The open space provision mentioned in 26.5 should refer to accessibility and quality. Additionally NWLeics is 

presenting the topic differently from other districts such as Hinckley and ideally there should be consistency of 

approach. 



61. Any targets should be consistent with or exceed the Code for Sustainable Homes. 

62. Yes. Energy, renewable energy and sustainable construction may be addressed through County wide 

supplementary planning documents. 

63. This lacks substance and should also mention biodiversity and geology. PPS9 requires LDFs to cover SSSIs, 

Local Wildlife Sites, UK Biodiversity Action plan and Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species. 

Important to include biodiversity in Green Infrastructure policies. 

The phase 1 and 2 Habitat Surveys will provide an adequate evidence base for assessing the impact of potential 

development sites on biodiversity and sites should not be selected for development without taking proper account 

of their impact on biodiversity. 

The green infrastructure section and site options appraisal should cover opportunities for enhancements to green 

infrastructure and biodiversity, especially in the context of climate change which is covered in PPS9. 

A Strategic GI Strategy for the area should be available in the summer of 2009 and Paragraph 26.2 should be 

amended to reflect this. 

Paragraph 26.3 should be amended to refer to a ‘possible’ Regional Park and the Trent Valley and Ashby Canal 

(included in Hinckleys Core Strategy) should be included (with the National Forest and Charnwood Forest) as 

strategically significant GI facilities. 


65. Yes and the newly formed Better places Team at the County Council will be able to assist. 

66. By setting the context within which the specific issues in each Priority neighbourhood can be tackled. 

Other comments- Leicestershire’s Community Cohesion Framework can help in terms of engaging with particular 

groups and Planning Aid is important 

Specific attention and focus should be given to issues of faith with regard to the planning process and strategic 

context. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as will result in loss of countryside and agricultural land; 

dwarf area due to its size and prominence; topography will result in drainage water flooding Lockington; rail link

would cut off Lockington from the east and go through a Conservation Area. Increased traffic volumes will 

contribute to air, noise and light pollution. Employment created would result in in-commuting as there is full 

employment for residents in vicinity of airport. The proposed commercial operation is not wealth producing. The 

proposal is unworkable with adverse environmental problems. 

48 Indigo 

Question 3 

Support 

Support the approach to identify Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as the 

focus for development. Development should be permitted which is of a suitable scale for the size of each 

settlement e.g. large scale developments to be directed towards Coalville and Ashby as the largest settlements in 

the district. 

Question 7 

Support the principle of further residential development and growth in the district but do not specifically support 

any of the proposed options. However sufficient community facilities and infrastructure must be provided to serve 

an expanding population, including retail facilities. 

The Council’s retail study identifies a need for further food and non food development in the district. The Core 

Strategy should identify where future retail development is need to support the community, at an appropriate 

scale for the settlement. 

Question 49 

Support 

Indigo supports the Council’s favoured approach to town centres. It identifies that the main provision for retailing 

should be in Coalville. 

49 King 

Sturge LLP 

Act on behalf of Ideal Country Homes in respect of their land interests in Measham. 

Question 1 

Support 

Generally supportive. It could include a driver for the growth of the other rural towns to ensure balanced growth 

in terms of delivering housing and employment. This will assist in delivering improved services in the rural towns. 

Question 2

Support 

However consider that there should be an addition which states that “the housing requirements of the district will 

be met, after brownfield development, on sustainable urban extensions which in the first instance consolidate 

existing development and are supported by sufficient infrastructure and service provision such that they are 

realistically deliverable.” 

Ensure that for later DPDs there is guidance for the pecking order n terms of the sites coming forward. 

Question 3 

Support 

Support inclusion of Measham as a Rural Town suitable to act as a focus for development. 

Support identification of sustainable villages where limited infill will be acceptable. Ensure growth will be 

permitted to support rural economy but development must be of suitable scale. 

Question 4 

Do not consider there to be any options which would be appropriate at this stage. 

Question 5 

9600 should be an absolute minimum with clear indication that RSS housing requirements will significantly rise in 

the future. Core Strategy should be flexible to allow release of additional housing requirements, without the need 

for an early review of this document. 

Question 6 

Concur that the Core Strategy should address potential needs beyond the end of the plan period. Will provide 

certainly for developers and allow flexibility were some of the allocated sites not ultimately delivered. 

Question 7 

All options are consistent with advice contained in the emerging RSS. Option 3 and 4 would provide significant 

dwellings in Coalville without constituting over development. 

Options 1 and 2 would be difficult to deliver in the plan period and also difficult to estimate and support with

service and infrastructure provision. This amount of development is not needed for Coalville to become a 

genuine sub regional centre. These options could also lead to increase Carbon Dioxide emission, rather than a 

reduction. 

An analysis is provided for each of the suggested options. 

Option1 – relies too heavily on Coalville with sever highway/access issues. Unlikely to stimulate regeneration of 

the Rural Towns. Imbalanced economic growth. Loss of facilities and services in Rural Towns. Question 

whether Coalville can deliver such a high number of dwellings. Coalescence of Coalville with surrounding 

villages. Lack of housing delivery in rural areas. 

Option 2 – still lacks a lack of consideration for the four Rural Towns. Would not lead to a balanced spread of 

growth. 

Option 3- best option in terms of sustainability, market viability and with greatest social benefits. Best fits the 

existing spread of population across the settlements. Would not undermine the standing of Coalville as a 

strategic centre. 

Option 4- A more balanced growth and choice for residents. However, given the nominal growth in Ashby this 

could worsen affordability issues in this settlement and Kegworth and Measham would not realise their full 

potential. 

Question 8 

Do not support the favoured approach. Favour Options 3 or 4. 

Question 9 

Do not support the suggested wording due to objections to the favoured approach. 

Question 10 

May lead to coalescence with other settlements and alternatives should be investigated fully. Encourage Option 

3 which minimises the need to release the Green Wedge. 

Green Wedge has historically been seen worthy of protection and do not consider there to have been a material

change in policy to warrant a change. 

Question 11 

Opportunity to negotiate with landowners in order to investigate options for increase usage within the Green 

Wedge areas. Suggest this is undertaken as soon as possible and not as part of the LDF preparation. 

Question 12 

Provided appropriate work has been undertaken and sites are deliverable, consider it is acceptable to identify 

specific strategic sites. Identify sites which have been demonstrated as truly deliverable without negative impacts 

or onerous infrastructure requirements. 

Question 13 

Concur with general parameters of what constitutes a strategic site. 

Question 14 

Support Options 3 and 4. Most appropriate in terms of balancing growth across the District, supporting the 

sustainability of Rural Towns, enabling Coalville to realise its housing requirements, without leading to significant 

infrastructure issues and raising questions over deliverability and over development. 

Question 15 

Land at Green Lane 

Question whether the coalescence of Coalville and Whitwick is appropriate. Loss of agricultural land. Distance 

from town centre raised sustainability and accessibility issues. 

Enterprise House and Ashby Rd 

The 2006 permission has not been implemented leading to questions over viability. The site is adjacent to a 

nature conservation area and may have ecological constraints. 

Buckingham Road

Loss of public open space. Sustainability and accessibility issues and poor highway access. 

Leicester Rd/Standard Hill (South west Coalville) 

Loss of public open space. Sustainability and accessibility issues and question appropriateness of the 

coalescence of Coaville and Ravenstone. 

Berry Hill Lane, Donington le Heath 

Loss of agricultural land. Sustainability and accessibility issues and poor highway access. 

Beveridge Lane/Grange Road, Hugglescote 

Sustainability and accessibility issues. Loss of agricultural land. Reclaimed land. May have ecological 

constraints. Question appropriateness of the coalescence of Coalville and Hugglescote to Ellistown and Bardon. 

Object 

Bardon Grange, Hugglescote 

Railway noise. Query viability. May have ecological constraints. Poor highway access options. 

East of Whitwick 

Woodland (National Forest). SSSI. Site of ecological or geological interest. Area of Particularly Attractive 

Countryside. Landscaping area. Sustainability and accessibility issues. 

Thornborugh Road, Whitwick 

Question appropriateness of coalescence of Coalville and Whitwick. Loss of agricultural land. Sustainability and 

accessibility issues. Loss of sports facility. Flood plain. 

Grange Road Farm, Hugglescote 

Question appropriateness of coalescence of Coalville with Ellistown and Bardon. Loss of agricultural land. 

Sustainability and accessibility issues. Flood plain.

Question 16 

Do not support the favoured option. 

Question 17 

Support development Option 3 as the Preferred Option. Provides a more balanced distribution of housing across 

the district and improve the sustainability criteria of each district. It would avoid the concentration of development 

in one location and remain in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Plan. 

If Option 3 is not pursued, then would consider Option 4 more viable that both Options 1 and 2, as Ashby would 

receive more limited housing allocation avoiding any detrimental impact on the Rover Mease SAC and 

exacerbation of downstream flooding issues. 

Question 18 

Leicester Rd Allocation, Ashby 

Sustainability and access issues and road and rail noise. 

Prior Park Rd, Ashby 

Loss of public open space and sports pitches. Archaeological interest. Poor highway access. 

Money Hill (West), Ashby 

Loss of sport pitches. Lack of access. Detached from any other built development. 

Money Hill/North of A511, Ashby 

Road Noise. Potential conflict with industrial land uses. Loss of established homes. Loss of agricultural land. 

Park Road, Ashby 

Loss of employment land. Potential conflict with industrial land uses. Contaminated land. Flood plain.

South Of Moira Road, Ashby 

Loss of agricultural land. 

Land of Measham Road, Ashby 

Road noise from A42. Loss of agricultural land. Sustainability and accessibility issues. 

Millhouse Farm/Nook Lane, Ashby 

Sustainability and accessibility issues. Road noise from A42. Flood plain. Area of Special Residential character. 

Loss of protected Public Open Space. 

Holywell Spring Farm, Ashby 

Sustainability and accessibility issues. Loss of agricultural land. 

Question 19 

Do not support the favoured development strategy and therefore the question is not applicable. 

Questions 20 -28 

Given the context of our interest in this consultation, have not considered the details of potential allocations at 

Castle Donington, Ibstock or Kegworth. Therefore have not answered Questions 20 to 28. 

Question 29 

Support Option 3 as the Preferred Options with second preference for Option 4. These options provide the 

critical mass to ensure that the Measham Wharf development proposals are viable and sustainable to benefit the 

new community and existing community. Increasing the catchment population will also assist in achieving this 

which will also improve the sustainability credentials and the best mix of uses. 

Question 30 

Support the identification of land between Burton Road and New Street for a development of circa 400 dwellings.

Site is within walking distance of the town centre, contained within the existing development and the A42, relates 

well to the re-introduced canal link. The development will deliver a mix of uses to supplement and support the 

good service provision within the town centre. 

Site to the north of east of Aston Road is not well located to the existing town centre, is removed from services, 

facilities and amenities and there are questions over its deliverability. It also does not sit within the existing 

development. 

The site to the ‘South of Bardon Road’ is distant from the settlement and physically separated by the A42. It 

would represent an incursion into open countryside and be incongruous with existing settlement. 

Question 31 

Do not support the favoured development strategy. 

Question 32 

Expansion of Coalville on the scale envisaged would be overly intensive, and given the infrastructure needed it is 

questionable whether it could be delivered in the timescale. Option 3 or 4 would be a more balanced and 

sustainable approach. 

Questionable whether the number of houses in one location could be delivered at such high numbers and 

whether properties could be sold at such high numbers. 

Extension of Coalville on this scale would subsume Hugglescote and Donington le Heath into Coalville and lead 

to coalescence with Ravenstone and Ellistown. 

Question 33 

A southerly expansion of Coalville would be wholly inappropriate given that there are alternative approaches 

under Options 3 and 4 which would lead to development that would round off other sustainable rural towns and 

provide support for existing infrastructure and services. 

Question 34 

Option 2 would be likely to make any smaller developments unviable. Given the current economic situation it

must be recognised that the ability of residential developments to deliver affordable housing at the levels 

identified in Option 1 may compromise the deliverability of the housing requirements. Suggest a flexible 

approach be adopted to affordable housing which includes an open book approach to viability and finance in 

order that houses targets are not jeopardised and then at least some affordable hosing is provided. 

Questions 38 

In general terms, concur with the objectives of the favoured housing strategy. However regard should be made 

to our comments with respect to the target of 9600 houses, the need for flexibility to avoid an early review and the 

preferred options in term of the location of housing. 

Question 39 

The favoured approach will require further clarification in terms of economic development and the provision of 

employment opportunities. However the balanced approach to housing provision, contained in Options 3 and 4, 

would enabled a balanced approach to employment, enabling mixed use developments in a variety of locations. 

Provides potential to reduce the necessity for out migration and commuting and better balance between housing 

growth and employment opportunities. 


In principle support the favoured approach for strategic distribution uses. Reserve right to comment further if 

more detailed information is available. 

Question 42 

An employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport would be appropriate given the infrastructure 

provision which surrounds this location. In following Option 3 or 4 there is potential to combine this development 

with targeted employment opportunities along with leisure and recreation facilities. 

The release of the 40acre Redfern site at Measham will enable balanced growth. Will create a unique 

environment for new start up businesses alongside residential, office and restaurant and leisure development. 

Also offer opportunities to enhance the National Forest and recreational opportunities. 

Question 43

It is counter productive to set a benchmark in terms of business space associated with new developments and 

this should be considered on a site by site basis, based on what the market will support and recognise the unique 

characteristics of each site that might come forward. 

Question 44 

In general terms are supportive of the favoured economic strategy. However it is inappropriate to set specific 

benchmarks in terms of new mixed use developments. Would welcome discussion on what the Measham Wharf 

proposals may offer and investigate how a strategic allocation of the Redfern Site would further support facilities 

and services which might be delivered in this location. 

Question 45 

Policy should provide a mechanism for investigating the appropriate level of provision as development sites come 

forward and should not be strictly pre-determined. Would provide market with some certainty about types of uses 

which might be appropriate. Flexibility is essential to work with the more challenging circumstances of the current 

economic climate. 

Question 49 

Options 1 and 2 are appropriate in terms of the provision and enhancement of town centres. Note that Option 2 

concentrates revitalisation on the Coalville Town Centre and also appears to be encouragement for revitalising 

and enhancing the vitality and viability of the other town centres. 

Please confirm this is the correct interpretation of Option 2. If it is, this option would not preclude the full and 

proper consideration of the Measham Wharf development and would support its principle. 

Question 50 

The Measham Wharf proposals will offer a unique opportunity to provide retail and leisure uses. Also offers 

opportunity to improve the retail offer of Measham. 

Given that the reinstatement is a strategic proposal, it may be opportune to consider a Core Strategy policy which 

refers to the Measham Wharf development and the uses which might be appropriate in this location as an 

extension to Measham High Street.

Question 51 

Given the strategic objectives sought to be delivered in terms of Coalville, it would appear appropriate to define 

town centre boundaries through the Core Strategy. However would necessitate a proper review of services, 

facilities and catchment areas and question whether this is possible at this stage and whether this would affect 

the soundness of the plan. 

Question 52 

Measham Wharf development represents a strategically important site. If town centre boundaries are 

considered, the boundary should be extended to include the Measham Wharf development site. Enable a full 

consideration of what mix of retail, employment, leisure and residential would be acceptable in this area. 

Issue 15 

Public transport is the most important facility serving Rural Towns. New development should be located to 

ensure long term viability of these services. Over development of Coalville and Ashby could potentially have a 

negative impact on the long-term viability of Rural Towns. 

50 Andrea 

Cole 

Question 27 

Detailed comments have been submitted for each of the potential identified sites in Kegworth. In summary these 

are: 

North of Ashby Road, Kegworth: – Permission was refused some 20 years ago on grounds that the existing 

sewer system was insufficient. Why has this been changed to allow this development? No mention of new 

infrastructure for the village, e.g. schooling, policing, medical facilities etc. Also problems with parking and traffic 

congestion and highway safety. Have these services been budgeted and if not why not? No indication of 

access. Local roads cannot cope with increase traffic movements. Has the need for additional gritting facilities 

been considered? A weight restriction of Ashby Road leads to questions as to how construction traffic would 

access the site. 

Adjacent Computer Centre: - No indication of access. How is increase in traffic flow to be accommodated? What 

are the contingencies for motorway closures?Station Road and Long Lane, and Adjoining Cott Factory and Slack 

and Parr Land: - No indication of access. Station Road is a rat run. Problems with congestion. Questions 

whether there are any proposals for improving roads. 

Bridgefields: - Located in a floodplain. 

Deleted:

Station Road: - Need sufficient on-site parking not in the form of a garage. 

Whiteholme: -Ashby Road has a weight restriction and a rat run. 

Brookes Machine Tools: -Must be sufficient on-site parking and not convinced that the Police would allow 

development adjacent to their Police Station. 

Other general concerns relate to parking, enforcement of illegal parking, the proposed bypass may be of only 

limited help, no detail of the proposals have been provided and lack of detail relating to infrastructure 

requirements. 

51 Packington 

Nook 

Residents 

Association 

An Ashby Local Development Survey was conducted by Packington Nook Residents Association. Over 95% of 

the respondents are against large scale development of the town. The preference is for housing to be limited to 

500 homes or less by 2026. 

Approximately 54% of respondents said that affordable housing should be less than the preferred figure of 40%. 

Only 28.8% supported the preferred approach. 

52 Mrs 

Doreen 

Worth 

53 P 

Saddington 

54 Mr N Hoult 

Object 

Object 

Object 

92% object to the preferred approach to integrate sites for travellers with new developments. 

In order of importance, NHS doctors and dentists, roads and car parks, public transport and sewage system are 

all in need of urgent expansion for today’s population. 

Question 10 

Protest against the loss of the Green Wedge between Coalville and Whitwick. 

Question 15 

Object to potential developments within the villages of Ravenstone and Snibston and surrounding. Object to loss 

of villages, loss of countryside, joining up with Coalville, impact on National Forest, inadequacy of infrastructure 

and impact of economic recession. It would be better to develop on Brownfield land and provide grants to 

upgrade housing stock. 

Question 7 

The reopeoning of the Leicester-Burton railway is key to the development of Coalville but notes that this has been 

rejected. Without it the town will grind to a halt, as 10,000 new houses means 10,000 more cars. The amount 

of houses planned is like an ‘Eco Town’ with no thought of transport infrastructure and gridlock, no jobs within the 

locality, loss of green wedge and too many people too close together. The strategy lacks common sense.

Object 

Question 10 

Green Wedge must be protected. Appropriate uses include National Forest, recreational use and allotments. The 

disadvantage of its loss outweighs any advantage. 

Question 15 

Due to traffic congestion problems the development of South East Coalville must not go ahead without 

completion of the Coalvillle bypass. The railway line should also be opened otherwise the town will become 

gridlocked. 

Question 35 

Sites in the Coalville urban area are not needed. The District exceeds government targets and sites in urban 

areas could create social problems. 

55 Mr J Ball 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

The Lounge site should be the preferred site as it is a rail connected site with good road access. Junction 24 is 

unsuitable as the surrounding area is gridlocked at peak times and impact on the environment. 

Question15 

Object to the potential development of Greenhill Farm for new houses. Site is within the National Forest and 

Charnwood Forest. Development would result in the loss of ‘an area of particularly attractive countryside’. 

56 Indigo Act on behalf of Tenens Limited who have property and land interest in North West Leicestershire. 

Question 3 

Support the approach to identify Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as the 

focus for development. Development should be permitted which is of a suitable scale for the size of each 

settlement e.g. large scale developments to be directed towards Coalville and Ashby as the largest settlements in 

the district. 

Question 7 

Support the principle of further residential development and growth in the district but do not specifically support 

any of the proposed options. However sufficient community facilities and infrastructure must be provided to serve

57 J 

Thompson 

58 M 

Thompson 

59 M J 

Fletcher 

Object 

Object 

Object 

an expanding population, including retail facilities. 

The Council’s retail study identifies a need for further food and non food development in the district. The Core 

Strategy should identify where future retail development is need to support the community, at an appropriate 

scale for the settlement. 

Question 15 

Development of Greenhill Farm would lead to traffic congestion and affect highway safety, result in flooding, and 

drainage problems. The natural environment must be protected and there is a lack of social amenities in the 

vicinity. Is there economic demand for housing? 

Question 15 

Object to development at Greenhill Farm. This would lead to traffic congestion and affect highway safety, 

increase risk of flooding and result in loss of wildlife. There is no economic demand for housing and once 

permission is granted for housing this could lead to permission being granted for industrial development. 

Question 10 

The Green Wedge should be kept as a Strategic Gap or Area of Separation. The village of Whitwick has lost so 

much of its identify that a separation of green area is needed between Whitwick and Coalville. 

