TABLE 1 - Core Strategy Summary - North West Leicestershire ...
TABLE 1 - Core Strategy Summary - North West Leicestershire ...
TABLE 1 - Core Strategy Summary - North West Leicestershire ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Represen<br />
tation ID<br />
Name of<br />
responden<br />
t/organisat<br />
ion<br />
Support/<br />
Object<br />
<strong>Summary</strong> of response<br />
1 NFU Refers to paragraph 22.3 and points out that requiring new development to be accessible to public transport may<br />
be acceptable for large proposals but not for farm diversifications which may well not be on bus routes. Putting all<br />
of the development in the towns does not mean that people will get out of their cars or travel in them less.<br />
Issue 18 – Renewable energy – would welcome a policy that encouraged on farm renewables such as wind,<br />
solar, anaerobic digestion, biomass and biofuel production.<br />
Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure. Most land required for GI projects is owned or occupied by farmers and<br />
questions what approach the council will make to secure their cooperation.<br />
2 John R<br />
Barnett<br />
Question 3<br />
Do not agree that Swannington is unsuitable as some sites are near services including convenience stores, and<br />
these are actually closer to these facilities than many of the existing houses in Coalville.<br />
Question 7<br />
There is a lack of housing due to the economic downturn and this is likely to continue for a while. Suggests that<br />
applicants are asked to resubmit applications that have been refused in locations such as near villages or in the<br />
Green Wedge, so that they can now be considered favourably. Considers that there is potential Swannington<br />
including land located in the Green Wedge which has potential for inexpensive housing.<br />
3 Mr W and<br />
Mrs Y<br />
Williams<br />
4 Levi<br />
Bourne &<br />
Barbara<br />
Webster<br />
5 Chris<br />
Worman<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Possible residential development adjacent to the proposed site at Greenhill Farm has an inadequate drainage<br />
system, including inadequate gullies, surface water run off and flooding to properties. This needs to be taken into<br />
account.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the possible development at Greenhill Farm as it is within the Charnwood National forest area and<br />
would result in the loss of woodlands, farm and agricultural land. Other problems will include drainage and<br />
surface water problems, traffic congestion, increase in buses and heavy good vehicles, overdevelopment and<br />
development solely monetary gain.<br />
Question 14 and 15<br />
Acknowledge need for some housing growth. Object to a number of identified sites in the Coalville area.
6 Jonathan<br />
O’Farrell<br />
7 Hayley<br />
Essen<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Housing allocation should be distributed across district in smaller village development with less impact on the<br />
area. There should be no development around Coalville without the opening of the Ivanhoe railway line.<br />
<strong>North</strong> of Stephenson Way – no comment.<br />
Land Adjoining Donington Le Heath – acceptable.<br />
Land South <strong>West</strong> of Coalville – agree with principle of linking up Ravenstone but keep Green Wedge between<br />
Coalville and Ravenstone/Snibston. However do object to cart blanch approach to housing and development of<br />
this site will have traffic problems.<br />
Land South East of Coalville – area is too large, land off Grange Rd is mined and moves, traffic congestion loss<br />
of 2 distinct communities at Ellistown and Hugglescote, land would be an ideal area for a Country Park/urban<br />
forest. Area for development should be restricted to land to rear of Forest Road.<br />
Question 23<br />
Option 1 is preferable. Ibstock may be able to accommodate 100-200 houses. This would help the local<br />
economy and a school would be viable. However Ibstock cannot accommodate 1000+ dwellings. Option 1 allows<br />
for a reasonable planned settlement to be served by existing infrastructure in and around Coalville – existing and<br />
potential bus/rail corridors.<br />
Question 24<br />
Ravenstone Rd/Leicester Rd – site is too big and far away from village core, children go to Woodstone,<br />
prominent building, close to former mining works and active pig farm.<br />
<strong>North</strong> of Ashby Rd – fly tipping, disturbance to Sence Valley Park, loss of site for potential turbine installation,<br />
traffic generation.<br />
South of Ashby Road – traffic generation towards M1.<br />
Station Road – traffic generation towards M1. Impinge on allotment land.<br />
Pretoria Road – local roads will not be able to support extra traffic. Impinge on allotments.<br />
Leicester Road – nearer village commercial core, less traffic generation, Brownfield but may impinge on informal<br />
recreation.<br />
Question 17<br />
Object to the sites identified in Ashby. Major loss of open countryside and green belt. Brownfield sites elsewhere<br />
in the district should be utilised first. Adversely impact on Ashby’s status as conservation area and historic