60 Ian Merrill Question 10 

Preserving Strategic Landscape and Wildlife Links 

The Green Wedge Study states that the Central Green Wedge has a ‘lack of a continuous link from the urban 

area to the surrounding countryside in landscape and wildlife terms’. This is challenged as there is a wildlife 

corridor formed along the watercourse draining in a north-easterly direction through the Central Green Wedge, 

and ultimately meeting the Grace Dieu Brook corridor, this has been ignored. The watercourse is lined, through 

its entirety, by mature hedgerows, trees and small blocks of woodland which undoubtedly act as a wildlife 

thoroughfare and link directly to Grace Dieu Valley. Also there is a direct link to the landscaping adjacent to the 

Coalville bypass, with indirect connections to the excellent Brownfield habitat of Nature Alive and the newly 

wooded areas beyond. 

Preventing Coalescence 

The Green Wedge Study states that there is ‘no obvious physical delineation along…Thornborough Road and 

Hermitage Road’. The very fact that a road is present removes all possibility of a totally ‘green’ physical 

delineation; hence the fact that ribbon settlement is present along the roads has no additional detrimental effect.

Of more importance to the Green Wedge ethos is the fact that there is currently a visible barrier to whole-scale 

coalescence in the form of a block of contiguous development. Other than the ribbons of development following 

several arterial roads, the existing Green Wedge quite clearly separates Whitwick from Coalville, the purpose for 

which it was originally prescribed. Argues strongly that the Green Wedge still serves its purpose in prevention of 

coalescence and in preserving the individual character of the communities in question. Reference to a plan or 

aerial view of the area instantly reveals Coalville and Whitwick to be clearly identifiable entities; the removal of the 

Central Green Wedge would clearly move Coalville and Whitwick into the realms of one sprawling 

conglomeration, the very scenario for which the Green Wedge designation was originally made. 

Recreational Resource 

Although the Central Green Wedge is essentially under private ownership, it is served by a particularly extensive 

network of well used Public Footpaths (shown in an Appendix). LCC Public Footpaths numbered 08 to 011 all 

provide access across the full length and width of the Central Green Wedge (photographs of the footpaths are 

provided). The images all depict footpaths of well-trodden delineation that are clearly well traversed. 

Public Footpaths 09 and 010 which give access from the extensive residential developments off Church Lane, 

Whitwick, directly to green space and ultimately to the recreational areas otherwise accessed off Hermitage 

Road. The Central Green Wedge does indeed provide an invaluable recreational resource in that formal and safe 

access to picturesque countryside and open space is provided within an otherwise urban environment 

(photographs are provided). 

Conclusions of Green Wedge Study 

The Green Wedge Study concludes that Criteria A and D are met by the Central Green Wedge, but the 

supporting information laid out above shows that Criteria C and E are also met, thus greatly enforcing the need to 

retain the Green Wedge designation (Summaries of the Green Wedge Criteria are provided). 

Additional Supporting Factors 

The following factors are extremely important to the local environment and are surprisingly omitted from the 

Green Wedge Study. 

Site Archaeology 

The Green Wedge Study does not mention the archaeological value of any of the sites. However, the presence of 

clear evidence of ridge and furrow farming techniques and associated ancient hedgerow boundaries may be seen 

close to the northern limit of the Central Green Wedge (shown in an appendix). Photographs are provided as 

evidence of the ridge and furrows from ground level in the field where footpaths 09 and 010 met. The tall and 

species-rich surrounding hedgerows add further evidence that this area has remained unaltered since mediaeval 

times. A map from 1888 is also included to show the field boundaries marked as mature hedgerows and that the 

elongated form is indicative of ancient boundaries demarcating fields farmed with a ridge and furrow technique. 

Very little evidence of ancient ridge and furrow farming techniques remain undisturbed in Leicestershire as a 

whole, and this small area of land and its surrounding ancient boundary hedge are an invaluable link to our past 

which must be protected for future generations.

Site Ecology 

As well as species rich ancient hedgerows there is unimproved grassland which combined contribute an 

extremely valuable ecological asset in this area. The hedgerows provide an excellent habitat for invertebrates 

and in particular support a number of notable bird species (a non-comprehensive list is included). The brevity of 

the survey period has prevented attempts to locate other protected species, however it remains likely that bats 

use the mature hedgerows for foraging and may breed in some of the site’s mature trees. Reptiles may also be 

present, as this section of the site appears to provide suitable habitat for several species. No botanical survey 

information is available at present. 

As previously stated the arterial watercourse which drains the Central Green Wedge to the Grace Dieu Valley is 

lined by mature hedgerows, trees and small blocks of woodland. This provides an additional habitat for wetland 

species as well as serving as an effective wildlife corridor linking the Grace Dieu Valley with the newly planted 

woodland habitat adjoining the A511. In terms of protected species this section of the site is also likely to provide 

host to both foraging and breeding bats and the wetlands in fields adjoining the watercourse are likely to hold 

population of amphibians; again the lack of survey work at the appropriate season means that this cannot be 

proven at present. 

Conclusions 

As can clearly be demonstrated the central Green wedge still retains the attributes which led to its original 

designation. It maintains a strategic wildlife corridor to the Grace Dieu Valley protects structurally important open 

land and prevents the coalescence of Coalville and Whitwick, thus maintaining the individual character of these 

areas. 

The public amenity value of the Central Green Wedge remains very high, a public access is rendered to an area 

of very apparent aesthetic appeal. The value of the site is further reinforced by the presence of important 

archaeological and ecological assets, as demonstrated above; the Central Green Wedge, Whitwick’s ‘Green 

Lung’, is clearly an invaluable asset to the local community, plus the environment as a whole, and must be 

protected at all costs. 

61 David Cole 

Object 

Object 

Question 1 

Why is there no mention of increased business development in the area where housing is to be developed? Why 

is there only mention of business development in the area of East Midlands Airport and surrounds? 

Question 7 

Support Option 2 so that there is less emphasis on Coalville and the ‘Rural Towns’ making Ashby a more equal 

partner in the district.

Object 

Question 35 

Gypsies and Travellers sites should be provided away from existing communities. 

62 Ashby 

Woulds 

Town 

Council 

Para 1.2 - Agrees that the Core Strategy should conform to both the Regional Plan and national policies whilst 

reflecting local issues and circumstances. 

Para 3.1 - AWTC support the approach detailed in Para 3.1 regarding seeking views on key issues. 

Question 1 

The favoured approach is supported but AWTC reserve the right to comment on any changes as they develop. 

Para 7.2 – Given the lack of consensus from their previous consultations, they have not developed any options 

but instead set out their favoured approach having review the responses to the Summer 2007 consultation and 

the general objectives in the Community Strategy. 

Question 2 

The favoured objectives are supported 

Question 3 

AWTC agree with the option with Coalville as a sub-regional centre, market town Ashby and four villages as rural 

centres as the main focus to develop settlements. AWTC agrees that Ellistown and Moira cannot be identified as 

Rural Towns. 

Para 8.3 – In regards to potentially including Albert Village as a location for future development AWTC state that 

they must be involved in future discussions, especially with SDDC, regarding this issue. 

Question 8 

AWTC supports option 1 – the Coalville focus option but reserves the right to comment further when the plan is 

certain. 

Question 38 

AWTC supports the favoured housing strategy with the exception of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show 

People it is considered these should form part of strategic industrial sites 

Question 40 

In terms of Castle Donington AWTC is in agreement but Lounge should be used as an Ivanhoe Railway Station

for Ashby de la Zouch with a park and ride facility for National Forest visitors. This may prevent traffic congestion 

in surrounding areas e.g. Conkers 

Question 49 

AWTC supports the favoured approach regarding the strategy for Town Centres 

Question 54 

The other options that should be considered include Lounge as Ivanhoe Railway Station with huge park and ride 

facilities to take visitors to the National Forest. Also consider holts in Moira, Daybell Estate and Conkers 

Question 55 

AWTC supports the favoured approach subject to proper consideration of flooding issues 

Question 57 

AWTC would wish to continue with Section 106 agreements and not CIL 

Question 58 

In regards to infrastructure AWTC considers there is an urgent need for a recreation ground at Spring Cottage 

and a Community Hall at Albert Village 

Question 65 

AWTC supports the favoured approach but with the inclusion of Albert Village and Spring Cottage. AWTC would 

like to open a debate whether Albert Village should for a Parish Council dependant on development of new build 

63 Malcom 

Allsop 

Quite clear that the Development Plan is in response to national policies. The District Council should proceed 

cautiously until there is a better understanding of the banking system and the economic recession. 

Object 

Question 1 

Concerned about the emphasis for significant new housing to be in the Coalville. Without corresponding local 

employment increase it will become a commuter town. The scale proposed responds to national directive rather 

than local needs. The ‘Greater Coalville’ proposal would result in villages being subsumed into Coalville and loss 

of strong cohesive communities. New housing should follow new jobs, e.g. around East Midlands Airport. 

Question 2 

Objectives are admirable. However the sheer scale of housing proposed and inevitable increase in traffic volume 

is in direct opposition to SO3. It is not possible to reduce the district’s carbon footprint with this scale of

64 Claire 

O’Neill 

Object 

Object 

Object 

development. 

Question 3 

Favour identification of Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as the focus of 

development with those areas outside of Coalville as Rural Towns. 

Agree that restriction to only Local Needs outside of Rural Towns could raise potential issues over long term 

sustainability of smaller communities. 

Agree with the criteria used to identify what constitutes a Sustainable Village and that lower order settlements 

should not have such a wide range of facilities as Rural Towns. Sustainable Villages should have three out of the 

four facilities identified and the list should be kept under review. 

However the restriction of infill development to the size of 0.1 ha in Sustainable Villages is not supported. This is 

too small. Development should be small scale and sensitive to the area and application judged on its merits. 

Question 1 

Do not support the proposed Vision. Why build houses that are not required? Council should redevelop existing 

housing. Building new houses will not enhance environment and there will be a loss of communities. 

Question 2 

Recession has halted house building. Ravenstone does not receive any mention in the Core Strategy although 

700 houses are proposed. Ravenstone does not have enough facilities to support growth. 

Question 3 

Why are only a few towns listed as Sustainable Villages? The amount of development suggested for 

Ravenstone is not “limited development within the village”. It would double the size of Ravenstone, put a strain 

on services and it is not on previously developed land. Land has not been put forward by landowners. Council 

will waste money on compulsory purchase. 

Question 4 

The shortfall of housing should be sited in a new location which will not upset residents. 

Question 39 

If there is no provision for employment in the area where will the occupants of the 12,200 new houses go to 

work? No thought appears to be given for the provision of services such as hospital, jobs, schools, medical 

facilities, shops etc to cope with the proposed growth.

Question 42 

Working with partners to influence the shape of the local economy of the future as long as it isn’t covered in 

houses. 

Support 

Object 

Question 46 

Do not support the favoured approach 

Question 49 

Theoretically yes but in practice it is not realistic. Coalville has nothing to offer, not big enough, road layout 

inadequate and appearance is not pleasing. A Retail Park is the only answer. 

Question 50 

The town centres are not large enough to attract key players. It needs to be totally redesigned and expanded on 

the Tesco Park. 

Object 

Support 

Question 51 

Important to keep the villages identity. Cannot take away a community’s identity as this is people’s lives. Can’t 

force people to sell land. 

Question 52 

Ashby and Coalville should remain town centres and development should only be expanded in directions that do 

not swallow up village communities. Option to create a new town centre is ideal. 

Question 53 

800 new spaces for Coalville town centre would not provide sufficient parking. Facilities are not within a suitable 

walking distance and therefore people will still need to use their cars. 

Object 

Object 

Question 55 

Such a large number of houses in such a concentrated area will have environmental impacts. Houses should be 

evenly distributed between all sustainable town and not villages. 

Question 56 

Building so many houses requires large numbers of industrial equipment and lorries etc. How can this help the 

environment?

Question 58 

Lack of schools, doctors, dentists, leisure facilities, hospitals, petrol stations, parking etc 

65 Jean 

Rowena 

Dawson 

In terms of evidence base. Has account been taken of Parish Plan Action Plans and surveys? The Core Strategy 

seems straightforward and covers most eventualities. Innovative design and use of alternative technologies 

would be great progress. Suggest Human Rights issues should be addressed. 

Support 

Support 

Support 

Question 1 

Sounds good but can it be upheld? The Sustainability Triangle should not have too much emphasis in any one 

direction, for example, a community should not be overwhelmed by business needs. Quality of life of residents is 

high consideration. 

Question 2 

Agree with the favoured objectives. These seem to be sound principles for action. 

Question 3 

Support the favoured approach. Designation of Kegworth as a Rural Town will be beneficial and in keeping with 

history of the town. Need to maintain a viable community and new facilities will be used and appreciated. All 

potential infill housing development in smaller communities should be explored before more countryside is 

developed. 

Question 5 

Do not have the information to comment. 9600 houses sounds a lot but it does depend on where it will be 

situated. 

Question 7 

All of these options seem reasonable but option 3 proposes a fair distribution between settlements. Infrastructure 

requirements needed in Kegworth include measures to deal with the amount of type of through traffic and parking 

problems. Concerns over inability of sewerage systems to be able to cope with growth. 

Support 

Question 10 

Support the identification of the western part of the Green Wedge as countryside. Green spaces enhance quality 

of life and work and are an important community resource. Do not support the proposal for the eastern and 

central parts of the Green Wedge. Access to these areas is not essential - they should be retained with an 

environmental; sustainable use. The Green Wedge should be maintained.

Question 11 

Public footpaths and rights of way could be explored together with grants for tree planting and encouragement of 

wildlife. 

Support 

Support 

Support 

Support 

Object 

Question 12 

Broad locations with detailed planning to take into consideration local opinion. Agree with this approach to some 

extent in making sure the development can be carried out. 

Question 13 

Agree with the approach of what should constitute a Strategic Site. 


Given the health implications and effect of noise and air pollution it would be unwise to develop a site near the 

motorway. The development of Station Rd/Long Lane would be preferable along with the Sidely development. 

Question 34 

This is an important issue for smaller communities and support the favoured approach. Object to the argument 

that inclusion of small numbers of affordable housing would impact on economic viability. 

Question 35 

Support the favoured approach. 

Question 38 


Question 39 


Support 

Question 40 

The favoured site seems full of potential hazards and development expense. Do not agree with the favoured 

approach. 

Question 42 

Careful consideration would need to be given to the necessary infrastructure particularly road systems. 

Question 44

Agree with the favoured approach 

Question 45 

Careful consideration would need to be given to the necessary infrastructure particularly road systems. 

Support 

Question 49 

Unlikely that development in Kegworth would affect Coalville or Ashby, given the largely non existent transport or 

social links. Kegworth residents are more likely to shop in more accessible places such as Loughborough, 

Nottingham and Derby. Coalville is unlikely to be our principle shopping destination. 

Question 53 


Support 

Object 

Question 55 

Important to use appropriately trained and experienced, professional architects and designers to achieve this. 

Question 59 


66 Savills on 

behalf of 

the Curzon 

Coaker 

Trust 

Support 

Question 60 

Disagree. East Midlands Airport has planned wind turbines and more can be added. Suggested locations 

include industrial sites, motorways, Long Lane and railway lines. 

Question 61 

A higher target would be better. 

Question 63 

More planting in general especially in towns and villages, and maintenance of parks and playing field to include 

wildlife areas. 

Question 1 

Support recognition of the role of East Midlands Airport. This approach is appropriate and reflects the emerging 

RSS.

Suggest consideration be given to opportunities to deliver housing near the Airport and improve public transport 

infrastructure in the area in order to maximise wider benefits from economic activity. 

Question 2 

SO1: Suggest that reference is made to PPS3 by including reference to “sustainable communities” 

SO6: The LDS suggested a Design SPD. Suggest reference to this in this objective. 

SO7: Land must be of sufficient quality and suggest that the word “quality” is added to the objective. 

SO8: Detailed requirement of affordable housing must be based on a robust assessment of need. 

SO14: Term ‘alternative modes of transport’ should be clarified i.e. non-car transport? 

Question 3 

Support identification of Kegworth as a Rural Town and it surpasses the criteria used to identify such. 

Question 4 

No comments to make on this issue. 

Question 5 

Support identification for 9,600 houses as a minimum. Reflect RSS policy, and allows flexibility and longevity. 

Question 6 

PPS12 requires a 15 year timescale. When looking beyond 15 years will have to be mindful of the limitations of 

evidence base. However it would be expedient to provide a ‘direction of travel’ beyond the 15 years. 

Question 7 

Question necessity of providing housing figures in a Core Strategy as this may reduce flexibility and longevity of 

the document. 

If housing numbers are included, figure should be based on robust evidence e.g. SHLAA, and considered against 

objectives such as sustainability and regeneration.

There are regeneration and sustainability benefits to further development in Kegworth. For example, employment 

around the Airport and Donington Park, opportunities to improve public transport , enhancement of the 

sustainability of the settlement of Kegworth reflecting its status as a Rural Town. Land adjacent to the Cott 

Factory is suitable and achievable. 

Therefore support the provision of 400 dwellings (Option 3) to 800 dwellings (Option 4) in Kegworth. Have no 

evidence to suggest whether the numbers of accurate but the general approach of significant housing ion 

Coalville, slightly less in Rural Towns and less again in Sustainable Villages is supported. 

Question 8 

Question the need to include specific numbers. Kegworth is a sustainable location with available land that is 

suitable and achievable. 

Question 9 

Suggest that numbers are replaced by proportions of the overall housing requirement but have no specific 

comments on the wording. 

Question 10 


Question 11 


Question 12 

Para 4.6 of PPS12 provides advice on this matter. Suggest that the Council “allocate” strategic sites rather than 

“identify” strategic sites. 

Question 13 

100 residential units or 1 hectare employment sites are not strategic in terms of PPS12. Number of sites that

could be allocated using this approach could create a range of issues and impede progress of the Core Strategy. 

Sufficient for the SHLAA do identify sites of this size as ‘available’, ‘suitable’ and ‘achievable’. 

Question 14 to 25 

No comments to make in relation to Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington and Ibstock. We have no robust local 

evidence to suggest whether or not the level of housing proposed for the settlements is accurate or otherwise. 

Question 26 

Support the provision of 400 dwellings (Option 3) to 800 dwellings (Option 4). Housing would Support the 

delivery of businesses at and adjacent to East Midlands Airport and Donington. 

Question 27 

‘Land adjacent to the Cott Factory’ is the most suitable site for housing at Kegworth and closer to the core of the 

settlement. Although the site is in Flood Zone 3 it is demonstrated that development is acceptable on flood risk 

grounds. 

In addition, ‘Land to the west of Kegworth’ has potential for housing delivery and ’Land adjacent to Computer 

Centre’, and ‘ North of Ashby Road’ could be developed on as sequential basis. 

‘Land at Station Rd/Long Lane’ is Flood Zone 3. 

‘Land at the Computer Centre’ is in employment use and to allocate it for housing would be unacceptable loss of 

employment and also contrary to SO7. 

Question 28 

Development of the three most suitable sites (LA Cott Factory, LA Computer and north of Ashby Rd) would 

achieve a total of 1,196. This land could deliver the 800 units put forward by Option 4 along with appropriate 

services and infrastructure. 


No comments to make. Have no robust local evidence to suggest whether or not the level of housing proposed

for the settlement is accurate or otherwise. 


No comments to make. Have no robust local evidence to suggest whether or not the level of housing proposed 

for the settlement is accurate or otherwise. 

Question 34 

Consider 15 as an arbitrary minimum. More practical approach would be to require a contribution (financial to offsite 

provision) fro all sites from one dwelling upwards. Would allow lower level of provision on larger sites thus 

improving viability of the schemes. 

The percentages proposed appear arbitrary. Policy must be based on sound evidence, the Council be satisfied 

the level is feasible and not undermine the strategies objectives. 


Provision for sites should be made only where there is evidence of need within that locality and where that use is 

most appropriate for the site, i.e. where not required to meet Objectives SO1 to SO14. 

Question 38 

Support general approach to housing. Suggest that affordable housing provision and provisions for gypsies and 

travellers be based on robust evidence of local need. 

Question 39 

Support pro-active approach to strategic employment sites. Should help deliver strong local economy and further 

objective SO7. 

Question 40 

Strongly support proposals to deliver a strategic distribution site at land west of M1 Junction 24. 

Understand that the scheme could create 7000 jobs for the district and region. Suggest that this site is integrated

with further development at the nearby settlements such as Kegworth and maximise improvement to public 

transport infrastructure to allow for a locally based workforce to access new employment opportunities without the 

use of a car. 

Question 41 

Do not know of more appropriate sites. 

Question 42 

Strongly support the approach which accords with the Spatial Objectives as stated within the consultation 

document. 

Question 43 

Must be based on up-to-date evidence base. Need to take care that viability of otherwise positive schemes is not 

undermined. 

Question 44 

Strategy appropriate in general terms. Suggest recognition of economic and employment benefits outside of 

classes B1, B2 and B8, e.g., role of retail and care homes. 

Question 45 

Suggest flexible approach is taken to location of small units (on or off-site) so can maximise benefits. Need up to 

date evidence and that viability of schemes is not adversely affected. 

Question 46 

Restriction of development near airport appears to be contrary to the favoured strategic distribution centre site. 

Suggest that the Core Strategy provides more clarity on the meaning of ‘operational development’ (maybe useful 

to refer to the permitted development rights given.) 

An approach that allows for some development at the Airport within defined limits would be more appropriate.

Question 47 

Controlled growth at the Airport. 

Question 48 

‘Operational’ is the term issued within the GPDO. Airport related development is an appropriate term. 

Question 49 

Support this approach. Particularly the promotion of Rural Towns, including Kegworth. Must ensure that when 

Coalville is promoted, this does not lead to the decline of other town centre. Need to ensure the satisfactory 

growth and change in other centres. 

Question 50 

Give priority to development of town centres where there are significant development proposals, e.g. Kegworth 

due to the proposed strategic distribution site. Treat Rural Towns as equal to Coalville. 

Question 51 

Not necessary to include this level of detail and inclusion of boundaries could create debate and delay. Issue 

could be dealt with as part of Site Specific Allocations document. 

Question 52 

No comments 

Question 53 

Support approach to reduce the need to travel by car. Housing growth at Kegworth, coupled with employment 

growth and improved transport infrastructure, will help deliver a sustainable patterns of development. 

Question 54 

A more proactive approach to the delivery of new public transport infrastructure, e.g. allocation land for such a

use. Will need to liaise with those whom can help deliver infrastructure. 


No comments 


Suggest proactive approach, determining need and location of infrastructure and talking with organisations. 

Question 59 

Approach is too specific but agrees that it is appropriate to test large sites differently. Suggest that any less than 

2,500 residential units might be unable to supply and maintain a carbon free energy supply, due to economies of 

scale. 

Suggest a proactive approach. Allocate sites energy generation. Core Strategy can establish policy framework 

and Site Specific Allocations can address the issue in detail. 

Question 60 

No comments 

Question 61 

Decentralised and local sources of energy supply can be expensive too establish with inconsistence 

performance. Unable to request this of a 10 unit scheme. 

Deal with on a site by site basis and a later SPD to deal with the detail. 

Question 62 

Question necessity of district targets given the regional targets. 

Question 63 and 64

67 Professor 

Simon 

Langley – 

Evans 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

No comments 


No comments 

Question 3 

Strongly disagree. Kegworth is a village and should not be ruined by creating it into a town. It does not have the 

facilities to support a larger population. For example, the school is oversubscribed, there are no leisure facilities 

and development would result in a transport nightmare. How will the town be policed as the recreation ground 

and the community centre will not keep people entertained. 

Question 4 

Build a new town or village. Suggest an Eco town to be sited on some of the old coalfield land. 

Question 5 

Do not agree that 9600 should be considered a minimum. There is no justification for this. Question whether this 

many are needed. 

Question 7 

Focus on Coalville is optimal. This large town has the space and infrastructure to allow expansion. 

Question 8 

Do not support the approach. Do not see a need for all this housing to be built in rural areas. 

Question 12 

Do not agree with the identification of specific sites at this stage as not enough of the affected people are aware 

of such proposals. 

Question 26 

Only Options 1 and 2 are remotely feasible. Prefer to see new housing on site north of Ashby Road. Options 3 

and 4 are unacceptable as Kegworth lacks the necessary infrastructure to support these homes. Where will all 

these people work. 

Question 27

68 Shelley 

Saunt 

Object 

What is the rationale for the Computer Centre being the optimal site? This would locate housing near the main 

road and contribute to congestion and provide unpleasant living conditions. Why not build houses on the margins 

of the village i.e. Slack and Parr site. 

North of Ashby Road or the Station Road sites would have the least impact on the village in terms of traffic and 

noise. 

Question 12 

Do not agree 

Question 14 

Support development at Ashby but disagree with the amount of development in Coalville. Too much 

development has already taken place at Thornborough Road and Stephenson Road. Why not build in less 

problematic areas, for example, on the outskirts of Ashby or Coleorton, land at Flagstaff Island with its good rail 

links. Such an approach would not ruin existing communities. 

Question 15 

If development has to occur then it should be at Donington le Heath or as an extension to Agar Nook. 

Question 16 

Alternative sites could include Bardon or Flagstaff Island next to the M42. 

69 Jonathan Question 23 

Comments reference development at Ibstock:- 

Ravenstone Rd/Leicester Rd - to big, too far from village core, significant proportion of children would be sent to 

Woodstone, visually prominent, too close to former mine workings and active pig farm. 

North of Ashby Rd – potential of domestic fly tipping, disturbance of Sence Valley Park, removes potential for 

wind turbine installation, through village traffic to Bardon, M1, and Leicester 

South of Ashby Rd - through village traffic to Bardon, M1 and Leicester 

Pretoria Rd – Local roads will not support extra traffic, Impinges on allotment 

Question 24 

Station Rd - through village traffic to Bardon, M1, Leicester, may impinge on allotment 

Pretoria Rd – Local roads will not support extra traffic, Impinges on allotment 

Leicester Rd – nearer to village commercial core, less traffic generated. Most likely to be Brownfield. Housing 

may impinge on informal recreation area next to brick works.

70 Eric 

Goodyer 

71 Andrew 

Mousley 

Question 53 

Like to see more emphasis on promotion and integration of public transport with through ticketing across 

services. Re-opening of the National Forest Rail line is a key commitment. 

Question 63 

Very easy to colour in large areas of land and allocate this to future development but should also include land to 

be set aside for future parks and open spaces rather than cramming houses in. Must also give consideration to 

location of new education and sports facilities. The sport field at Ibstock should not be taken away for housing. 

72 R I Chester Question 15 

Object to the plans relating to Greenhill Farm based upon the additional flood hazards. The existing houses in 

the “Wilson Estate” have been subject to flooding in the past. If houses are built on Greenhill Farm the potential 

for flooding will increase. It will also lead to the urbanisation of Green Hill Farm. 

73 Trevor 

Finney 

Question 7 

Would like a 5 th option. Council should inform the government that building on this scale is not warranted in this 

area. Where do all the jobs come from to justify 10000 houses? How will the schools cope with such an influx of 

people? Where do we find extra Doctors/Dentists? Who will live on the new estates with Travellers? What 

happened to protecting the Green Wedge? 

74 L Leonard Question 14 

Concerned about development sites in the area of Whitwick. Traffic on Church Lane is busy and there is no 

traffic calming with further development exacerbating these problems. 

75 Tracy Hall 

76-79 Miss C E 

Draycott 

and on 

behalf of 

Object 

Question 15 

Object to the development of 2000 houses on land at Green Lane. This is not a suitable area for development. 

The open area is well used by residents and it is not necessary to build on every bit of greenspace. Why not fill 

the empty properties? Other concerns relate to noise, extra traffic, highway safety, loss of flora and fauna and 

loss of natural environment and open space. 

Traffic Issues 

Concerned about the potential impact to existing residential areas from increased traffic as a result of new 

developments. Also concerned that will impact upon traffic, pedestrian and highway safety, whilst also 

exacerbating the existing poor state of roads/pavements, use of road by lorries, infrastructure is not capable of

other 

residents. 

Mr C 

Haywood, 

Mrs J 

Haywood, 

& Mr B A 

Haywood 

80 & 204 Peatfield 

Associates 

81 Mrs J 

Abrey 

82 B S 

Granger 

Object 

Object 

Object 

coping with these extra demands. 

Propose that sites of approximately 0.4ha be included as employment sites and the housing sites. 

Propose that the 0.4 acre parcel of land fronting the northern side of Prior Park Road, Ashby, be allocated for 

residential/employment/institutional development. This site presents an opportunity for a building of architectural 

merit recognising there will be a need for open land. 

Wish to object to the proposal for open cast mining at Minorca Pit, Measham. Object on the grounds that 

Measham has been regenerated, it is in the Heart of the National Forest, dust and noise will have an adverse 

impact on health, lorries will impact on highway safety and will not abide by the weight restrictions on specific 

roads. 

Question 30 

Object to houses on land at Atherstone Road, owned by Hanson. No change in circumstances since a proposal 

was last refused. Inadequate infrastructure and facilities to cope with extra demand. Already plans to build new 

houses on the large new estate at Measham. 

Question 88 

Object to the proposals for the development strategy. Would make a mockery of the National Forest and 

undermine the work that has taken place to create a wildlife habitat, the environmental projects and the 

development of a tourist industry. 

Large developments cause noise and light pollution, traffic congestion and pollution, increase in criminal activity, 

loss of amenities and stresses on insufficient infrastructure systems. 

Question the need for such a quantity of housing and suggest that the Council advise the government that such 

development is inappropriate for this area. Any development should be kept to a minimum with a few properties 

built on two sites rather than one. Houses should be spaced further apart with better soundproofing, larger 

gardens and parking for a minimum of three vehicles. Sites should not adversely affect wildlife corridors or

detract from current views and open aspects. Should take into account need for extra services. 

83 Fox 

Bennett 

84 Ian Forman 

85 Angela and 

Chris 

Bexton 

86 Diane Pill 

and Robert 

Woodland 

87 Janet 

Stevenson 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 15 

Support the identification of Greenhill Farm as a potential housing site. The site is strategically placed adjoining 

existing houses and appears to form a natural progression. The land is no longer viable for agriculture. Site 

could accommodate up to 250 houses and many would have the benefit of open views to the south and west. 

Land is available immediately once planning permission is granted. There are concerns that itinerants may move 

onto the site, in its current form and condition. 

Question 40 

Object to plans to build a distribution centre close to Lockington. Adverse impact on landscape, conservation 

area, air, noise and light pollution as well as visually intrusive. Negative impacts outweigh the benefits. The 

environment and quality of life of Lockington residents should be protected. 

Question 15 

Do not want Ravenstone to become part of the greater conurbation of Coalville. Concerned about the plan for a 

number of houses in the area of Swannington Rd/Church Lane area. This area should be preserved and the 

proposal would have a devastating impact on the nature, wildlife, flora and fauna. Village life needs to be 

maintained. 

Question 15 

Object to potential housing development in and around in Ravenstone. Ravenstone does not have the 

infrastructure to support such a large influx of families. Loss of wildlife, open land and the green wedge. 

Ravenstone should not be part of Coalville and should retain its separate village identity and conservation area. 

Development would spoil this well-preserved architectural and historic part of Leicestershire and has already had 

to endure the Long Moor mine building work and disruption from lorries. 

Question 5 

Why are so many houses needed in the district when there are so many empty properties? 

Question 10 

Thringstone is quite separate in its identity from Whitwick, Swannington and Coalville. The green wedges do 

provide a continuous corridor. The Whitwick Leisure Centre is the only one this side of Coalville. It has outdoor 

facilities, environmental value and links up with the green wedge to Swannington and Thringstone.

88 Heart of 

the 

National 

Forest 

Foundation 

(John 

Colburn) 

89 - 91 L Blockley, 

L Blockley 

and J 

Blockley 

92 and 

92b 

Katherine 

M Cohoon 

Object 

Support 

Object 

Object 

Question 14 

The villages surrounding Coalville have a heritage and history which provides distinct identities. The merging of 

these villages with the town of Coalville would be to the detriment of the environment and historical heritage. 

Facilities in the village would be affected by a large influx of families, for example, primary school, health care, 

sewers (existing severe problems), road access from A512 and land to rear of Glebe Rd is wetland and 

unsuitable for building. Area around Thringstone is not suited to development of this size and would result in an 

adverse impact on the quality of life in the community. 

Question 57 

The Heart of the National Forest (HNF), including Conkers, is developing as the main leisure, recreation and 

forestry project within the National Forest, with full of support of district and county council as well as Regional 

Economic Bodies. HNF supports the recognition of the National Forest as a major recreational resource but also 

maintains that there is a clear case for identifying the HNF Park and Conkers as the main focus for major 

sustainable leisure and recreational developments, including intensive recreation, leisure and tourism facilities. 

To continue to develop and achieve its potential as a leisure and tourism destination and economic regeneration 

of Ashby Woulds, the Forest Park needs specific recognition and support through the Core Strategy. This would 

underpin project funding bids and planning applications. Suggest that it should be seen as the ‘Umbrella Project’ 

and that the Forest Park is identified as a special policy area with is extent diagrammatically indicated on the 

Core Strategy plan. (Reference to the Forest Park need not be project or site specific). The supportive policies 

should identify and promote leisure, recreation and tourism development opportunities as ma means of 

regeneration of the Ashby Woulds area. 

Question 24 

Ibstock has enough houses. Fully opposed to housing development on Station Road. Object to new building, the 

use of machinery associated with such works and the extra traffic that would be generated. 

Question 15 

Object to development at the top of Greenhill Road/Warren Hills Road. Development must be confined to 

Brownfield sites. Coalville must not be merged into Hugglescote/Ellistown/Ibstock, Ravenstone or Whitwick. 

Green land must be preserved for the benefit of the environment. 

Do not agree that an ECO town should be built in the area of Coalville and Ashby. Future developments should 

be concentrated upon Coalville Town Centre which is in urgent need of a revamp.

93 The 

Friends of 

Thringston 

e 

94 Mr and Mrs 

Thorpe 

95 Mrs P M 

Caddick 

96 Ruth Bayes 

97 Julie 

Harwick 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

The Group are concerned over the impact of large scale development on the village and the provision of services. 

The playgroups and schools have existing waiting lists, there is a lack of medical and dental facilities, and there 

are questions over the ability of the medical practice in Whitwick to be able to cope with additional patients. 

Concern is also raised over the ability of the sewage and drainage systems to cope without massive investment. 

Previous flooding events have highlighted the deficiencies with the systems. Existing development has already 

overstretched the system with some properties having ‘pumped’ sewage systems due to the terrain. 

Development of the identified site at Thringstone would result in the loss of wetland meadows and archaeological 

sites that are currently being investigated. It would also bring together the conurbations of Swannington, 

Whitwick and Thringstone resulting in the loss of the village’s separate identities. 

Development of the site at Thringstone would be detrimental to the community and therefore suggest that sites 

are looked at elsewhere 

Question 15 

The site identified to the north of the A511 between Whitwick and Coalville currently consists of fields being 

farmed or used for grazing, and is used by residents for walking. There must be plenty of non Greenfield land 

that can be developed. The noise and traffic on the A511 would create an unacceptable environment for new 

development. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington . Environment has been covered in concrete that suffers 

from air, sound and visual pollution with no indication of consideration being given to alternatives such as the use 

of Brownfield sites. The aim should be to feed the increasing population by using local products which can be 

farmed on such Greenfield land. 

Question 17 

Do not want Ashby to expand any more and turning the countryside into housing and development. There are 

already unfinished building sites that are not being sold. Hugh new development would destroy the countryside 

and lead to Ashby being turned into a polluted, large and busy town. 

Question 27 

Development on land at the back of Ashy Road, Kegworth would be catastrophic. Kegworth does not have the

infrastructure to cope with this and the land is far too close to the motorway. Impact on the village would be too 

great. 

98 Advantage 

West 

Midlands 

The Agency supports the preferred approach to East Midlands Airport. This recognises its regional and subregional 

importance and seeks to balance economic growth with environmental mitigation. 

The Agency notes the potential for a Strategic Distribution Site to be located in the District and the preferred 

approach. Due to the potential impact on the West Midlands the Agency would like to be kept informed on the 

progress of this matter. 

Creation of a Donington Park/East Midlands Employment Zone could offer potential new employment and training 

benefits for the District. However the potential significant displacement from Silverstone should be analysed 

when potential benefits are assessed. 

99 Howard 

and Carol 

Cairns 

100 Richard 

Lee 

Object 

Question 15 

There is a covenant on ‘Land lying to the west of Highfield Street, Coalville’ that prohibits development and 

therefore should not be included in any future development for housing. Have concerns over any proposed 

development on land between Wentworth Road and St Faiths Drive, if vehicular access is allowed from St Faiths 

Drive, due to road conditions and parked cars. 

Question 15 

Object to development on the Green Wedge site. Loss of privacy to residents on Hermitage Road. The 

development of fields either side of Green Lane would destroy the rural feel. To build 2500 houses would be 

totally irresponsible and would result in the loss of the last remaining green wedge. 

Strain on the road network would be immense. Hermitage Road is already impassable at certain times of the 

day. New infrastructure facilities need to be provided either as part of development or separately. Effect on the 

public purse would be considerable and could lead to an increase in Council Tax. Loss of farmland resulting in 

loss of flora and fauna. Once the land is paved, flooding problems would be exacerbated 

Whitwick enjoys an identity separate from that of Coalville. Whitwick existed long before Coalville was created. 

This separate identity will vanish when the green wedge between them is built upon. 

A new Asda supermarket is unlikely to satisfy the needs of the area once the target number of new homes have

een built and occupied. There would be the need for a town centre in similar size to that of Loughborough. 

101 Linda 

Hobbs 

102 Paul 

Wileman 

103 Janice 

Turner 

Object 

Object 


Object to building on wedge of land off Green Lane, Whitwick. Important for Whitwick to retain a separate identity 

from Coalville and would support a parish council for Whitwick. 

Building such a large number of houses is unnecessary. Pockets of derelict land, including closed public houses, 

could provide enough land to build the houses that are needed. Due to the economic climate there are still many 

houses for sale and developers seem reluctant to build new houses. There is not a shortage of houses, just a 

shortage of affordable houses for first time buyers. There is no point in building more houses in the Coalville area 

until the town has greatly improved shopping facilities, there are improved leisure facilities such as a cinema and 

a restored rail link and station. 

Question 10 

The green belt should stay the green belt. The green wedge in Whitwick should be preserved. 

Question 26 

Kegworth does not have adequate facilities to support such an excessive amount of housing - only one village 

primary school, one playing field and a small community centre. Do however have the negative impacts of an 

airport, power station and frequent traffic hold ups due to proximity of motorway. Question whether new houses 

so close to the M1 and the runway would be beneficial to the lives and health of these people. Isn’t the 

permission on the Slack and Parr site sufficient for the village to absorb? 

104 Ms P Gate Object Question 10No account has been taken of the social, recreation or ecological requirements of the area and there 

would be a detrimental impact on the environment of the surrounding area 

There are already two major industrial estates, business parks, night flights and racetrack noise. Proposal would 

lead to further noise, light and air pollution. 

Already suffer from the use of roads as rat runs and this development would put more pressure on the local road 

network. 

Castle Donington, Lockington and Hemington would loose a natural barrier and the loss of countryside pursuits. 

Proposal would result in an urban sprawl of commercial and industrial development 

Diminish the aesthetic appearance and make the village less desirable as a place to live with an adverse impact 

on house prices. 

Will lead to a snowball effect and further demands will be placed on the north side of the airport.

105 Ms K 

Wright 

106 Mrs M 

Wakefield 

Object Refer to Representation 104 


107 Robin 

Batchford 

108 Hugglescot 

e and 

Donington 

Le Heath 

Forum 

109 Mr & Mrs 

Frazer 

Object 

Object 

Question 15 

Raise objection to the plans being proposed in and around Ravenstone. Too much development to be focused in 

Coalville. The identity of Ravenstone would be threatened as it would no longer be a village and distinctly 

separate from Coalville. Why does Ravenstone not have the protection of a green wedge whereas Swannington 

does? Why are villages within the Charnwood Forest area protected from such development and villages in the 

National Forest are not? Ravenstone has already had to experience an open cast mine and three proposals for 

a travellers site. It does not appear that the Council is acting in the best interest of Ravenstone’s residents. The 

potential areas for development seem excessive and extend the village further into the countryside. 

Loss of valuation to people’s properties due to loss of view and proximity of affordable housing. 

Recognise that planning policy has to be produced to meet the requirements of National and Regional policies. 

Therefore have endeavoured to give a reasoned and objective response. 

Option 3 of the Development Strategy is the favoured approach, as it would provide a fairer spread of 

development across the District. Option 1 with a figure of 9,800 dwellings in Coalville with 60% to be located in 

the Hugglescote area is not a fair option. 

The Forum is also concerned that Hugglescote is no longer named in the document, and is referred to as South 

West Coalville and South East Coalville. Any future plans to amalgamate Hugglescote with Coalville will be 

vigorously opposed. 

Question 15 

Object to the proposals for development in the Whitwick area, Hermitage Leisure Centre and Recreation Ground. 

Locality is already overcrowded. Negative impact on wildlife, possible flooding and overloading of the sewage 

system. Green areas should be preserved to benefit of keeping the different villages identities instead of 

cramming too many houses in each location. 

110 Mr & Mrs Question 40

Selby Object Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Would result in an increase in traffic congestion, air 

pollution and noise pollution. Impact on residents would be made unbearable and loss of value to properties. 

111 Mr & Mrs 

Slack 

112 Mrs 

Margaret 

Flecther 

113 K J 

Godfrey 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. 

Question 40 

Concerned about noise, traffic and light and air pollution from a freight terminal near the airport and Castle 

Donington. 

Question 7 

Disappointed to see that Whitwick would cease to have any separate identify as a village but has instead been 

thrown together with Thringstone and Swannington to be part of the Coalville Urban Area. Preferred Option 

places the burden for accommodating almost all the development in Coalville and surrounding areas. There are 

other parts of the district where communities could be created, which are in need of regeneration and affordable 

housing. 