8 Mark<br />
Gower<br />
9 Leicester<br />
City<br />
Council<br />
10 No name<br />
provided<br />
11 Roger<br />
Allen<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
market town. Ashby does not have the facilities to support any more housing including inadequate school<br />
places, car parking facilities, doctors and doctors are at capacity, poor public transport and traffic congestion and<br />
safety concerns. Limited and poor leisure facilities i.e. football field, and no community centre.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the development of land at Greenhill Farm. Loss of and impact on National Forest. Flooding occurs<br />
from site onto adjacent residential area. Additional number of vehicles, traffic congestion and highway safety.<br />
Utility services, schools and shops would not be able to cope with extra houses.<br />
No specific comments to make on the strategy at this stage.<br />
Building on Green Wedges will go against the Council’s key mission statement of “ <strong>North</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Leicestershire</strong> will<br />
be a place where people and businesses feel they belong and are proud to call home”. Such a proposal would<br />
result in the loss of countryside.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the development of land at Greenhill Farm. Access and highway safety concerns. Impact on wildlife.<br />
Infrastructure and service requirements needed. Site is susceptible to flooding. Too many houses.<br />
12 T Finney Object Oppose all of the proposed strategy.<br />
There are not enough jobs to warrant over 10,000 houses. Why build more when we have thousands of empty<br />
properties? The Green Belt around the forest would always be protected. This has now changed to Green<br />
Wedge. Building won’t stop at Greenhill Farm.<br />
Question 35<br />
Do not agree with the inclusion of Traveller sites within future housing developments.<br />
13 Professor<br />
D.T.Hope<br />
and Mrs<br />
Alexandra<br />
Hope<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to possible site for Strategic Distribution at Junction 24 of M1 as already suffer from noise from the airport,<br />
including night time flying. Development of this site will lead to an increase in airport traffic, both from aviation<br />
and lorries; increase in pollution and air quality issues and exacerbate traffic problems. Object to the loss of a<br />
Greenfield site, and query the need for such a use during the current economic recession and decline.
14 Richard<br />
Simmons<br />
15 Nigel<br />
Lindsay-<br />
Smith<br />
16 Greg Booth<br />
17 Ms Ann<br />
Stokes<br />
18 Mr K A<br />
Payne<br />
19 Michele<br />
Walker<br />
20 J K Adams<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Question the need for this type of development particularly when there is an existing distribution centre at Castle<br />
Donington. Availability of land is not reason alone to develop a site. Development of site would result in<br />
significant traffic congestion problems; loss of prime farming land, increasing food miles and ability to meet<br />
demands for food; increase in hardstanding and impact on water run off there is a need for this type of<br />
development, it should be on Brownfield land.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the development of land at Greenhill Farm on the grounds of traffic congestion and highway safety;<br />
part of the National Forest And loss of environment and wildlife. Brownfield sites would be more appropriate.<br />
Question 40<br />
There is already significant development around Castle Donington, Hemington and Lockington. Current proposal<br />
is a step too far with adverse impacts such as loss of local amenity (open space and wildlife), noise, light<br />
pollution, flooding and rail links.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the proposed Strategic Distribution Centre to the south of Lockington. Unacceptable increase in the<br />
number of traffic movements and congestion. Road through Hemington cannot cope with this amount of traffic.<br />
Question 40<br />
Distribution Centre would be good in that it would provide local jobs and positive for the environment through the<br />
use of the rail network. In order for this project to be more economical, the Distribution Centre should be linked<br />
to the Burton Leicester railway in the Ashby area instead of crossing over the M1.<br />
Question 15<br />
Site at Greenhill Farm is unsuitable for residential development and would result in loss of environment and<br />
impact on adjacent forest. Lack of road capacity and insufficient level of services i.e. schools, doctors. Flooding<br />
problems would be exacerbated and there would be an adverse impact on residential amenity.<br />
Question 7<br />
An increase in 10,000 new homes in Coalville would be unmanageable. Road structure is inadequate and grid<br />
locked already. Also question how the road network could handle emergencies if this number of houses were<br />
built. A rail link is needed and shopping facilities are under par with retail leakage to other centres.