Preferred Option is 3 but would like to see to a reduced burden on Whitwick. Whatever plans are introduced 

there will need to be a commitment to the development of infrastructure to support those developments. Will 

need a significant increase in provision of schools, health centre, roads, parking, shops and leisure facilities. Also 

need for consideration to be given to sewage and drainage and flooding. 

Question 10 

Abandoning the Green Wedge will create a continuous urban area that will swallow up Whitwick, Swannington 

and Thringstone. Little justification has been given for abandoning these green wedges that separate 

communities. If there is no designation for the land that is not developed, these areas would remain open to 

further future housing plans. 

The Council’s report identifies housing land capable of accommodating twice as many houses as are needed in 

the plan. It should therefore be possible to accommodate housing without abandoning the green wedge 

designated areas. 

Proposal to abandon the Central and Green Wedged is completely unacceptable. This area is used for 

recreation. If development does take place would ask that there is at least a bridleway to connect Whitwick to 

Coalville.

114 Peter and 

Sheila 

Robinson 

115 P A Booth 

Support 

Object 

Green land around the Hermitage lake and golf course is of recreational importance. If there are to be further 

Leisure facilities these should be in addition to the existing facility. 

Additional representation received 3 March 2010 

Request that houses are not built on the land around the Hermitage Lake or the land off Green Lane. This would 

result in the loss of an area in Coalville that is used for walking. Development here would also overload the local 

roads and sewers. 

Question 26 

Support the scenario for Kegworth using the Slack and Parr and Computer Centre option. 

Question 27 

Support the Slack and Parr option subject to suitable access onto Station Road. If Long Lane access is not 

upgraded it is likely that there will be additional traffic congestion problems along Station Road. Extra traffic from 

the Computer Centre would exacerbate this problem. Traffic control will be needed. 

Question 40 

The proposed distribution centre along the A453 will create traffic problems on this road. There are already 

currently problems in this area. 

Question 40 

Object to the proposal of a site for a Strategic Distribution Centre south of Lockington. There is enough 

development in the area causing noise and pollution, namely the airport, racetrack and large industrial estate. 

Proposal would result in the loss of much needed agricultural land. 

116 J Healey Object Refer to Representation 104 

117 M 

Hawkswort 

h 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as will result in loss in house values; loss of green space 

and adverse impact on wildlife. Increase in traffic congestion and use of roads as a rat run and by heavy goods 

vehicles; High levels of pollution, including noise and air. There are existing established industrial sites which 

are already poorly served by local roads and are congested. Such a proposal would be a visual plot on the 

landscape and destroy the landscape.

118 H England Object Refer to Representation 104 

119 S England Object Refer to Representation 104 

120 Sam 

Forman 

121 Susan 

Pilkington 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as such a proposal would deface the landscape. The 

negative externalities of such a proposal far outweigh the benefits. There will be excessive environmental 

damage in terms of air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution as well as an eyesore. Detrimental impact on the 

quality of life of Locking residents. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would destroy the countryside; Increase traffic in 

the vicinity of one of the busiest motorway junctions - traffic in the area is already busy with existing attractions 

such as markets, race meetings and concerts. When accidents occur long delays occur in the area. Decrease in 

property values. Pollution and noise levels. Industry and industrial sites and areas are already overcrowded. 

Where will the travellers be located to? 

122 Mr S C 

Bolton 

123 Ms J 

Rawling 



124 M 

Hawkswort 

h 

Object 

Question 27 

Would like to make an objection to the potential housing sites in Kegworth (Station Road). Traffic problems are 

already experienced in the area with roads used as rat runs and there is the presence of heavy goods vehicles. 

Problems occur on roads including, Side Ley, Station Rd, Nottingham Rd/A6 junctions. Inadequate parking 

facilities. Loss of green space in the village. Adverse impact on local wildlife. 

Inability of local facilities, doctors and post offices being able to cope with such an increase in the number of 

residents. Existing facilities are already poor with this village having been neglected by the Council. Adverse 

impact on drainage and sewerage farm which is already overloaded and cannot cope. Local flooding of fields will 

worsen. What new facilities will be provided? 

Recent developments are hideous and out of keeping with the village. Houses must be in keeping with those in

the surrounding area and affordable 

125 Tracy Hall 

126 Keith and 

Joy Pollard 

127 Richard 

Baugh 

128 Lisa 

Auston- 

Matysik 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 15 

Object to proposed development in Whitwick. 

Question 7 

Prefer Option 3 - the Coalville Focus with a significant amount in two of the Rural Towns. Prefer this approach as 

a number of dwellings would be spread over a wider area. Areas such as Packington should have their share of 

social housing. The areas of separation between towns and villages should be maintained to preserve 

community identity. 

With Option 1, it would appear that Coalville and the surrounding villages of Ravenstone, Donington-le-Heath 

would become a concrete jungle. There would be no countryside left and the value of existing houses would 

drop. Villages would be swallowed up and there would be a massive concrete jungle with villages becoming part 

of a massive housing estate. 

Do not know if more housing developments would make Coalville more viable although a more attractive town 

centre might help. However the propose 12000 new houses in the district is too many. 

Issue 7 

Cannot comment on the employment questions as do not know where the land is to be? But if small villages 

were involved this would lead to traffic problems and need for major road construction. 

Question 10 

Support the fight to prevent the loss of green belt land. As it would preserve green spaces of countryside and 

farmland for living and breathing space for the population to benefit from. It would also help the village of 

Whitwick to retain its identity and prevent it being swallowed up into an unrecognisable concrete mass of housing 

with nearby towns. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington This is the only large site left on the area where wildlife 

has a chance of survival. The area is supposed to be a national forest. A vital wildlife area will be lost forever. 

129 Ms Key Question 14 and 15

and Mr 

Watkins 

130 Mr Jenkins 

and Doctor 

Jenkins 

131 Ray Neal, 

Community 

Guardian, 

Thringston 

e 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Why do so many houses have to be built in such close proximity to Ravenstone and Whitwick? They should be 

more evenly distributed throughout the whole area. Ravenstone does not want to become part of Coalville. It is 

a village with community spirit and has already had to suffer the impact of the open cast mine. 

Ravenstone could possibly cope with one more small development but does not have the facilities to cope with 

such a large number of proposed dwellings and questions the impact on water, electric, sewerage and local 

roads. For example, there is only one primary school. There is no doctor or chemist, and only one village shop. 

Electricity pylons run across one of the suggested site (Health concerns) and where is the employment going to 

be located that will employ the new residents or will development add to level of out-commuting. 

Where is the money going to come from to build the 12,200 houses? Some of the landowners of these identified 

sites do not want to sell and do not want compulsory purchase. 

Question 18 

Object to the proposal to develop land at Money Hill between Nottingham Road and Smisby Road. This would 

have a detrimental effect on Ashby, the environment, traffic congestion, amenities and services. 

Question 10 and Question 15 

Concerned about development in the Green Wedge surrounding Thringstone Village. The area to the north of 

Thringstone earmarked for 450 plus houses appears to incorporate the school playing field and land adjoining. 

This proposal compromises the intention to maintain the integrity of the National Forest and its relationship to 

Charnwood forest. 

Thringstone is a separate community, distinct from Whitwick, Swannington and Coalville, with a long history and 

listed in the Domesday book with historical remains. Thringstone should be designated a Sustainable Village 

with due regard paid to its long and separate history as a settlement of archaeological interest. 

The Green Wedge (Land to rear of Glebe Rd and Main Street) provides separation from Swannington. This is 

currently wetland and is a valuable and ancient resource, home to flora and fauna in need of conservation. Local 

residents have spent many years caring for this resource. This area requires preservation and a commitment to 

its conservation. 

Scrap Option 1. It doesn’t acknowledge the realities of the communities and will create one sprawling 

conurbation. Such an increase in population in the village is not sustainable and will overload the infrastructure 

and current services.

132 Mr & Mrs 

Webster 

Question 7 

Coalville does not have significant employment for people already living there or for people moving into the area. 

Suggest the provision of homes near the centres of employment, yet Castle Donington and Ashby both fail to 

have a significant allocation of new homes, unless Option 2 is chosen. 

133 D Richards Object Refer to Representation 104 

134 M Parker Object Refer to Representation 104 

Question 15 

Would welcome for The Limes to be redesignated as Coalville. Strongly against all of the four options contained 

within the Core Strategy. Would result in the loss of open outlook and flora and fauna; devaluation of property 

values and quality of life. Unacceptable and significant increase in traffic onto Coalville Lane and the A447. 

These roads are already busy, dangerous and noisy. Public transport is poor with a reliance on car. Population 

density will bring anti-social behaviour, parking problems, litter, dog fouling, and a strain on services, including 

sewerage, water and schools. 

Also concerned that some of the land maybe earmarked as a site for Gypsy and Travellers. Housing numbers 

are too high. Ludicrous that these numbers are being considered before a full housing needs assessment has 

been undertaken. 

135 N and J 

Tatlock 

136 E M 

Chaplin 

137 E C 

Wilmott 




138 Mr G A 

Roworth 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As the roads are already unsuitable for existing traffic. 

Following an accident there is turmoil with traffic diverted to narrow lanes that are unsuitable. Hemington Village 

has cars and vans parked on both side of the Main Street with narrow and winding lanes. This scenario is

139 Paul 

Andrew 

140 Elizabeth 

Riding 

Object 

Object 

repeated in Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. This development would exacerbate these road 

conditions, spoil the countryside and generate air pollution. 

Question 18 

Development at Money Hill, Ashby is inappropriate. 

The increase in population will have a major negative impact on the services infrastructure, such as schools, 

doctors, dentists, hospitals etc. As the birth rate further increase the impact will be magnified. 

Detrimental effect of the availability of amenity space and leisure facilities. 

Development will have an economic affect upon the viability of the continuity of the remaining farmland and thus 

open up the remainder of the site for future development. 

Such a development will be completely unsustainable. 

Question 10 

Object to the potential loss of the Green Wedge as it will result in urban sprawl. The Green Wedge is an 

important area and the distinction between Whitwick and Coalville needs to be preserved. Whitwick is a 

Domesday village and should not be made part of Coalville – loss of the Green wedge would destroy heritage. 

Question whether the land between Green Lane and Hermitage Road is fit for building so many houses as the 

land is always flooding. Will the riparian ditch that crosses my land be covered in? Would also lead to the loss of 

heritage in that the piece of land between Hermitage Lake and Thornborough Road is part of the original three 

field system. 

Will the Council Guarantee that subsidence will not affect the new houses. This causes difficulties in getting 

house insurance. Why cannot empty houses be put to use and provide housing accommodation? 

141 Mr A Taylor Object Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would cause a significant deterioration of the local 

environment and quality of life. Strongly opposed to such a proposal. This would also result in poorer air quality, 

noise and air pollution and greater congestion on the roads. 

142 L Botterill 

Object 

Question 15 

Object to development on the south west Coalville sites. Electricity pylons and cables cross the site with the

potential to cause health and welfare problems, damage during storms and proximity to such a large number of 

people. Suggest the Option 3 is considered. This would allow communities to identify themselves in smaller 

groups whilst also maintaining separation between town and villages. 

143 Sharon and 

Richard 

Nield 

Question 5 

Do not believe that the district needs so much additional housing. However understand that these targets are set 

by Government and are out of control. 

144 Robert and 

Margaret 

Logan 

Object 

Question 8 

Preference would be for a purpose built ECO town on otherwise empty land. This could be created with the 

necessary schools, healthcare etc and would not impact on established locations. If this is not an option, do not 

add large amount of houses onto otherwise small communities. Coalville could probably cope with a large 

amount of development on land at Grange Road. 

Question 14 

Strongly against adding houses to villages and they will lose their identity. Ravenstone in particular is in danger 

of merging with Coalville. It is important that villages maintain their identity. In addition, Ashby is becoming spoilt 

and unattractive. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington due to the impact on house values, increased road 

congestion, noise, light and air pollution and commerce and industry – airports, racetrack etc. The area is 

already saturated with development. 

145 Mrs M Object Refer to Representation 104 

Bond 

146 A W Fowler Question 14 

Proposals suggest an abnormal quantity of dwellings for Ravenstone. Why can’t development be more evenly 

spread and why is Swannington Village not earmarked as a building site. High volume of properties would mean 

a substantial increase in population and cars, worsening existing traffic congestion problems. 

Where would all the incomers work? It would be sensible to position these dwellings near sites identified for 

employment development. Question ability of schools to accommodate additional numbers. Additional policing 

will be needed. Who will pay for this?

Strong argument to preserve the individual identities of communities. Ravenstone will be swallowed up into an 

extension into Coalville. The majority of houses should not be dumped on Coalville. 

147 B and L 

Travers 

148 David 

Kershaw 


Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The number of jobs created would be few and low paid 

and the majority of the workers would be from outside of the immediate area and would probably travel in by car. 

Concerned about the air quality adjacent to our residence. The area is already in an Air Quality Management 

Area and the level of Nitrous Oxide in atmosphere is anticipated to exceed EU levels in the near future. Loss of 

land available for walking and leisure. May need to drive to access such facilities. 

149 G Baker 

150 Jennifer 

Burnett 

151 Mr and Mrs 

Crockett 

Object 

Object 

Question 15 

Object to the development of land at north of Stephenson Way due to large amount of noise on the A511. This 

already exceeds the national noise traffic limit and if you lived abroad you would get a reduction in Council Tax. 

Coalville residents are proud and patriotic towards their town and do not want 12,000 new houses. The planning 

proposals need to be revised. The town itself has nothing to offer. Who would want to come and live in a town 

that has no facilities? 

Question 40 

Object to the proposed rail distribution centre sited just north of East Midlands airport. Such a proposal would 

generate extra traffic, exacerbate problems due to proximity to Junction 24 of the M1, and pollute the air, flood 

the village of Hemington with less natural drainage available fro excess rain. There are other, more suitable sites 

in Leicestershire. 

152 Mrs H 

Newall 


Occleston 


Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Local people’s health and what the area has to cope 

with already should be considered. 

154 P J Newall Object Refer to Representation 104

155 Mr F R 

Sanderson 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Will impact directly upon home. The area already 

experiences too much noise, congestion, pollution and intrusion due to airport, industrial estates and additional 

housing. There has been no improvement in the road systems or services. Council seem determined to turn 

Castle Donington into an industrial area. 

156 Betty 

Barge 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington It would devastate the area where there is already too 

much development. 

157 Ivan Wain 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the site off is too large and the necessity for major 

alterations to M1 would cause more delays. With reference to the other options, the site which might be flooded 

is also out which leaves the other site near Ashby. 

The Ashby site is ideal with the possibility of rail access and no major road or rail links to consider. Do not 

consider the size of the site to be a problem. 

158 Vic 

Goodman 

Question 15 

The vast majority of those attending the public meeting in Ravenstone did not understand why such a large 

amount was pencilled in for Ravenstone. The character of the village would be destroyed and it appears a lot 

more works needs to be done before such major expansion takes place. 

159 Mr 

Bagshaw 

and Mrs 

Neat 

Object 

Question 27 

Object to development of land at the rear of Data Centre, Packington Hill, Kegworth. Such a development would 

impact directly upon nearby homes and the village amenities cannot cope with additional housing developments. 

If development goes ahead need to ensure that does not impact upon nearby homes. 

Deleted: 

160 Christine 

Healey 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Castle Donington has already suffered enough. Do not 

consider that all future development should be located in this area. There will be negative impacts on transport 

infrastructure and traffic congestion and increase flooding problems. The Council has a duty of care, to protect 

the environment and reduce harmful gases and these developments will not meet these requirements. Should 

consider alternative sites before making choice and should not allow financial gain to cloud the issue.

161 J Penny Object Refer to Representation 104 

162 Mrs L 

Olsson 

163 E A 

Bestwick 

164 Mrs J 

Bradley 

165 W M 

Franklin 





166 N and M W Object Refer to Representation 104 

Hassall 

167 D Young Object Refer to Representation 104 

168 D and B 

Clarke 


J E Milne 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. It will have a devastating impact on the community at 

Castle Donington. There will be a loss of rural landscape which should be producing our own food; noise, light 

and air pollution problems and impacts and will add to the traffic congestion problems that are experienced. 

Flooding has been caused due to building on flood plains. Further development will exacerbate this problem. 

Many roads in the area are affected by flooding. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Already have to contend with the greater burden of 

noise from the airport at all hours of the day and night as well as fumes from the aviation fuel. This is in addition 

to the noise and disturbance cased by Donington Park. Taking into account the Formula One Grand Prix, this will 

cause more problems for the local infrastructure. 

170 Mr C J 

Wright 


171 Mrs H Object Refer to Representation 104

Wright 

172 Mr W 

Bradley 


173 Mr Roger 

Chaplin 

174 Mrs Lynda 

Chaplin 


F V 

Gaffney 

176 Mrs Elaine 

Hall 


Brewer 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Strongly object to the proposed strategic rail distribution centre to be sited on 100 hectare site just north of East 

Midlands Airport. Disgraceful that this location is even considered. The area already suffers from the airport, 

race tracks, new rail station, M1 – how much more can the local villages take? 

Question 40 

Strongly object to the proposed strategic rail distribution centre to be sited on 100 hectare site just north of East 

Midlands Airport. Disgraceful that this location is even considered. The area already suffers from the airport, 

race tracks, new rail station, M1 – how much more can the local villages take? 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. The area already suffers traffic, air and noise pollution 

generated by the Airport and the two large industrial estates. Will impact upon property values. There has already 

been an increase in traffic, pollution, wagons and lorries cutting through the High Street. During racetrack days 

lives becomes impossible and object strongly to any further development. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The proposal only serves to degrade the quality of life of 

the surrounding villages. It is detrimental to the local environment, socially, recreationally, ecologically and 

visually. The area has already more than its fair share of industrial, commercial and residential developments. 

This includes deregulation of night flights. Noise and traffic chaos caused by the racetrack and two large 

industrial estates. The strategic distribution centre would occupy land currently used by walkers, jogger and 

plane spotters. It will create further noise, light and air pollution and diminish the appeal and appearance of the 

local villages. This development would not give anything back to the local inhabitants. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington 

178 Ms M 

Bosley 

Object Refer to Representation 104

179 Ashby de 

la Zouch 

Town 

Council 

180 John 

Bayliss (J 

& W 

Investment 

s Ltd) 

181 Mrs Kerrie 

Evans 

182 Joanne 

and 

Nicholas 

Salt 

183 Mr Peter 

Alp 

Support 

Object 

Object 

Object 

So far as significant new housing developments in Ashby are concerned, the Town Council will continue to seek 

and support proposals which bring positive benefits to the Town, and resist proposals perceived to be against the 

best interest of the Town. 

Question 13 

Support the inclusion of land at Beveridge Lane, (Bardon) (plan provided) within the South East Coalville SUE 

and its use as employment land. The site has good road accessibility to the M1 Motorway and the surrounding 

road network with scope for improvements to be made. There are also good bus services to Coalville and 

Leicester. It is an infill site with adjacent employment land and possible uses suggested include B1 or hotel. 

Question 14 

Object to possible development in Ravenstone which is a village location and would result in a loss of the 

countryside and pollution. The village has already suffered with the mines. 

Question 18 

Object to development of land at Money Hill for housing. It would result in an increase in population and lack of 

services and facilities will cause the standard of these services and facilities to suffer. Traffic congestion, the 

associated poor air quality and excessive wear on road infrastructure. 

Loss of agricultural land which is also suitable for forestation. Long term competition for local employment. Loss 

of an extensive area of wildlife habitation. Reduction in property values. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington Junction 24 of the M1 comes to a standstill on a daily 

basis due to the volume of traffic. The site is sloping and undulating, and already subject to drainage problems 

due to airport and roadworks. The Power Station site has full rail access in place. Long been government policy 

to ban commercial development adjacent to an airport due to danger and pollution. 

184 G Clowes Object Refer to Representation 104 


P Foster 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The area already suffers from noise, air and transport 

pollution in from the airport, racetrack, junction24, Radcliffe Power Station, industrial estate and new railway 

station on the A453. The infrastructure can hardly cope and this proposal will only add to these problems.

186 Mr A Jones 

187 Councillor 

Gerald 

Dalby 

188 Chris and 

Janet 

Smith 

Support 

Object 

Object 

Totally unacceptable to destroy the two small villages of Hemington and Lockington as well as Castle Donington. 

Urge the Council to withdraw from the area and look elsewhere 

Question 30 

Support the development of the site identified as ‘North East of Atherstone Road’. See residential development 

as a good thing for Measham in terms of shops, employment/investment, bringing more trade into the main 

street, all of which are beneficial to the community. The developers would also be required to provide much 

needed associated facilities e.g. Doctors, schools, sport facilities, dentists etc. 

Question 40 

It is understood that the Council has been instructed to identify possible sites for strategic distribution centres. 

However Council also has a duty to recognise the impact that such a major development would have on local 

communities and the environment. 

With its favoured approach, there has been a failed appreciation that Locking and Hemington are two very 

attractive and unspoilt villages. The scale of development proposed would be visually intrusive and overshadow 

these two villages as well as Castle Donington. Other adverse impacts would include noise pollution, visual 

intrusion, loss of rural character, traffic congestion and increase in risk of flooding. 

Strongly object to the suggestion that there should be a strategic distribution centre to the west of Junction 24 of 

the M1. Castle Donington already has a major distribution centre and to have a second would be totally 

unacceptable. An alternative more suitable site in Leicestershire or to the north of Derbyshire should be found. 

The Strategy document’s use of the word ‘favour’ is unfortunate and gives the wrong impression. The document 

should also describe the adverse impact that the development of this site would have including the disastrous 

environmental damage. 

Question 10 

Object to the removal of the Green Wedge and believe there are good reasons for maintaining these. It is an 

essential feature of the County and allows the rural or semi-nature of the area to remain as well as allow the 

villages to maintain their identities. Removal would result in urban sprawl and bring about the associated issues 

of crime, social deprivation and reduction in the quality of life. 

Essential that the village identities are maintained with development limited to allow this. In the case of Whitwick 

and Coalville development should be limited to land immediately opposite the Pines on Hall Lane. However

189 Jo Straw 

Object 

development behind the existing estate served from Hall Lane by Torrington Avenue, or behind the houses on 

George Street, would not be acceptable. No access should be allowed via Torrington Avenue or the drive to 

Coalville Rugby Club. The recreational field off Sharpley Avenue should be protected as an important local 

amenity. The infrastructure of Torrington Avenue and connected roads is not suitable for more traffic, has barely 

adequate sewage facilities and poor water supply. 

Question 35/36 

The development of Traveller sites should not be allowed in Whitwick. 

Question 10 and Question 15 

Totally opposed to any building on Green Wedge, in particular that which is identified as the ‘Eastern Green 

Wedge’. 

Health 

The Wedge provides separation between Whitwick and Coalville. Whitwick is an historic village and was included 

in the Domesday Book. Development on the Green Wedge will cause Whitwick to lose its strong sense of 

identify and character. It will just become part of urban Coalville. 

The Eastern Green Wedge is used daily by the people of Whitwick and Coalville. It is the last open area that 

people can appreciate from the pubic footpaths that pass through it. Reference is made to a published report that 

shows that exposure to open green spaces, promotes good health and is crucial to reducing health inequalities. 

Future generations should be able to grow up in the same healthy environment as previous generations. If the 

Green Wedge is lost, they will be forced to experience only urban culture and not become engaged with their 

environment. The Green Wedge consists of hedges and fields that are part of the English heritage and provides 

vital habitats to valuable wildlife. Do not agree with the Council’s assessment of the Green Wedges against the 

criteria. 

Traffic Congestion 

The Eastern Green Wedge is an island of green surrounded by some of the busiest roads. 2000 new homes will 

produce thousands of cars and add to existing traffic congestion. Existing roads are already at a standstill and 

chaotic along Stephenson Way and Hermitage Road. New roads will not compensate for the thousands of new 

cars that would result due to development. This will also lead to damaging environmental effect and health 

hazards such as congestion chaos and the reduction in air quality. Increased dwellings will need increase 

services, more buses, lorries and emergency services and congestion will prolong response times.

190 Mrs J L 

Harper 

191 Mick 

Feliciant 

192 Angela 

Moore 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Sustainability 

The regeneration of Coalville Town Centre will not provide enough employment for new residents to maintain 

current unemployment levels. Thousands of new residents will put pressure on hospitals, surgeries, schools etc. 

Increase electrical demand will increase the amount of pylons, water pressure will be an issue and sewage could 

overload the current system. Why build so many houses when there are so many empty properties and buildings 

should be on brown land. Such a development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact. 

Flood Risk 

Should the Eastern Green Wedge (112.25ha) be hard surfaced the rainfall will just run off and cause flooding in 

the surrounding area. Rainfall in Whitwick is increasing year on year. 

The demolition of the Green Wedge can never be revered. Whitwick residents deserves a bright future, their 

community and their identity 

Question 15 

Strong objection to the proposed Greenhill Farm Development due to detrimental impact on the forest, potential 

flooding, along with a clear lack of facilities to accommodate such a development. Would urge the Council to 

reconsider and the development will do nothing to improve the area. 

Question 15 

Object to possible development at Greenhill Farm as it will bring disruption to residents and wildlife. There will 

also be traffic chaos. Does Coalville need anymore houses and would anybody want to live here? Object to this 

site being used as a traveller site. 

Question 14 

Object to the building of 12,200 homes in Coalville and other local areas. It would result in a change in the 

landscape and communities forever and it is unfair that the district should shoulder such an amount. 

Question 15 

Would particularly object to development at Greenhill Farm. This is part of Charnwood Forest and development 

would destroy an important area and set an uncomfortable precedent. It is obvious why this loss of green land 

and large increase in population would be detrimental to local communities and environment.

193 Mary 

Bayliss (J 

& W 

Invetsment 

s Ltd) 

Support 

Questions 12 and 13 

Recommend that the site at Beveridge Lane, Bardon be included in the South East SUE and that the land be 

considered as a Strategic Site. Suggest the site is developed as employment land with some housing on the 

eastern side of the site. Mixed use could accommodate offices and hotel and there has been interst from a 

number of interested parties. 

The site has good access to the motorway and road network, with scope for improvements and good 

accessibility. Suggest that it is a form of infill development due to adjacent employment uses. New housing and 

employment would be beneficial to the area, with the prospect of the re-opening of the railway station at Bardon. 

194 Karen and 

Graham 

Dayman 

Question 1 

The Vision talks about a sustainable community but such a massive distribution centre seems inappropriate and 

irresponsible at this time. It would also not be an enhancement to the environment. It would be visually intrusive, 

create additional pollution and cause further traffic congestion. 

Question 2 

SO8 is fine but there must be better parking provision. There is already a severe problem in Kegworth, which has 

been highlighted in the recent Parish Plan survey. 

SO11 seems contradictory or impossible to achieve. How is it possible to expand the traffic access to the airport 

at the same time as protecting the environment? 

Question 4 

Are empty properties being looked at first? There are a number of such properties in Kegworth. 

Question 5 

9600 dwellings should be considered a maximum. Who will be able to afford these houses? 

Question7/8 

Options 1 and 2 are the only workable, viable options for Kegworth, when taking into account road congestion, 

pollution, healthcare and social care provision. 

Question 9

What research ahs been done to establish the need for such a massive distribution centre in this locality. Raises 

questions whether this would actually provide diversity or just more of the same. Presume that without this 

business development there would be no additional housing demand. 

Question 10 

Important that the plan and the Green Wedge issue is taken in context of the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire 

development plans. If each is considered in isolation there is a danger that significant green wedge land will be 

lost. If theses issues are not taken into account, Kegworth will merge with Nottingham via Clifton 

Question 11 

There is little understanding of what access exists in the Green Wedge. To increase their use, walks and trails 

need to be developed and could be facilitated by local groups. 

Question 26 

As Slack and Parr has been approved for development, with options 1 and 2 no further provision would be 

needed. This should be taken into consideration when considering the application for development on land 

behind the Computer Centre. This land is very close to the Motorway and noise and pollution would be 

unacceptably high. Loss of local employment would be inconsistent with the objectives of sustainability. 

Question 27 

Use of land adjacent to the Cotts Factory and land on Station Road would seem the best option if required as 

there is little adjacent housing to disrupt and these developments could facilitate improved access to the A6. 

Question 35 

Has anybody asked the gypsy community if they want to be integrated? Is this not against the ethos of this way 

of life. Suggest that additional resources are put into enforcing responsible co existence. 

Question 39 

Focus of the plan is the provision of employment via massive distribution centres. What about developing 

existing local businesses. Many are disappearing in Kegworth and resources could be redirected to preserve 

these or to establish them. 

Question 40 

Hard to believe that the creation of a strategic distribution centre can be done in a way that preserve the 

character and amenity of the surrounding area. Concerns have also been raised, on the traffic, noise and air

195 K M 

Jackson 

196 Jane 

Davies 

197 Kegworth 

Parish 

Council 

Object 

Object 

pollution that is already suffered by Kegworth and would be exacerbated by further development. 

Question 17 

Regarding future planning of housing in Ashby, this is completely over the top for a town of this size as the 

infrastructure at present is bursting at the seams. Ashby would be unable to cope with even 500 homes (2000 

people) with existing waiting lists for doctors, poor hospital facilities, poor parking, packed schools and small sport 

and leisure facilities. 

Make more sense to build a new town in the area with the necessary infrastructure built at the same time, leaving 

the green belt land and town intact. 

Question 24 

Object to possible development on land off Leicester Road, Ibstock. There is a mine shaft in the identified site. 

Question 1 

The Vision is supported; it is considered so as the Core Strategy is based on the vision for the Council’s 

Sustainable Community Strategy. 

Question 2 

Some are supported, as follows: 

SO1 – Supported 


SO3 – Supported, but question how the Council can propose this when a large Strategic Rail Distribution 

development at J24 of the M1 is suggested and is near the most polluted area in NWL, close to the Airport, 

Ratcliffe of Soar Power Station and the major road network. 


SO5 - Supported 


SO7 - Supported, however it is considered there is too much warehousing already. The Castle Donington Power 

Station site is underutilised. Employment provision should be located nearer to larger areas of population as 

appose to near small villages which are predominantly Conservation Areas. 

SO8 – Supported, a reduced mix of housing with estates of similar sized houses is supported not ranges from 2 

bed houses to large five bed houses on each estate. 


SO10 – Supported

SO11 – Supported, but not at the expense of the local villages for example bus services have been diverted from 

Kegworth to the Airport leaving the village with no bus service in the evenings or on a Sunday. 




Question 3 

The favoured approach is supported 

Question 4 

No other options at the present time 

Question 5 

Supported but the word ‘minimum’ should be removed as there are too many houses proposed under the 

Regional Plan, house numbers should be reduced to reflect the current recession. 

Question 6 

The plan should not address potential development needs beyond the plan period as it is already a long time until 

2026 and the economy is subject to change. 

Question 7 

Kegworth Parish Council support option 1 

Question 8 

Not supported – the Parish Council considers there is sufficient employment land in Kegworth 

Question 9 

Not supported, the wording is too open ended, there needs to be a definite numbers of hectares quoted. 

Question 10 

Not supported, unhappy to lose Green Wedge 

Question 11 

More footpaths could be provided across these areas. This could be done through joint working with Sustrans. 

Question 12

The identification of specific sites is supported 

Question 13 

The approach of what should constitute a strategic site is supported 

Question 14 

Option 1 is supported due to the regeneration possibilities it would bring to Coalville 

Question 15 

The Parish Council does not support any specific sites as it considers this decision should be made by local 

people. 

Question 16 

It should be local people who chose the sites 

Question 17 

Option 1 is supported as this would maximise the development at Coalville but would allow some development to 

take place in Ashby. 

Question 18 

Sites should be decided by local residents 

Question 19 

Local people should decide 

Question 20 

Option 1 is supported as this supports option 1 for Kegworth 

Question 21 

This is for Castle Donington residents to decide 

Question 22 

This is for local residents to decide 

Question 23 

Option 1 is supported as this supports option 1 for Kegworth

Question 24 


Question 25 

This would be for local residents to decide 

Question 26 

Option 1 is supported as this would allow for the minimum number of houses to be built in Kegworth 

Question 27 

Clauses 10.33 and 10.34 state that if planning permission is issued on the Slack & Parr site, no other land would 

be required for housing in Kegworth in the plan period. However, if the Slack & Parr site is not developed then the 

Computer Centre would be favoured. 

Question 28 

See responses to question 27 – The Computer Centre 

Question 29 

Option 1 is supported as this supports Option 1 for Kegworth 

Question 30 


Question 31 


Question 32 

The expanding of Coalville is supported 

Question 33 

The direction for possible expansion of Coalville is for local residents to decide 

Question 34 

The favoured approach regarding affordable housing is supported

Question 35 

The favoured approach for Gypsy and Traveller provision is not supported 

Question 36 

Not aware of any potential sites 

Question 37 

No other options which should be considered 

Question 38 

• The Parish Council have made the following comments: 

It is considered that the minimum net density on new developments is causing many problems with 

houses and flats shoehorned on to land with little provision for parking e.g. Persimmon Housing off Derby 

Road, Kegworth. In the long term this could lead to disharmony when Council’s/Planners should be 

working towards better community cohesion 

• Housing estates should comprise similar types and values of properties, a mix of very small houses or 

flats with large five bed houses causes neighbour disputes 

• Providing sites for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Show People should not be done as part of 

strategic housing 

Question 39 

Option 1 is supported 

Question 40 

This is not supported – it is considered that the area between and including Kegworth, Lockington, Hemington 

and Castle Donington is already one of the most polluted areas of NWL due to the Airport and Aircraft traffic 

using the major roads that are close to Kegworth and attracting more lorries to this site would only exacerbate the 

already in tolerable situation. Kegworth has an air quality management area along London Road/Derby Road and 

the Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station adds to the poor air quality in the area. The major road network, which makes 

the site appear attractive, is already overloaded and development in the area would increase congestion. 

The Parish Council considers that, due to the economic downturn, that already vacant office premises will sustain 

the market during the plan period 

Question 45 

Small units should only be developed purely for very local need

Question 46 

Option 2 is supported, but reference is made to Para 19.3. 

• The Parish Council fell that the links with all the villages around the Airport should be strengthened and 

each Airport related Parish Council consulted 

• Reference to the Aviation White Paper should be a guide only, as the speculated figures within the 

document for numbers of passengers and tonnage of freight are far too high, as they are in the EMA 

Masterplan 

• The noise and track monitoring of aircraft should be done by an independent company and not EMA itself 

• The operation of EMA should be transparent in terms of environmental impact on the local population 

Question 47 

No other options that should be considered 

Question 48 

The use of the definitions of operational and airport related development are supported 

Question 49 

The favoured approach regarding town centres is supported 

Question 50 

There are no other options that should be considered 

Question 51 

It is considers that town centre boundaries should be defined as part of the Core Strategy. 

Question 52 

No suggestions on what the town centre boundaries should be 

Question 53 

The favoured approach is supported but there are reservations about 22.4, 22.5 and 22.6. Concern is raised 

about the lack of car parking e.g. Holland’s Way off Derby Road, Kegworth. People in rural areas should be 

encouraged to produce travel plans and to use public transport, which needs to be improved; reducing car 

parking does not encourage people to use public transport. Different guidelines should be used in rural areas for 

the number of car parking spaces per dwelling as 1 to 11/2 spaces is not enough. The lack of parking causes

esidents friction and worry and does not encourage community cohesion. With regard to 22.3 the Parish Council 

would request reference is made to improvements that would be made by the building of the Kegworth Bypass. 

Question 54 

There are no other options that should be considered 

Question 55 

The favoured approach is supported but the Parish Council have strong reservations about whether the District 

Council would adhere to this approach, more particularly with reference to Para 23.2 (good design as part of new 

developments). It is considered that the Hollands Way development and the application for ‘Whiteholme’ both in 

Kegworth are examples of very bad design and the adherence to Government policies. 

Para 23.7 (not increase the risk of flooding) The Parish Council are not sure the Council will adhere to this. In 

addition in regards to unacceptable impact from noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution the Parish Council 

fell that little heed is taken of this when decisions are made regarding EMA and the impact on surrounding 

villages. It is considered that a good use of this clause would be to refuse the ‘Whiteholme’ application. 

Question 56 

There are not any other issues that should be addressed. 

Question 57 

The Parish Council consider that Section 106 Agreements should continue to be used. There is concern that if a 

CIL was introduced the Parish Council would have little influence about how much money it could obtain to 

sustain the infrastructure within the village for which it was responsible. If the Government of Sub-Regional Body 

was set up to administer a CIL the Parish Council would be a long way down the ‘food chain’ for receiving 

anything to support the future development required in rural villages to ensure their sustainability. 

Question 58 

In terms of infrastructure the Parish Council state there is a lack of accessibility to facilities sin Market Towns and 

larger villages due to inadequate bus services, for example residents in the Northern parishes cannot access the 

Hermitage Leisure Centre as there is no public transport provision. 

Question 59 


Question 60 

It is agreed that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines, the Parish Council knows of no suitable

198 T D 

Redfearn 

Object 

sites in Kegworth 

Question 61 

No the Core Strategy should no go further than the Regional Plan 

Question 62 

There should be District wide renewable energy targets. 

The District Council could have a policy that every new house should have solar panels and/or small wind 

turbine, as well as the ability to flush toilets from retained rainwater. It is much cheaper to install these energy 

saving devices whilst the property is being built rather than trying to convert them afterwards. 

Question 63 

The Soar Valley should be protected and the encouragement of replanting trees and hedgerows is supported 

Question 64 

The standard of Open Space provision recommended in the Open Space Audit is not supported. 

Kegworth Parish Council does not support the insistence on play areas on new housing developments as these 

areas are too small and children playing causes noise and nuisance to neighbouring properties. Evidence of this 

in Kegworth is the play areas on Staffords Acre, Windmill Way and 2 on Suthers Road. Instead of providing small 

play areas on housing estates, money should be used to purchase other, larger areas of land for use as 

recreation grounds with comprehensive playground equipment. The District Councils Play Area Policy 

encourages parents to send their young children away from home to play, when they should be playing in their 

gardens. This would reduce the risk of bullying, abduction and interference by sex offenders. Younger children 

could then be taken to the larger play areas to play under the watchful eye of their parents. Older children would 

be able to use the larger recreation ground themselves without causing a nuisance to adjacent residents. 

Question 65 


Question 66 

The Core Strategy could encourage different organisations to work together, which includes all Parish Councils. 

Question 20 

Strongly oppose all the development scenarios for Castle Donington. In recent times Castle Donington has been 

the focus of residential development and had its fair share. The amount of development continues to put 

pressure on the aesthetic beauty, environment and ecology of the local as well as pushing the village’s

infrastructure to its limit. There needs to be a halt to further development here and only then can the beauty and 

the village community be preserved. 

Object 

Question 21 

Have great concerns reference development south of Park Lane as this encroaches onto the countryside of 

outstanding natural beauty. There is a range of wildlife on this site. Development of the site would destroy this 

area and deny future generations the benefit of a rural childhood. 


Redfearn 

200 A Kendrick 

201 P Houston 

Object 

Object 

Object 

If this number of houses is truly required, paramount importance must be given to the preservation of rural life 

and villages. Sites for development should be searched for in existing towns where they have already got the 

infrastructure, or explore brownfield sites where the impact on natural history is reduced. 

Question 40 

Object to the favoured approach. 

Whilst understanding the importance of industry, Castle Donington has sustained massive industrial development 

in recent years. For example, expansion of the Trent Lane Industrial estate, former Power Station site and 

growth of the airport. In addition, the racetrack will be staging the F1. 

Believe that the village’s social, recreational and ecological requirements must take president over the desire for 

further industry and commerce. As it stands the villages of Castle Donington, Lockington and Hemington have 

maintained a natural barrier from the airport perimeter. The proposal would adversely affect the villages, and 

transform a beautiful area into a concrete urban sprawl putting pressure on wildlife and environmental issues. 

If such a site is needed in Castle Donington, it should go on the former power station site. This is already a 

brownfield site which links directly onto the rail system and would allow such a development without the proposed 

destruction of the area. 

Question 15 

Object to building on the Green Wedge at the back of Stephenson Way. Keep Whitwick a village. 

Question 15 


202 B Butler Question 15

Object 


203 Mick 

Burton 

Question 40 

Not against development in the region. However the proposed strategic distribution centre at junction 24 will be 

hugely damaging to the villages of Lockington, Hemington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. A grossly unfair 

amount of development sites for housing and industry is proposed in the area. 

A number of environmental issues are highlighted:- 

Emissions from the road network will only get worse if the site goes ahead; Noise will result from the road 

network; Emissions and noise from the airport; And Light pollution. The proposals will exacerbate these 

problems and there will also be an adverse impact on amenity created by the necessary construction works. 

204 Peatfield 

Associates 


White 

206 Mr J 

Healey 

207 Mr K P 

Wallace 

208 Mrs G 

Smith 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Refer to Representation 80 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As this will affect the way of life of the local 

communities with no apparent benefits. The area already suffers from the airport and racetrack and Kegworth 

used as a rat run when the A453 is closed. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington Castle Donington village has already been blighted with 

industrial estates. The former power station site has not been developed so why build another when it is not 

needed. If the district is short of employment prospects, why not build at Coalville. 

Believe that house prices in Castle Donington will decrease severely as result of the scale of development 

proposed in the area. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as there will be a huge detrimental impact on the 

environment. Already suffer from the airport, the racetrack, Sunday market and two major industrial estates. The 

proposal would bring the local area further into urban sprawl and put the local infrastructure under pressure. The 

preferred site is much too close to the airport, which would lead to further expansion, to the detriment of the local 

population. No justification for spoiling the countryside and villages. It would have an adverse impact on lives, 

noise, air and light pollution and traffic congestion.