21 Susan and<br />
Philip<br />
Salaun<br />
22 Toni<br />
Harrington<br />
23 Claire<br />
Higgins<br />
24 Sport<br />
England<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Issue 7<br />
How can the Council support the provision of gypsy sites? Planning permission has recently been refused for a<br />
traveller site off Bardon Road. Aware of the potential issues caused by unauthorised encampments and<br />
concerned about devaluation of property.<br />
Question 40<br />
Strategic Distribution Centre to the south of Lockington would result in an increase in noise and atmospheric<br />
pollution; increase in traffic; detriment to environment and local recreational opportunities. Loss of Greenfield site<br />
and loss of public access. This area has already suffered significant environment impacts from roads, industrial<br />
development, airport, racetrack and housing development.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the proposal for a huge distribution centre in Lockington. Must be far more suitable locations for<br />
development. Appreciate that this is a consultation at present but do not underestimate the feeling of local<br />
people.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington/Hemington. Loss of green belt land, with access,<br />
and used for leisure and recreation. Development will take up part of an area developed for conservation in<br />
conjunction with East Midlands Airport. Increase in traffic congestion. Negative impact on Sky Lark. Suggest<br />
that the existing distribution site at Castle Donington is extended.<br />
The Sport England website includes policies for inclusion in core strategies as well as guidance on the issues<br />
raised below. It is noted that the District has an up to date Open Space Audit and this should ensure that the<br />
<strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> is sound in its regard to PPG17.<br />
Support Spatial Objective So13 but would suggest that Sport and Active recreation are added to Spatial Objective<br />
SO2.<br />
Issue 8: The Housing <strong>Strategy</strong> should make reference that provision of sport and active recreation within housing<br />
schemes would be supported.<br />
Issue 9 and 11: It is significant that sport has been identified as playing an important role in contributing to<br />
sustainable communities, reducing the need to travel and benefiting access by disabled groups. Sport and active<br />
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.<br />
Issue 13: Important to recognise that those working in and visiting town centres will generate demand for sport<br />
and recreation activities. The peak times of the use of facilities should be fully considered and appropriate<br />
policies are included in the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> and Area Action Plans. Facilities close to town centres can provide<br />
additional attractions that can support the viability of centres.<br />
Issue 17: Other development can be required to contribute to the provision of sport and recreational faculties’ and<br />
this should be reflected in CIL policies.<br />
Policies should include an emphasis on designing quality places which include public places and the promotion of<br />
walking and cycling. A Sport England document ‘Active Design’ provides advice and guidance on this.<br />
25 Moira<br />
Furnace<br />
Trustees<br />
26 Elaine P<br />
Hall<br />
27 Charles<br />
Bishop<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Specific consideration should be given to the Moira Furnace site and its potential for future development as a<br />
tourist attraction. It is viewed an important feature alongside the development of the National Forest and Ashby<br />
Canal and is the only scheduled ancient monument of its kind in Europe.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. A further enlargement of airport facilities. Loss of<br />
countryside and agricultural land. Do not need any more distribution centres. Increase in traffic. Pollution.<br />
Question 40<br />
Not against enterprise in general, welcome business initiatives but also need to consider the local environmental<br />
impacts as well as benefits. Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington due to its scale, noise and<br />
proximity to housing. Proposal would not result in less traffic on the roads nor are potential leisure facilities<br />
relevant.<br />
28 HSE Have no comments<br />
29 Swift Valley<br />
Partnership<br />
Support and recommend the inclusion of Money Hill as a residential development site for the plan period<br />
proposed under the LDF. The Iceni Projects (July 2007) clearly sets out the hierarchical importance of this site<br />
over other sites in the district. It would have benefits for the economy and environment of Ashby and the district.<br />
30 James<br />
McKay<br />
Question 7<br />
Kegworth is short of recreation space including organised sport pitches. Land that floods would be preferable as<br />
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.<br />
Object<br />
Question 26<br />
The site to the north of Station Rd is affected by flooding so must be ruled out. The other sites are located close<br />
to the motorway/flight path therefore question the potential quality of living. Major concern is the impact of the<br />
number of houses on services and roads. Need a number of road improvements including village bypass and<br />
duelling of A453.<br />
31 Mrs M A<br />
Finch<br />
32 Mrs M A<br />
Finch<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Both of the areas identified near Kegworth will bring increased traffic congestion and volume, pollution and affect<br />
quality of life. Reduction of agricultural land and woodland and will bring town and villages closer to the airport.<br />
Loss of open character and green space and also loss of the character of Lockington.<br />
Question 50<br />
The biggest problem that affects quality of village life in Kegworth is the amount of road traffic. If traffic could be<br />