209 Ms V J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Blake 

210 Mrs J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Barton 

211 Mrs H Object Refer to Representation 104 

Thompson 

212 Mr P Allcott Object Refer to Representation 104 

213 Mr A Swift Object Refer to Representation 104 

214 – 217 Thompson Object Refer to Representation 104 

218 Ian Forman Object Refer to Representation 104 

219 Susan 

Forshaw 


Evans 

221 Emma 

Lagon 

222 Marie 

Hooper 

223 John 

Stevenson 

224 Susan 

Stevenson 

225 Peter 

Stevenson 

226 Miss Clare 

Wintle 

227 Mr Rex 

Sharpe & 

Mrs Sheila 

Marie 









Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington Further housing will be needed to support any large 

influx of incomers to the area and this will place extra pressure on infrastructure. Development will significantly 

increase congestion on already overloaded roads; The Airport, Race Track, Trent Lane and Willow Farm

Sharpe industrial estates have a very inadequate road network. Development would also cause an increase in noise, light 

and air pollution. There is already plenty of industrial and commercial buildings in the Castle Donington area and 

the need is for small businesses to be adequately supported. No need for further large scale development of any 

kind. 

228 & 229 Mr D. A. 

Thornton & 

Mrs G. 

Thornton 

230 Bruce H. 

Cosway 

231 William 

Barton 

232 S J and A 

T Baylis 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington, as the local motorway is already frequently congested 

and the motorway and Airport create 24 hour noise and land pollution which would worsen if the proposal was to 

go ahead. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Castle Donington has had too many industrial sites 

developed over recent years. The road system is inadequate for the existing developments and would not cope 

with further traffic movements. Reference is made to the additional future impact of Formula One on the local 

road network and also the additional noise pollution. The proposal is completely out of context with the existing 

facilities, which struggle to cope at present. Possible site access to the east would put too much pressure on the 

local road network. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The proposed site would have a detrimental impact on 

the nearby villages and ecological impact on the whole area. The northern part of the District has already had too 

much industrial and commercial activity. There is noise pollution, traffic congestion and two industrial estates 

with business parks. If this particular site is chosen, it will inevitably produce increasing and damaging pressures 

on the social, ecological and transport matters in the area. It will also remove the natural barrier between Castle 

Donington, Hemington and Lockington and the Airport, leading to the urbanisation of the whole area. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Castle Donington has had enough dirt, noise and air 

pollution and there has been a long neglect of the welfare of the people who live in the northern parish. 

233 Mr & Mrs P 

J Borg 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal would create extra noise, smells and foul 

air pollution in an area already polluted by air traffic, the power station and road traffic. Local people’s welfare and 

quality of life should be put before profit.


P 

Saddington 

Object 

Question 14 

Why base the majority of new development in Coalville and the immediate surrounding areas? The District is not 

just Coalville, Ashby de la Zouch, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham (the proposed areas for 

new houses) but consists of all the villages so why not divide the new developments fairly between ALL 

communities and not just one and by doing so ruining Ravenstone as a village and a community. Perhaps, 

consider smaller developments of between 25 and 100 dwellings in ALL of the villages/Parishes of NWL, in the 

long term this would rejuvenate these villages and make them more sustainable. 

In regards to the sites have landowners and other parishes of NWL been approached or just those landowners in 

the areas chosen by NWLDC as potential sites? Also why should developers be stipulating sites they wish to 

develop as they will choose sites that are easy to develop and generate the most profit. 

If employment is going to be generated in the northern part of the District then homes could be built closer to the 

employment areas to reduce the carbon footprint. 

Strong objection to the potential areas of development within the villages of Ravenstone and Snibston, they will 

lose their identity and the proposed area of development would join Ravenstone and Coalville. 

Even though the area is in the heart of the National Forest this does not seem to prevent green areas from being 

destroyed. The use of brownfield sites and improving older/empty houses would be a better way of providing 

housing. If housing is to be located near Ravenstone it is requested that only one of the identified sites be 

developed and the remainder be distributed around the District. 

235 Object Mrs L 

Hulsman 

236 Object A M 

Charsley 

237 Object M 

Charsley 




238 Object M Smith Refer to Representation 104

239 Object Brenda 

Cudworth 

240 Object Brian 

Highton 

241 Object M 

Highton 

242 Object Mr J 

Silver 

243 Object Mr A 

Reed 

244 Object Peter 

Frame 

245 W. B. 

Wright Object 







Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would greatly increase 

aircraft and traffic movements on already congested roads. Noise levels, due to air and road traffic are already 

unacceptably high and would increase with this proposal as would air pollution. If the area was subjected to 

housing development the roads would become more congested and local amenities such as schools would be 

overloaded. The Airport, Race Track and the M1 already create an unacceptably high level of noise pollution in 

Kegworth and the surrounding area. Development of this magnitude would add to the considerable problems and 

inconveniences that residential already suffer. 

246 Mrs Smith Object Refer to Representation 104 

247 Mr Smith Object Refer to Representation 104 

248 Mrs S Object Refer to Representation 104 

Wragg 

249 Mrs C Object Refer to Representation 104 

Flewitt 

250 Carol Object Refer to Representation 104 

Chantrill 

251 Andrew Object Refer to Representation 104 

Chantrill 

252 Peter Object Refer to Representation 104

Chantrill 

253 J Chappell Object Refer to Representation 104 


Dermott 

255 Nick 

Gillham 

256 Imogen 

Trile 

257 K & F 

Dodson 

258 Mrs J. 

Kaye 

259 Mr & Mrs 

Brown 

260 Helen 

Forman 

261 Mr & Mrs 

Rayns 

262 Mrs D 

Hooper 

263 Mrs P 

Scheyer 

264 Mr & Mrs B 

Milne 

265 David 

Higgins 




Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the scale of development is too big compared to the 

surrounding villages and would further blight an already degraded area. 


Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. 








Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal would increase car travel and lorry 

movements. Agricultural land should not be developed when brown field sites are always available. 

266 R. A. Hill Para 2.2 Appears to be no reference to studies regarding the capability of infrastructure services to facilitate new 

development, in particular sewerage systems which are running at or near capacity.

Para 2.4 The Three Cities SRS Policy appears to have made the decision that Coalville is to be the main area for 

development, leaving little for the public to be consulted on. 

Question 2 

It is difficult not to agree with the favoured objectives 

Question 3 

The favoured approach is agreed although Thringstone seems to meet all of the criteria for a Sustainable Village 

although for some unknown reason it is classified as part of the Coalville Urban Area 

Question 5 

No idea of the numbers needed therefore no contribution 

Question 7 

The potential development scenarios seem to be reasonably sensible but the conclusion is not, Option 3 

represents a better way forward. There are flooding issues in the Thringstone area caused by inadequate 

sewerage systems and the amount of development that has taken place in the District. 

Question 8 

The favoured development strategy is not supported, creating large swathes of new development results in new 

communities being thrown together with little community spirit. Significant strategic extensions of the Rural Towns 

would be preferable with some reasonable development in Coalville Urban Area. The strategy of Sustainable 

Villages would be supported but it is considered that Thringstone should be placed in that category. 

Question 10 

The approach to the Green wedge is not supported. The suggestion that the western part be classified as 

Countryside is supported but would need to be clear what protection that would give it from development. 

If an environmental study had been completed then it would have highlighted that the missing wildlife corridors 

could be created between the three wedges and the countryside. The lack of such a study impacts on the whole 

document and many of the proposals. 

Question 11 

Agreements should be made with landowners for additional permissive footpaths. Car parks should not be 

adjacent to them as this encourages fly-tipping, litter and destruction. 

Question 12

Agreed as it provides some certainty for the future 

Question 13 

More helpful would be an initial assessment of the major areas around Coalville proposed for development. 

Question 14 

Option 3 is supported as the housing development would be spread around the District. 

Question 15 

Insufficient information to provide comments on all of the sites. In relation to Thringstone 470 homes is almost a 

30% increase in the size of the village, which is too much. The school cannot cater for such numbers, the 

sewerage infrastructure cannot cope and healthcare provision won’t be able to cope with the increase. The area 

lies within the National Forest and as such should be protected. 

Question 12 

The only potential benefits in larger sites are that planning gain through Section 106 can be obtained. 

Question 40 

Employment should be located near to housing to increase sustainability. 

Question 42 

The theory would be agreed if all the homes were not located in Coalville as this will increase commuting and is 

not sustainable. 

Question 46 

The approach is reasonable 

Question 54 

More provision is needed for cyclists, especially more town centre secure parking racks. 


Real targets should be set to ensure all new developments have increased insulation levels. A figure should be 

set as developers will only conform to the minimum to meet regulations. Policy should seek to ‘reduce the risk’ of 

flooding, instead of ‘not increasing the risk’ of flooding. 

Question 57

Insufficient information to understand the difference between the two processes. 

Question 59 

Yes 

Question 60 

Not accepted, if east Midlands Airport can erect a turbine on its site then there must be opportunities elsewhere. 

Question 61 

No, if anything is to be done about climate change it is to regulate to have a reduced carbon production. On site 

production is unrealistic and a carbon production target for building types should be aimed for which reduction 

targets could be set against. 


There should be targets but insufficient technical information to suggest what these should be. 

Question 63 

The existing Green Wedge should be retained, there is a contradiction between the suggestion to develop on part 

of the Green wedge and then requesting what other provision for Green Infrastructure should be made. 

267 F & R 

Taylor 


Strong opposition to the joining of Ravenstone with Coalville. Ravenstone has already had to suffer 5 housing 

estates built in the village. The green belt should be protected not built upon and the amount of development 

proposed would devalue properties in Ravenstone. An increase in traffic would also cause serious traffic 

problems. 

Reference is made to the unwelcome opencast mine in the village and associated noise and pollution. In addition 

as the new school was built in an unsustainable location it has caused increased traffic congestion. 

Question 35 

The favoured approach is not supported. 

268 Mrs J 

Radcliffe 

269 Mr J. M. 

Hollis 


Question 26 

Housing development in Kegworth needs to be carefully assessed as to the ability of facilities (schools, doctors

270 Miss S. 

McLavy 

271 Castle 

Donington 

Parish 

Council 

Object 

and road network) to cope as well as any potential damage to the village. 

Question 40 

There are already business/distribution centre developments around the Airport and any further development 

could overwhelm Kegworth. Also the M1 J23A-J25 is already excessively busy and additional traffic will add to 

this problem. 

Question 15 

Objects to the proposed site south of Coalville, adjoining Berryhill Lane, Donington le Heath. The setting of the 

medieval manor house should be preserved. There are concerns regarding the capacity of the local road network 

and the local schools, doctors and dental surgeries. 

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

272 Mr J 

Haywood 

273 Mr & Mrs 

R. Brewin 


Reference is made to the building of an Eco Town; this should only be considered after the Ivanhoe rail line has 

been opened to passenger traffic. 

274 Janet Tribe Object Refer to Representation 104 

Question 8 

Potential housing sites should not necessarily be located close to employment. This is an old fashioned idea 

stemming from Victorian times when there was no personal transport available. Better local bus services would 

be desirable but will not tempt people to relinquish their cars. 

There are concerns at the speed in which the countryside is being developed (in Leicestershire generally). The 

priority should be for infill development, all sites proposed for Ravenstone are set to expand the outer edges of 

the village. 

Question 10 

There should be an area of separation between all the villages and Coalville. Green Wedges are to be valued 

and can reduce urban sprawl. Ravenstone should not lose its rural identity especially as the heart of the village is 

a conservation area. 

Question 14 

Ravenstone will be unable to accommodate the level of development proposed as enormous pressure would be 

put on the roads, schools and village facilities. 

Under the impression that more housing was planned between the railway line and Bardon Road, Hugglescote. 

However what is needed is improved infrastructure for the existing housing and for the centre of Coalville. The 

development of a large supermarket will not benefit any of the existing businesses. 

Question 35 

Is it intended to place Gypsy and Traveller areas on land originally interpreted as green belt? This will be a 

problem in itself. 

Question 53 

Throughout the District there needs to be road improvement schemes and better public transport. Many of the 

rural roads will take the brunt of the developing traffic and roads will be put under even more pressure.

275 Andrew Object Refer to Representation 104 

Murphy 

276 Deborah Object Refer to Representation 104 

Swift 

277 Ms J S Object Refer to Representation 104 

Richmond 

278 Jane Object Refer to Representation 104 

McLaughlin 

279 Mrs A Object Refer to Representation 104 

Flower 

280 B Brown Object Refer to Representation 104 

281 Peter Object Refer to Representation 104 

Endall 

282 Carolyn Object Refer to Representation 104 

Gothard 

283 Paul Object Refer to Representation 104 

Gothard 

284 P J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Gothard 

285 June Object Refer to Representation 104 

Chamberlai 

n 

286 T. Westby Object Question 40 

Strongly protests against the plans to build a large distribution centre so close to Kegworth village. This would 

increase the levels of pollution in an already polluted area. Traffic congestion on local roads and within the village 

would increase. The 24 hour Aircraft movements and the nearby power station are causing increased pollution in 

the air. Due to the low ground which Kegworth lies in the debris in the air cannot disperse easily and resident’s 

health should not be compromised for commercial gain. 

287 Mr & Mrs 

Osborne 

288 P Cokayne 

and S 

Foster 



289 Mr & Mrs G Object Refer to Representation 104 

Archer 

290 P Young Object Refer to Representation 104 

291 S M Scalfe Object Refer to Representation 104 

292 Richard Object Refer to Representation 104 

and 

Christine 

Holland 

293 Mr F G Object Refer to Representation 104 

Neal 

294 Mrs J Neal Object Refer to Representation 104 

295 J. Mellors 

and R.A. 

Mellors 

296 Mrs B. M. 

Poulter 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would cause the formation 

of one urban and commercial centre effectively removing the boundaries between Kegworth, Lockington, 

Hemington and Castle Donington. The development will cause a loss of countryside and small community 

identities will also be lost. This area already has its fair share of industry and commerce which causes adverse 

impacts on the community. The proposed development will have an effect on the value of homes as well as 

causing increased congestion in an area that already has the busiest motorway intersection in the country. There 

will be an increase in noise, light and air pollution. The Ambush action group has identified far more suitable sites 

in and around the County which are existing industrial parks. 

It appears that the Council are acting in this matter with no County-wide consultation or consultation with 

neighbouring counties. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As the villages surrounding this area already have 

enough disruption from 24 hour aircraft movements and traffic congestion. This development would cause further 

traffic congestion on the roads and increased noise and air pollution. Parts of Kegworth are already used as ‘rat 

runs’ due to road congestion leading to increased danger to all road users, including children. 

It is hoped that the negative effects on the environment will be considered before a decision is made. 

297 A Allenson Object Refer to Representation 104

298 Mr C J 

Sharpe 


299 Tina Object Refer to Representation 104 

Perkins 

300 George Object Refer to Representation 104 

Clifford 

301 Roger Object Refer to Representation 104 

Winfield 

302 S J Paxton Object Refer to Representation 104 

303 C Driscoll Object Refer to Representation 104 

304 S Driscoll Object Refer to Representation 104 

305 Stephanie Object Refer to Representation 104 

Collyer 

306 R V Wood Object Refer to Representation 104 

307 Becky Object Refer to Representation 104 

Collyer 

308 Ralph Object Refer to Representation 104 

Mason 

309 Mrs J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Hollinworth 

310 Duncan J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Young 

311 Emma Object Refer to Representation 104 

Sunley 

312 L Sunley Object Refer to Representation 104 

313 Scott Object Refer to Representation 104 

Sunley 

314 Chris Dakin Object Refer to Representation 104

315 Helen Object Refer to Representation 104 

Dakin 

316 Howard Object Refer to Representation 104 

Sander 

317 Mr & Mrs Object Refer to Representation 104 

Sisson 

318 Hugh Object Refer to Representation 104 

Dennis 

319 Eleanor Object Refer to Representation 104 

Dennis 

320 Mrs M Object Refer to Representation 104 

Barker 

321 A Dennis Object Refer to Representation 104 

322 G Dennis Object Refer to Representation 104 

323 M Patrick Object Refer to Representation 104 

324 D Patrick Object Refer to Representation 104 

325 N Dennis Object Refer to Representation 104 

326 Mr D Object Refer to Representation 104 

Barker 

327 D P Object Refer to Representation 104 

Stewart 

328 D R J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Burrows 

329 J Robinson Object Refer to Representation 104 

330 D 


Robinson 

331 Mrs L J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Burrows 

332 Mr D G Object Refer to Representation 104

Burrows 

333 Mr M Object Refer to Representation 104 

Marcer 

334 Mrs J M Object Refer to Representation 104 

Marcer 


Westmorel 

and 

336 J. E. Daniel Object Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would result in the 

permanent destruction of rural NWL. There has already been far too much commercial development in the area 

and the proposed development would destroy Castle Donington and the surrounding villages. 

337 Mrs S. 

Brady 


Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as Castle Donington already has too much industry and 

pollution and the proposed development will be devastating for the local countryside as well as to resident’s 

health. 

338 T. 

Eastaugh 

339 South 

Derbyshire 

District 

Council 

Object 

Question 18 

Objects to the proposed development site at Money Hill, Ashby. The proposal would put extreme pressures on all 

areas of Ashby and is not in keeping with the Market Town that Ashby currently is. The site has public footpaths 

running through and if it was turned into housing another area of countryside would be lost. The bypass has 

reduced congestion in the town but the proposed development would lead to the loss of the sense of community 

and market town status. 

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 

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

oad 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. 

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. 

With regard to the national Forest Line, modal shift away from the car is a key government aim and the reopening 

of the railway line (to passengers) could provide opportunities to reduce congestion on key east-west routes 

between Burton on Trent and Leicester including the A511. 

General – Assurance is sought that any new development in land in the vicinity of Shardlow adjacent to the South 

Derbyshire border does not exacerbate or contribute to flood risk (e.g. through surface water run off). They 

welcome the continued support for the reopening of the national Forest Line and keep under review 

developments at Albert village. 

340 J. W. Blaza Notes that has previously corresponded with the Council regarding land that could be developed at Appleby 

Parva. 

Question 7 

Option 3 is supported as this would spread future development around the area as opposed to a Coalville focus, 

this would increase the likelihood that local services would be retained or improved. Local services are valuable 

to the elderly and those with limited mobility therefore some acceptable development should occur both in 

Measham and Appleby Magna/Parva. 

Question 49 

Option 2 is supported as it would be advantageous if sustainable villages such as Appleby Magna and rural 

towns like Measham could have support in maintaining and improving shop facilities as the elderly population 

increases. 

Fully supports the process that has been put in place to achieve a framework for future development. 

341 British 

Wind 

Energy 

Point out that the UK has a rich variety of renewable energy resource, including 40% of Europe’s Wind resource. 

This resource will need to be utilised if the UK is to deliver its share of Europe’s 20% renewable energy target by 

2020. Given the UK’s low baseline levels of renewable heat, the majority of this target will need to be met through

Association 

342 Mrs E. A. 

Clennett 

343 Mr N. 

Mutimer 

onshore wind. It is therefore important to encourage the growth of this sector. 

Question 18 

Strong objection to the proposed site at Money Hill, Ashby. The infrastructure cannot cope with so many 

additional residential and commercial buildings. The development would build upon ridge and furrow land 

therefore destroying an area of archaeological significance together with the flora and fauna that inhabit it. The 

proposed development does not lend itself to maintaining our local green environment and constitutes a major 

loss of open countryside and farmland. 

Question 15 

Objects to the proposed development site at Greenhill Farm. The proposed development would unnecessarily 

intrude into the Charnwood Forest which should be protected as such (as it was in the previous development 

plan). In the past development in many areas in and around Coalville was constrained due to subsidence caused 

by mining operations. Now there are lots of available places to develop. 

Question 35 

Favoured approach is not supported. Suggestions put forward for possible sites. One, to buy land around the 

Costalot site as this is already a popular traveller’s site. Secondly, purchase the former ‘coal’ site where the A511 

approaches the A42, as the access is ideal. Thirdly, the site of the old tip at Lount has ideal areas on or adjacent 

to the site. A properly equipped and well managed site could be a great asset to the District and would meet with 

widespread approval. 

344 J. S. & P. 

M. Bee Object 

Question 15 

Concern and objection regarding the proposed development at Greenhill Farm. There is already a flooding 

problem in the area as the land does not adequately absorb even medium levels of rainfall. The proposed 

development would exacerbate this problem. The local infrastructure will not be able to cope with and there will 

be an increase in traffic congestion. There will also be a detrimental impact on the flora and fauna in this are of 

outstanding natural beauty. There is a wide variety of wildlife in the area which would be adversely affected. 

Greenfield land should not be lost to development. 

345 Elaine & 

Colin Bates 


Strongly objects to the proposed development at Greenhill Farm. The proposed development would create 

additional traffic congestion on local roads. There is also concern regarding the loss of wildlife habitats and the 

risk of flooding as the removing of fields/floodplains has created problems elsewhere in the country. The Planning 

Portal shows that the proposed site is within Charnwood Forest; an area limited to development and is also an 

area of particularly attractive countryside. It is considered that alternative Brownfield sites should be developed

346 F. J. 

Denham 

347 / 348 D. R. King 

the letter is 

also 

agreed and 

supported 

by Mrs D. 

Colver 

Object 

Object 

instead and the countryside should be left as it is. 

Question 8 

Whilst understanding the Council’s dilemma regarding the need to provide 12,500 homes - why is this all focused 

towards Coalville? This would obliterate the green wedge that separates Coalville from the surrounding villages 

when development could be spread around the District. There are other settlements in the District that could easy 

accommodate some development. 

Question 15 

Further development in and around Ravenstone should not go ahead. Good agricultural land will be lost and 

there will be an increase in traffic congestion, noise and danger. Additional development of around 1000 homes 

would destroy Ravenstone’s rural culture and the local community has already had its fair share of development. 

If large scale development is located in Coalville it will effectively overrun Ravenstone and other surrounding 

villages creating massive urban sprawl. Some of the arguments put forward for this growth and criteria for land 

allocation seemed inconsistent and incomplete. The following points are raised: 

• If industry and shopping came to Coalville first housing demand should follow without reserving swathes 

of land now 

• Where are all the extra people coming from? 

• Why does Coalville need to be a bigger sub-regional centre when it is already a large town? 

• Why not spread new development evenly around the District? 

• What improvements can be expected in infrastructure to minimise disruption? 

• As the area lies in the Heart of the National Forest, why aren’t more trees planted instead of building 

more houses? 

• Green belt should be preserved, surely there are Brownfield sites that could be redeveloped 

• Ravenstone is called as a ‘sustainable village’ what does this really mean? 

• Many of the landowners whose land had been earmarked for development said they hadn’t been 

consulted, can this be explained? 

• Are the views of the individual village communities being heard? 

349 & 350 Mrs R 

Williams 

351 Mrs V 

Derrick 

352 Mr W B 

Milne 




353 J McCree Object Refer to Representation 104 

354 Mrs S Object Refer to Representation 104 

Grimshaw 


Metcalfe 

356 Neil Barker Object Refer to Representation 104 

357 Carol Clay Object Refer to Representation 104 

358 David Object Refer to Representation 104 

Hooper 

359 Tristan Object Refer to Representation 104 

Yates 

360 C E Barker Object Refer to Representation 104 

361 J 


Hammersle 

y 

362 M Simes Object Refer to Representation 104 

363 T R Simes Object Refer to Representation 104 

364 Natalie Hall Object Refer to Representation 104 

365 C McCree Object Refer to Representation 104 

366 John Clay Object Refer to Representation 104 

367 M K Hill Object Refer to Representation 104 

368 D Hill Object Refer to Representation 104 

369 Andrew 

Rhodes 


370 Miss C J Object Refer to Representation 104 

Buckle 

371 A A Object Refer to Representation 104 

Knowles 

372 C Baines Object Refer to Representation 104 

373 V Baines Object Refer to Representation 104 

374 Mrs G 

Trickitt 

375 Mr Roger 

Shelton 

376 Mr & Mrs 

JWP 

Metcalfe 

377 Mrs A. K. 

Usher 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as Castle Donington has already had its fair share of 

development including the Airport, Racetrack and industrial areas. Green belt and the historical character of the 

area should be preserved. There are other places that the Distribution centre could be located that would not 

destroy local communities. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the massive scale of the proposal would swamp 

surrounding villages. Local communities have suffered a process of ever increasing noise, air, light pollution and 

diminishing aesthetic appearance caused by 24 hour air traffic movements, ongoing gravel extractions, 

increasing motorway traffic movements and development of the racetrack and business parks. 

There seems to be some contradiction between balancing commercial need and environmental issues whilst 

having regard to recreation areas. The proposed site has benefitted from extensive tree planting resulting in an 

abundance of wildlife. The area is used for many different recreational purposes and the proposal does not take 

account of social, recreational and ecology issues. There are other more suitable sites within Leicestershire and 

NWL based on a need for regeneration and employment. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As the proposal would reduce amenity value and create 

a significant increase in traffic and noise, light and air pollution. The area is also an important wildlife habitat. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As this area has been subjected to intensive 

development over recent years and the increased levels of pollution in the area cause health problems for 

residents. 

378 Mr Frank Object Question 10

Kovacs 

379 Delia 

Richards 

380 Zoe Allery 

381 Elizabeth 

Riding 

Object 

Object 

Objects to development on the Eastern Green Wedge. Open spaces are important in the community for well 

being. Development of the area would destroy a wildlife habitat and nature resources should be preserved for 

future generations who would then have the opportunity to use the land more wisely. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would increase the risk of 

water run-off which would affect Hemington and Lockington which both lie lower than the proposed site. The 

cumulative affect of drainage from both the airport and the proposed site must be taken into account. Also objects 

to the prospect of 24 hour illumination of the proposed site and accompanying noise and pollution. Presently, the 

site is a recreation and wildlife resource for the local community and it is considered that there are other more 

suitable Brownfield sites available. These include Toton Sidings, Stanton Ironworks, Sawley Crossroads and 

many more throughout the Region that would not impact so many people. The distribution site on the former 

power station should be fully utilised before further development is considered. There should be a requirement to 

earmark and avoid specific areas which are presently used for agriculture to ensure that produce can still be 

grown in the future. 

Question 56 

Wherever new developments are planned it should be mandatory for developers to provide the means of 

generating their own power and hot water by the use of photovoltaic and water heating panels. 

Question 18 

Objects to the proposed development at Money Hill, Ashby. The proposed development will cause increased 

traffic congestion and overstretch local services and schools. Losing a large area of open space and farmland will 

have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of local people in terms of rural views and air quality. The Market 

Town character of Ashby de la Zouch should be maintained. 

Question 10 

Central Green Wedge 

There is subsidence of properties in the local area and it should be ensured that any new development is not 

similarly affected. This area of land is the only remaining area that was part of the three field system, if this is 

correct then the heritage of the area needs to be preserved. 

Eastern Green Wedge 

Concern is raised regarding flooding issues in the area and surface run off into Hermitage Lake. Any further 

development would exacerbate this situation. Presently traffic along Hermitage Road in particular is very 

congested and further development would increase this, the local roads are not designed for heavy volumes of

traffic. Development of the site would mean that surrounding villages would become part of the urban sprawl of 

Coalville. Whitwick will lose its identity of a Domesday Village. 

382 Mrs H. M. 

Lorimer 

Question 14 

The Coalville area has seen a large amount of development in recent years. There is no requirement for more 

houses for local people partly as there are limited jobs in the area. The villages surrounding Coalville have their 

own character and do not want to be part of an urban sprawl. 

Coalville has historically been a mixture of rural and urban which promotes human health and well-being. Small 

housing developments for local people are sensible. Large housing estates will destroy the character and nature 

of the area. There will also be a reduction in health caused by the removal of access to a natural environment 

and development would create massive traffic and social problems caused by an increase in population with no 

local jobs. Coalville is in the National Forest, huge developments cannot be in accordance with the policy of a 

National Forest. 

Question 15 

Regarding the Grange Road, Hugglescote site - unless the reopening of the Ivanhoe line is completed (as 

previously agreed) no large expansion of housing should be developed. Housing at Grange Road could 

potentially have less impact on the area. The proposals for housing at Donington le Heath are not supported; this 

area provides much needed access to the countryside and opportunities for recreation. 

Question 53 

Statements about environmentally friendly housing are ludicrous if there is no decent public transport, new 

development would bring an increase in car commuting. 

383 Councillor 

Colin Gell 

Question 7 

Option 3 would appear the fairest, although if Ashby was increased to 2,400 this would make it better balanced. 

There is too much concentration of development in Coalville in options 1, 2 and 4. Concern is raised for future 

development in Ravenstone as the village should be preserved and should not become part of Coalville. 

Question 10 

Areas of separation should be maintained between the towns and villages to preserve community identity. 

Question 39 

Housing should not necessarily be located close to sites identified for employment development. To alleviate 

problems with traffic and transport if most development is located at Castle Donington then housing should be

384 Elaine & 

Colin Bates 

385 G. Curtis 

386 Y. N. Curtis 

387 D. G. 

Curtis 

388 Mr & Mrs 

T. W. 

Kendrick 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

Object 

located close by. 

It is considered that the development of an Eco-Town should be considered and should be sited near East 

Midlands Airport. 

Question 15 

Strong objection to the proposal at Greenhill Farm. The development would increase congestion and put a strain 

on local amenities. There is also concern regarding flooding as a result of building on fields which act as 

floodplains. On the Planning Portal the land referred to is within Charnwood Forest and an area limited to 

development classed as particularly attractive countryside. Surely there are other plots which can be developed 

and the green belt, forest and wildlife habitats can be protected. 

Question 15 

Strong objection to the proposal at Greenhill Farm. The area has flooding problems and more drainage/sewerage 

would exacerbate the problem leading to increased widespread flooding problems. The development would 

increase traffic congestion along local roads. Accepted that development must go somewhere but consider the 

development of the other two sites to be enough. 

Question 15 





Question 15 





Question 15 

Object to the number of houses proposed at Greenhill Farm. This will have a big impact on Coalville Town, 

especially increased traffic congestion. Also school provision as the local schools are already nearing capacity 

how could they cope with more pupils? 

Flooding is also an issue at the bottom of Greenhill Road and with more housing there will be less soakaway

ground. There would also be adverse effects on the Charnwood Forest. There has already been enough housing 

built on the outskirts of a small town. 

389 Ashby de 

la Zouch 

Civic 

Society 

Question 1 

Support the Vision of “North West Leicestershire will be a place where people and businesses feel they belong 

and are proud to call home.” However the remainder is a goal and not a vision. The summary of the 

sustainability triangle destroys the aim of sustainability as housing, the environment and businesses can only 

contribute to sustainability if they are located together and not located in different areas. 

Question 2 

Development is to be in the most sustainable locations with the criteria being access to services and minimising 

impact on environment. 

Creation of National Forest is a unique opportunity andhould create wildlife corridors and havens in developments 

and integrated woodlands. Enforce 20% tree cover on developments. 

Need to diversify economic base and encourage hi-tech industries to help reduce out commuting of the District’s 

skilled workforce. Too heavy a reliance on warehousing. 

Insufficient regard to the vitality and viability of village and rural centres. Focus on towns encourages 

unsustainable commuting from these villages. 

Question 3 

An unsustainable and biased approach to the development of towns to detriment of their locations. Lack of 

investment in smaller locations adversely affects their vitality and viability and encourages unsustainable 

commuting from villages to access services. 

Question 4 

Consider an option that allows sufficient development of smaller locations to sustain and enhance the services 

currently available. 

Formatted: Font color: Auto 

Question 5 

Employment land should be allocated contiguous with developments. 

Question 6 

The Core Strategy would be unsound if over provision is provided and addresses potential development needs 

Formatted: Font color: Auto

eyond the end of the plan period. However strategic sites and SUEs should be allocated with a view to future 

needs for their expansion to accommodate future growth. 

Question 7 

Only Option 1 allows for the RSS recommendations for a large percentage of future build to be in Coalville. This 

focus is also needed to achieve regeneration of Coalville. However this approach needs to be measure against 

reports on impact on environment, roads, facilities and employment etc. 


The LDF must conform to the RSS to be sound. There is no strategy for employment land, the quantity and 

location of this is a key issue that must be detailed. Policy on sustainable villages it too restrictive and would 

result in the death of village facilities. 

Question 10 

Partial development of the Green Wedge is needed for large scale development of Coalville. There is some 

partial coalescence of surrounding villages through ribbon development along arterial roads. Design and 

National Forest planting within the developments will maintain separation of villages and allow greater public 

access into the Green Wedges. 

Question 11 

National Forest planting with public access to sites could increase public amenity value of Green Wedges. 

Question 12 

Agree with the approach of identifying specific sites in the Core Strategy. 

Question 13 

Agree with what is suggested to constitute a strategic site. The Core Strategy should identify sufficient sites, 

strategic or otherwise, to satisfy the total housing numbers required. 

Question 14 

Option 1 of the Development Strategy is the only one that is sound and conforms to the RSS. 

Question 15 

Support the identified sites at South East Coalville, North of Stephenson Way and South West Coalville. The 

other Coalville sites are countryside extensions and should be avoided.

Question 16 

Regeneration sites in the town centre should be utilised, i.e. industrial wasteland. 

Question 17 

Option 1 which equates to 500 dwellings for Ashby. Any other option will mean greater expansion of Ashby than 

Coalville. 

Question 18 

The preferred site is South of Moira Road, a small extension and the most sustainable. 

Question 19 

To achieve 500 houses in Ashby a site of only 150 houses is required (340 are already approved). Release of 

other sites would be gross overprovision. 

Question 20-31 

No Comment 

Question 32 

Do not support the possibility of expanding Coalville. Would effectively be a ECO village requiring new 

infrastructure and would also move the focus from the centre of Coalville and be detrimental to its likely 

regeneration. 

Question 33 

A southerly expansion of Coalville would be most appropriate. 

Question 34 

Support Option 1 for provision of affordable housing but are disappointed in how this policy has been 

implemented and enforced. 

Question 35 

Support Option 2 that seeks to make provision for gypsies and travellers on a number of specific sites. Option 1 

would not be acceptable to either residents or travellers. 

Question 36 

Not aware of any potential gypsy and traveller sites.

Question 37 

Suggest the extension of existing travellers sites is considered. 

Question 38 

The Housing Strategy is supported. 

Question 39 

Do not support the favoured economic strategy approach. The LDF should make provision for not only a 

strategic distribution site but must also allocate land for sustainable general employment sites. 

Question 40 

The Junction 24 site is the only site that meets the criteria for a strategic distribution centre and has benefit of 

potential links to the Airport. The Ashby site is not big enough and the National Forest line is not to be developed 

and is incapable of taking W12 traffic. 

Question 41 

Alternative sites could be around Bardon to service employment sites in the area and the proposed incinerator. 

Question 42 

Support the concept of an employment zone and the airport area should be developed as a high tech industrial 

park rather than warehousing only. 

Question 43 

No evidence to be able to comment on this. (Need for small business space). 

Question 44 

Support the favoured possible economic strategy 

Question 45 

No evidence to be able to comment on this. (Creation of small units) 

Question 46 

Supports the favoured approach in respect of East Midlands Airport. 

Question 47

Consider development needs of Airport and Donington Racetrack synergistically. 

Question 48 

Support the continuation of the use of definition of operational and airport related development used in the 

adopted Local Plan. 

Question 49 

Support the favoured Town Centre Strategy and no further options to consider (Question 50) 

Question 51 

Town Centres should be defined as part of Core Strategy to ensure maintenance of the vitality of current centre. 

Creation of new centres outside these boundaries will lead to loss of retail focus. 

Question 52 

Town Centre boundaries should be as existing. 

Question 53 

Do not support the favoured approach with reference to transport issues. 

Question 54 

For the large expansion of Coalville and its town centre regeneration to be viable, a transport system will need to 

be integrated into the plan. Impact of development on A511 and A42 junction will need analysis. 

Question 55 

Support the favoured approach for the delivery of well designed, high quality sustainable developments. 

Question 56 

Location is the most important feature of sustainability. 

Question 57 

Benefits of CIL is the flexibility of the use of the levies but concerned as to what controls would be used to ensure 

monies are directed to the appropriate use. 

Question 58Biggest concern is lack of a plan locally for health services sewage treatment and road systems. Deleted:

Question 59 

No need for local targets on climate change but should conform to national and regional policy. 

Question 60 

Agree that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines in the District. 

Question 61 

Do not agree target should go further that the Regional Plan. 

Question 62 

Do not agree with district wide renewable energy targets for Low Carbon Energy Generation in line with Policy 39 

of the Regional Plan. 

Question 63 

Local parks and footpaths through open countryside should be considered as aspects of Green Infrastructure. 

Question 64 

Support the Open Space Standard as recommended in the Council’s Open Space Audit 

390 Michaela 

Ward 

Object 

Question 65 

Supports the favoured approach to Priority Neighbourhoods. 

Question 66 

Core Strategy can assist with improvement in Priority Neighbourhoods by enacting policies on affordable 

housing, transport and local infrastructure. 

Question 40 

Strong objection to the proposed development between the Airport and Lockington. The proposal would decimate 

the countryside and dwarf everything in the vicinity (except the airport). The land contours would mean the 

buildings would be visible and also the proposal would reduce natural drainage and rainwater would flood 

Lockington. The proposed railway line would cut off Lockington from the east and would also run through a

conservation area. The proposal would increase traffic volumes in and around J24. There would also be an 

increase in air, noise and light pollution. The employment created by this proposal would bring more people in 

from outside the area, increasing road traffic. The adverse environmental problems that would be created are at 

odds with Governments intentions. 

391 N. 

Robinson 

392 Gabriel M 

Ward 

393 Mr & Mrs 

P. M. 

Jesson 

394 Whitwick 

Juniors FC 

Object 

Question 8 

Comments relate to the future development of Appleby Magna. Preference for cars to be parked at the rear of 

properties. The entrance to the village from Measham Road could be improved and until it’s developed Appleby 

will never win an award for the best kept village. Sports fields and parks should be retained at all costs. However, 

if open spaces are not used they are wasted. 

Question 40 

Strong objection to the proposed development between the Airport and Lockington. The proposal would decimate 

the countryside and dwarf everything in the vicinity (except the airport). The land contours would mean the 

buildings would be visible and also the proposal would reduce natural drainage and rainwater would flood 

Lockington. The proposed railway line would cut off Lockington from the east and would also run through a 

conservation area. The proposal would increase traffic volumes in and around J24. There would also be an 

increase in air, noise and light pollution. The employment created by this proposal would bring more people in 

from outside the area, increasing road traffic. The adverse environmental problems that would be created are at 

odds with Governments intentions. 

Question 24 

Objects to the proposal for development on Pretoria Road, Ibstock. Pretoria Road is a narrow road and parking is 

very limited, especially at the end of the road. There would be increased traffic congestion, loss of peace and 

tranquillity of the area and it would adversely affect wildlife habitats. A new road running from Ellistown to Ibstock 

would not be acceptable. The need for so many houses is not understood, especially considering the current 

economic climate. Queries whether there is going to be a large development of businesses in the area to match 

the number of houses? Presently some local businesses are closing down and building more houses will only put 

additional strain on every service and employment in the area. Concerns regarding how the schools would cope 

with an increase in numbers as well as disruption to utility services. Ibstock and its surrounding villages should 

remain as villages and not become one big housing estate. 

The Football Club is an agency with attendance of over three hundred children in the local area, including 

children from the local area of Whitwick and surrounding villages. Work with children from a range of social 

backgrounds, working on their personal development, responsibility and interactive social skills. Use facilities at

a range of sites including the Hermitage Recreational Ground. 

On behalf of the Football Club and those who attend and volunteer, we object to any plan which involves placing 

buildings on the Hermitage Recreational Grounds. Its roots are engrained in the local community and are looking 

for an agreement with the local council and the Hermitage to have the ground on a long term peppercorn rent 

basis so that it will serve the community for years to come. 

395 Mr C. Reed Question 3 

Villages that have been in existence for hundreds of years should not be re-named into non-descript areas such 

as North, South East or South West Coalville. It is vital all the surrounding villages must have clear ‘green’ land 

areas around their boundaries so they and their communities remain independently recognisable. 

Question 8 

Whilst there is plenty of information regarding housing there is little mention of future consideration of essential 

infrastructure. If there are proposals’ to double the size of Coalville there should be a corresponding infrastructure 

plan. It would be far better to consider many smaller developments throughout the District based around existing 

infrastructure which can adapt and expand over the development period to meet the expanding needs of the 

larger, but not ‘super size’ communities. 

It would appear that the all important criteria were to identify the maximum undeveloped areas of land, 

irrespective of their current use so that the vast majority of homes required by central government could be built. 

In line with current planning practices consideration must also be given to access, drainage, flooding, subsidence, 

power lines and agricultural covenants before consent is granted to any parcel of land. 

396 Mrs 

Gwyneth 

Tseng 

Question 2 

The favoured objectives are broadly supported, but with the following provisos 

SO1 – There aren’t any sustainable locations outside of Coalville, Ashby and possibly Castle Donington. 

Kegworth is a case in point, the services and facilities are extremely limited in quantity and the hourly bus service 

does not meet the criterion for a Rural Town. Strongly suggested that a further objective be added which seeks to 

develop and improve infrastructure in line with population growth. Without this the ‘sustainable’ label cannot be 

used. 

SO6 – The National Forest should not have a special mention in respect of requiring high quality design in new 

developments. High quality design should be a given and applied even-handedly across the District. The Council 

may wish to consider developing Design Guidance to promote better housing design. 

SO8 – As well as affordable housing the ‘accommodation suitable for the elderly and disabled’ should be in the 

specified range of housing types to be brought in line with the Favoured Housing Strategy.

Question 12 

In the interests of clarity and transparency specific sites should be identified. 

Question 27 

The Station Road/Long Lane site is not supported as it is on a flood plain and has high amenity value. There are 

also Highways issues not only on the local roads but also on the main roads which are already dangerous and 

congested at peak times. 

The Cott Factory site is not supported because of the disadvantages identified in Appendix 4, especially the 

significant Highways issues. 

The site adjacent to the Computer Centre is favoured. However, as identified there is a noise problem so a high 

noise bund should be specified as part of the M1 widening scheme. 

Question 38 

Not qualified to comment on the number of dwellings needed. Strongly supports the aspiration to bring more 

vacant properties back into use. The Council will only know how much new housing will be needed once it is 

known how much existing stock can be brought back into use. 

Questions 51 & 52 

No definition of Town/Local Centre is provided; therefore the response is based upon an assumption of its 

significance. Regarding Kegworth, the majority of the buildings within the existing Local Centre Boundary are of 

considerable architectural and historic merit and worthy of consideration of some special conservation status. It is 

suggested that the boundaries be retained but that in Kegworth the Town Centre boundary should be extended to 

include the Parish Church, the former Vicarage on Nottingham Road, and the cottages on the south side of the 

Dragwell. A plan indicating the proposed new boundary is provided. 

Question 58 

As Kegworth does not have good population statistics the proposed open space standards will be difficult to 

enforce. The mandatory provision of open space in all new housing developments of (say more than 20 

dwellings) is supported. Not aware of alternative standards that could be applied but the National Playing Fields 

Association does issue guidelines. Management contracts need to be agreed with developers to ensure on-going 

maintenance provided. 

Appendix 14 / Question 40 

There is a relatively new cycle track within the perimeter of the site identified. This should be protected if 

development goes ahead.

397 Mr S. & 

Mrs C. J. 

Palmer 

Question 1 

The number of homes proposed (12,200) seems way too many, especially as the average family size has 

dropped over the last thirty years, and it is considered that this will continue to drop in the future. If development 

was to take place the population increases would be at previously unheard of levels, more than doubling the 

current size of the town. Unsure where the additional population will come from, surely the town will continue to 

expand at roughly its historic rate. Historically the Council has been poor at attracting new businesses to the town 

and consequently the vast majority travel outside of the District to work. Therefore, it would be better to build new 

homes nearer people’s places of work to reduce car congestion and emissions. The current recession will reduce 

the expansion of jobs to support new residents. It would be advantageous to see a plan of the proposed 

employment sites. The document refers to employment at the Airport, why not build housing near the Airport and 

the other major site referred to. 

The Coalville bypass has improved traffic flow; however the proposed development to the north of the A511 

would increase congestion and hinder pedestrian flows. 

The National Forest should not be factored into future plans as it is not permanent. 

Question 2 

The favoured objectives are not supported. The proposed development at Donington le Heath would be contrary 

to SO1 as the site is Greenfield; there are no local services, no facilities and no public transport. The local road 

infrastructure is not adequate. The proposed development would destroy the small village feel and character and 

have an adverse impact on the Manor House. The proposed development would not be in keeping with the 

village and development stuck on the edge of the village would not be inclusive. 

SO2 promote the development of the National Forest, the National Forest, other than a few small areas bought 

by the Forestry Commission is not a permanent feature. 

SO4 The proposed development at Donington le Heath would be contrary to SO4. The proposed development 

would damage the environment of the Manor House, traffic would be increased and as Donington le Heath is in 

the Doomsday Book an expansion on this scale would almost be criminal. 

SO13 (create healthy and strong communities and enhance provision of Green Infrastructure) The building of 550 

houses would not enhance the community of Donington le Heath but will cause division and conflict. The 

proposed site is too close to the wildlife reserve at the west of the village around the River Sense. 

SO14 (enhance and promote access to services and facilities by alternative modes of transport) There are no 

services in Donington le Heath and no public transport. Locating development there would cause a huge increase 

in the use of the car and traffic congestion. 

Question 3 

The favoured approach is not supported, whilst Donington le Heath is located in the Greater Coalville area, the

village is separate and should remain as such. It does not meet the reports definition of a sustainable village and 

therefore not suitable even for infill development. 

Question 4 

The expansion seems to be wholly on Greenfield sites. Questions whether a list of Brownfield sites has been 

identified, if so it should be published for local review. The building of some new villages with shops, schools and 

other facilities would prevent the urban sprawl currently promoted. Areas suggested for development are: 

• North of Ashby Road opposite the Discovery Park 

• Grieves Needle site 

• Co-op bakery site 

• The area previously taken by Palitoy 

• Pegson’s 

• Former Marcroft Wagons site 

• The area between Ashby Road and the railway (off Linden Road) 

Perhaps consider more housing in Ashby as it has better access to main roads and congestion would not be as 

bad as in Coalville. 

Question 5 

The consideration of 9,600 dwellings seems an awful lot, questions whether it is certain that current growth needs 

that many. 

Question 6 

The Core Strategy should not address potential growth beyond the plan as this current proposal is causing 

significant stress and things can change significantly in the intervening years. 

Question 10 

When planning for the future the use of Greenfield land should be resisted and should be saved for future 

generations. 

Question 14 

Option 3 is supported mainly as it seems it would have less impact on the town and does not include any houses 

in Donington le Heath. None of the plans add enough housing in Ashby, as a percentage of its current size it gets 

of very lightly. 

Question 15

The land to the north of Standard Hill is not supported as the local road network would require huge changes to 

accommodate increases in traffic. The land to the north of Stephenson Way is not supported as this would cause 

huge issues with passing traffic and would bring the bypass to a halt; it would also bring the town into disrepute 

making it a black spot. 

The site north of Grange Road is supported, unfortunately it is green land and precious but it has least impact on 

town or village life. 

Question 36 

The favoured approach is not supported. 

398 Kegworth 

Parish Plan 

In early 2008 a Parish Plan Questionnaire was delivered to every household in Kegworth and the response 

received was very good with responses received from 617 households. A copy of the report has been submitted 

and request made that these views are taken into account when making decisions on the Core Strategy. 

In view of the traffic that will be generated by proposed developments in and around the village those questions 

relating to people’s traffic concerns are of particular relevance. Concerns raised relate to highway safety, 

congestion, pollution, parking, HGV on roads and amount of traffic and use of ‘rat runs’. 

Other concerns of particular relevance relate to the loss of historic and natural character of the village, and the 

desire to protect these features. 

There was also support for retaining the existing limits to development and small housing estates (

land that should not go ahead. 

405 Susan Object Refer to Representation 104 

Buckley 

406 John Object Refer to Representation 104 

Green 

407 Alison Object Refer to Representation 104 

Green 

408 G Tribe Object Refer to Representation 104 

409 G Tribe Object Question 40 

The proposal will result in an unacceptable increase in air pollution, in addition to the adverse impacts 

experienced as a consequence of the airport. Unacceptable noise levels. Loss of countryside and public 

footpaths and bridle paths. There is existing land available at the old power station with a rail link. Loss of value 

to local homes and compensation should be provided. Roads will become congested with traffic jams and 

delays. Question whether there is actually a need for new housing n the area with services already at capacity. 

410 Miss G 

Tribe 

411 Mrs S 

Stevenson 

412 Mr J H 

Stevenson 

413 Mrs S M 

Taylor 

414 Ms Kath 

Foulds 


Do not support the favoured approach for the potential strategic distribution centre to be located to the west of 

Junction 24 of the M1 motorway. 





415 S Tribe Object Refer to Representation 410 

416 G Thraves Object Refer to Representation 410

417 Mrs N 

Cunningha 

m 

418 Mrs Val 

Rood 



419 Mr G Rood Object Refer to Representation 410 

420 A 

Meadows 

421 Mrs D 

Shaw 



422 P Rose Object Refer to Representation 410 

423 Mrs M 

Harris 

424 Ruth 

Mitcheson 

425 Mandy 

Burnside 

426 Susan 

Furman 





427 Anita Lee Object Refer to Representation 410 

428 Janet Tribe Object Refer to Representation 410 

429 Philippa 

Khan 


430 Carol 

Glaister 

431 Justin 

Moss 

432 Mr D 

Cherry 

433 Mrs Jackie 

Green 




Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington . Presently it is a rural village but with the increasing 

amount of industry it will become a town without the added benefits. There is an inadequate road system but no 

fire station or leisure facilities. Supports progress and moving with the times but good foundations are needed 

before expansion. 

434 Mr Paul W. 

Taylor 

Object 

Question 40 

Kegworth and surrounding villages should not have to endure any further noise, light and air pollution, congestion 

or industrial development. The breakdown of rural barriers and the use of prime agricultural land must not 

happen. Totally against any development of this nature taking place. The area already suffers pollution from local 

issues. The proposed widening of the A453, M1 and airport operations - it is time the Council stopped spoiling the 

quality of life and proposing development that is not wanted. 

435 Mr A Smith Object Refer to Representation 104 

436 Mrs J 

Smith 

437 Mrs 

Caroline 

Jones 

438 Mr Michael 

Phillip 

Jones 


Object 

Question 24 

Strongly objects to the proposed development site at Pretoria Road. It would ruin the countryside amenity and 

views across fields. To build on this site would take away a lot of what the area has to offer and cause extra 

noise, pollution, traffic and people. 


Strongly objects to the proposed development site at Pretoria Road. It would ruin the countryside amenity and 

views across fields. To build on this site would take away a lot of what the area has to offer and cause extra 

noise, pollution, traffic and people.

439 Mr & Mrs 

Evans 

440 S.A & W.J. 

Ethelston 

441 Mrs F 

Lorraine 

442 Andrew 

Tye 


Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal would mean the loss of green land which 

would have a great amenity and ecological effect as well as affect the wildlife of the area. The area has already 

lost a large proportion of green land to development and will further with the Airport runway extension and Race 

Track developments. The development would cause an increase in many types of traffic in the area as well as an 

increase in noise and light pollution. The proposed site would have a devastating effect on the quality of life for 

those living in the area that already suffer from noise and light pollution from existing developments. There would 

also be adverse impacts on people’s lives and property values. 


Question 3 

With the Government’s agenda consistently talking of choice, it is unfortunate that the local planning policy 

options do not allow the choice for villages to remain villages. People who have chosen to live in a village should 

be able to rather than see a close knit community become a soulless dormitory (Keyworth in Rushcliffe is given 

as an example). 

Question 26 

Whilst it is recognised that some additional housing is required, Kegworth as all communities should, accept 

some fair increase. Options 3 and 4 because of their size would intrinsically change the nature of the village. 

Sustainability should allow for sensible organic growth rather than allowing communities to be swamped by huge 

new developments. Kegworth, with its current environmental problems is bearing a large share of the Council’s 

building requirements. In a democracy it would seem fair that every community bears some of the housing need. 

Often it seems the word sustainability refers to developer’s profit (with more profit made of Greenfield sites 

compared to Brownfield) rather than the voice of local communities. Kegworth already suffers from poor air 

quality, noise (airport and road network) and light pollution. The building of additional 400-800 homes under 

options 3 and 4 would increase all of these factors, thus downgrading the living environment for all. The building 

of homes adjacent the A453 seems an inappropriate choice considering noise and pollution and their effects on 

stress and health. The building of so many new homes along Long Lane would remove a popular green space 

which is well used by many people. This area is already under threat from sand and gravel extraction. After some 

of the recent developments in Kegworth (Derby Road is given as an example) there is very little confidence that 

large developments will be anything other than an eyesore. Where developers use existing green, open spaces

443 J. A. 

Powditch 

444 Mrs J. 

Bagguley 

Object 

Object 

as an excuse not to include new ones in their developments, what guarantees are there that new developments 

are sustainable in terms of new green spaces. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed site will increase the amount of noise, 

air and light pollution that Kegworth and other surrounding villages already suffer. It could be seen as self 

defeating in terms of securing improved health and environmental benefits. It would seem that the proximity to the 

Airport of Kegworth and other villages close by is used as an excuse to destroy their character and environment. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. This area has already had more than its fair share of 

industry and commerce. There are far more suitable sites in and around the County which are existing industrials 

parks. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will have a tremendous effect on air and road traffic. 

Kegworth will be used as a ‘rat run’ - the residents of Kegworth have too much disruption already. 

445 J A Taylor Object Refer to Representation 104 

446 Mrs A Object Refer to Representation 104 

Cumley 

447 Mr A Arrow Object Refer to Representation 104 


Fairbrother 

449 J Rayns Object Refer to Representation 104 

450 D 


Fairbrother 

451 J Tucker Object Refer to Representation 104 

452 Emmanuel 

Cami 


453 Christina Object Refer to Representation 104 

Pojnar 

454 R Hudson Object Refer to Representation 104 

455 Mr S Terry Object Refer to Representation 104 

456 Peta Object Refer to Representation 104 

Warrington 

457 J A Middip Object Refer to Representation 104 

458 Silvia Object Refer to Representation 104 

Cavalier 

459 D Lane Object Refer to Representation 104 


J Ward 

Object 

Question 24 

Object to housing development on Pretoria Road, Ibstock. This is Green Belt land and do not wish fields to be 

turned into houses. Do not want to lose loss of views of countryside. 

461 J M Lane Object Refer to Representation 104 

462 A Barwell Object Refer to Representation 104 

463 Mr P Object Refer to Representation 104 

Moore 

464 D Hodgkin Object Refer to Representation 104 

465 M 

Maddison 

466 M E 

Shacklefor 

d 

467 M H 

Beecham 




468 J E Coker Object Refer to Representation 104 

469 V A Hunter Object Refer to Representation 104 

470 K Wiggins Object Refer to Representation 104 

471 Claire Object Refer to Representation 104 

Hunter 

472 M Hunter Object Refer to Representation 104 

473 L Garton Object Refer to Representation 104 

474 Richard Object Refer to Representation 104 

Garton 

475 P Garton Object Refer to Representation 104 


Smith 

477 Betty 

Boyden 

Object 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Residents of Kegworth already have to contend with 

the traffic on the motorway and A roads, and noise from the airport. Impact on people’s lives and value of 

properties. Character of the villages is being lost. 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Another industrial development in an area that is 

saturated by such sites. Would result in increased congestion, pollution and erosion of quality of life. Adverse 

impact on the character of the villages. 

478 Mr K Object Refer to Representation 104 

Fairbrother 

479 Mrs L Object Refer to Representation 104 

Fairbrother 

480 Mr D Lowe Object Refer to Representation 104 

481 Mr R Lowe Object Refer to Representation 104

482 Miss L 

Smith 

483 Mr S 

Fairbrother 

484 E A 

Holmes 



Object 

Question 24 

Disappointed that housing development is to be built on land at Pretoria Road, Ibstock. This land is Green Belt 

with an underground mine which runs under this land. Loss of a beautiful and natural area which is enjoyed by 

the local and wider community. The land should be part of the National Forest and should be kept as countryside 

for the health of local people. 


J W Steven 

486 Andrew 

Martin 

Associates 

Object 

Question 24 

Were previously given assurances that land at Pretoria Road, Ibstock would not be built upon. There is a blind 

bend at the entrance of the road which is made worse by cars parked on the road, causing cars to drive on the 

wrong side of the road. If development were to go ahead the volume of traffic along the road would be greatly 

increased. The village car parks would not be able to cope nor would the dentist and the surgery. 

Response in respect of Donisthorpe Village 

Question 3 

Broadly support the favoured development strategy. Agree that Coalville should be the focus for development 

with development also within the lower order settlements. Agree that Donisthorpe should be identified a 

Sustainable Village since it has a primary school, a village hall (with post office) and hourly bus service. It also 

has good links with neighbouring Oakthorpe where further services and a leisure centre can be found. 

Agree that Sustainable Villages are suitable for infill development, in order to ensure the long term sustainability 

of such communities. Highly important that facilities are sustained and encourage to grow sustainably. 

Otherwise this could lead to their closure and reduce the sustainability of the location. 

Question 5 

Agree that 9600 dwellings should be considered a minimum level of provision since there is a need for flexibility 

in housing provision. The Regional Plan is to be reviewed in terms of its housing figures. In addition, the District 

has experience of allocated sites not being deliverable and not come forward for development as quickly as

expected. 

Also appropriate to build in a mechanism whereby the release is controlled. 

Question 8 

Disagree with the proposal to restrict the size of infill sites to no more than 1.0ha. This would only allow for 3 to 5 

dwellings on each infill site. The developer contribution threshold is 10 dwellings. As such none of the 

development in Sustainable Villages would be required to contribute towards services and facilities. 

Incrementally this could be quite significant and unfortunate that opportunities for investment in local facilities 

would not be capitalised upon. 

In Donisthorpe developer contributions could be used to improve facilities at the local school and invest in a GP 

outreach service. A larger development may also include potential for a mix of uses, adding to facilities in the 

village. 

Development in Sustainable Villages should contribute towards sustaining the village and therefore suggest that 

the size of infill sites is not limited. Judgement can be used in each case to determine what is a sustainable level 

of development for each village, taking into account the benefits of the development. 

Question 9 

There should be a rethink to the approach to infill development in Sustainable Villages. Question what the criteria 

for infill development achieves, i.e. in that it must not form part of a larger, continuous area of land. It is submitted 

that sites that are otherwise well located in relation to a village, or have particular benefits, would not meet the 

definition of infill and could not be developed. More appropriate to determination each application on its merits 

taking into account its relationship to the built up areas of the settlement. 

Reference to specific circumstances of the site is welcomed since it reflects a degree of flexibility. It would be 

helpful to refer to the circumstances in which the site size restriction may be applied flexibly i.e. where the 

scheme offers community benefits to the village and where there are good design reasons. 

Welcome the changes made to the criteria for the definition of Local Needs. It allows those who have left the 

family home to go to university to return to line near their family. 

Reiterate suggestion that the definition of local needs should consider the particular local characteristics of

487 Peter Hill 

488 Mr P Strike 

Object 

Object 

Object 

settlements. There may be regeneration objectives which also from a good reason for providing housing in a 

settlement. Suggest adding a further criterion that includes for ‘significant needs particular to the wellbeing of the 

settlement and regeneration objectives’ being identified. 

Question 40 

Object to the proposed location for a strategic distribution centre to the north of the airport and to the south of the 

villages of Hemington and Lockington. The scale of the development will dwarf surrounding villages and 

irreversibly change their character and social structure. The villages will be amalgamated into the industrial 

complex. Road access to the villages will be restricted further with additional congestion at Junction 24 of the 

M1. The rail connection will cut Lockington off from the A50. 

Question ability to build the development given that the site has a cross fall of nearly 20 metres and would 

necessitate retaining walls and ramps over 100 metres high. Impact of such a civil engineering project on the 

natural geology would cause serious surface water problems. Use of balancing ponds would exacerbate the 

flooding problems already experienced by Hemington and Lockington. 

The development would destroy the historic quality of the villages of Hemington and Lockington. The natural 

wooded barriers along the Daleacre Ridge need to be protected and reinforced. The balance between natural 

space and buildings will be lost. Visual impact will be significant and prominent in the skyline. The character of 

the area will be changed from rural to urban with increase in artificial lighting, and road and rail traffic noise. 

To satisfy work force additional traffic movements would be necessary to bring the work force into the area 

causing further congestion. The District has areas of Brownfield land in areas of old industrial development and 

within easy reach of motorway links which offer stronger potential for development and job opportunities. 

Question 14 

Object to the bulk of housing being concentrated between Coalville and Ravenstone. Will result in the village of 

Ravenstone becoming part of Coalville. The identity of Ravenstone will be lost as will the community identity. 

Making Ravenstone a suburb of Coalville will dilute the quality of housing. There will be unacceptable high 

volume of traffic, traffic congestion and adverse impact on highway safety. 

A suitable alternative would be the creation of a new ECO town in the district. 

Question 35 

Do not agree that Ravenstone is an appropriate location for gypsy and traveller sites. There is already a site at

489 Ms S Strike Object Refer to Representation 488 

490 G S Hird Object Refer to Representation 104 

491 G S Hird Object Refer to Representation 104 

Sinope and any more would have an adverse impact on road safety and the environment. Services will be 

unable to cope and there is already a transit site available in the district. There is also a suitable vacant site near 

the A42 Ashby roundabout (UK Coal). 

492 Benjamin 

Hird 

493 Gerald 

Thraves 



494 J 

Chambers 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Such a development would be out of keeping in terms 

of scale and location and result in the loss of further agricultural land which will increase further our reliance on 

imported food. 

Do not need any more warehousing or distribution space for imported goods. We should be concentrating on 

manufacturing industry. Question ability for rail connection given the height difference between the land and the 

existing rail network. Question feasibility of the scheme. 

495 Mrs V C 

Rood 


496 K R Cole 

Object 

Question 40 

Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington due to the destruction of natural surroundings and 

impact on the Conservation Area. 

497 Mr & Mrs K 

R Cole 


498 R Carter Object Refer to Representation 104

499 J Turner Object Refer to Representation 104 

500 Mrs M 

Lindner

TABLE 1 - Core Strategy Summary - North West Leicestershire ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?