reduced there then maybe opportunities for improvement such as at Market Place.<br />
Question 24<br />
Object to proposed development at the allotments on Station Road, Ibstock.<br />
Question 24<br />
Object to proposed development of the football grounds at land north of Ashby Road, Ibstock. Loss of facility that<br />
is used by many young people. Hope David Wilson continue support of the clubhouse and car park and the<br />
football club must not be moved.<br />
33 CgMs Act on behalf of Royal Bank of Scotland in relation to their computer centre site at Kegworth.<br />
Issue 3<br />
Support a focus of development in Coalville. Also preferable for the Rural Towns to accommodate a reasonable<br />
increase of new dwellings. These settlements are of a sustainable size and it would be sensible to spread the<br />
burden of development amongst a number of centres and maintain local facilities.<br />
Option 1 and 2 do not take account of the potential offered by Kegworth and represents only a small increase in<br />
the dwelling stock. There is potential to increase the number of dwellings using sites within the existing built up
34 Mr J F and<br />
A Evans<br />
35 Ian<br />
Strickley<br />
Object<br />
area. Option 4 with a figure of 400 dwellings is sensible and achievable.<br />
Issue 5<br />
Strategic sites should be identified in the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>. This will speed up delivery of new housing. Suggested<br />
threshold of 100 dwellings is too low and would result in too many and too wide a range of such sites. Suggest<br />
that the threshold be 500 dwellings.<br />
If Options 1 or 2 are followed and the Slack and Parr site comes forward, no additional housing will be required.<br />
However no progress has been made on the s106 agreement for over a year.<br />
Note that of the five sites identified, our client’s site is the most favoured. Comments are made of the<br />
disadvantages of the site, identified by the Council:-<br />
Land to the rear of the Computer Centre can be developed independently of the Computer Centre itself. It could<br />
generate 80 dwellings (30dph) with no loss of employment. A planning application is being prepared for this<br />
proposal.<br />
Consultants reports state that the development can have an adequate level of protection against noise, it is not<br />
within am Air Quality Management area and that the widening of the motorway will not materially affect air quality<br />
at the site. Noise and air quality toll improve upon opening of the proposed Kegworth bypass.<br />
Scheme will incorporate amenity space and play areas and improved pedestrian and cycle connectivity through<br />
the site. Would also contribute to community facilities through the normal s106 process.<br />
Site is in the defined built up area. Disadvantages of the other sites include location within flood zone 3, poor<br />
relationship with town and existing housing, proximity to motorway and oddly shaped.<br />
Comments submitted with reference to the Housing Allocation Site (H4g) within the Local Plan, to the north of<br />
Grange Road. Suggest that housing would be appropriate for this site and for industrial development to be<br />
located to the south of Beveridge Plane. There are options to provide good road access and would hope that<br />
provisions are put in place for the A511 to be made a dual carriageway. If a number of parties work together<br />
there is the opportunity for the comprehensive development of three sites to be secured.<br />
Question 15<br />
Site at Greenhill Farm is unsuitable. Loss of countryside, wildlife, visual amenity and residential amenity.<br />
Problems with surface water. Cars from the development will generate pollution and put strain on road
36 A<br />
Thompson<br />
Object<br />
infrastructure. Noise and eyesore. Set a precedent for future development. Schools are overcrowded. Design<br />
and size of development is unacceptable.<br />
Question 17<br />
No advantages to Ashby by building extra houses. Current financial crisis leaves people unable to buy and<br />
properties are empty. Infrastructure will need to be expanded and who will pay? New residents do not shop in<br />
the local towns.<br />
37 Equality<br />
and Human<br />
Rights<br />
Commissio<br />
n<br />
38 Mr & Mrs J<br />
W Steven<br />
No comments<br />
Object Question 23<br />
New houses are not necessary – there are currently plenty of homes for sale in the village of Ibstock. Local<br />
surgery, dentist and High Street car parks will not be able to cope with additional numbers. Will the new homes<br />
be Council houses or will they be for gypsy travellers? Council should concentrate on bringing back the district’s<br />
1300 empty properties into use.<br />
39 Mr M J<br />
Allsop and<br />
Mrs F M<br />
Allsop<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 7<br />
Given the change in economic circumstances the unelected Regional Assembly should revisit their plans and<br />
elected local authorities should have a greater say. 3 million homes is a rounded figure and why is the Regional<br />
Assembly not proposing a range of scenarios? Housing figures are based on assumption that net immigration<br />
will continue indefinitely although there is evidence to show the opposite. Due to economic situation there is<br />
limited scope for public or private housing investment and should utilise empty homes in the district.<br />
Question 14<br />
9,800 houses in Coalville are excessive. Unacceptable traffic consequences and there is no railway station or<br />
prospect of getting one. Where will these new residents work? Will Coalville become a dormitory town making<br />
use of its proximity to the motorway network? Each of the major settlements should bear a reasonable and<br />
proportionate share of the housing. Framework should allow the Local Authority flexibility to respond to changing<br />
circumstances.<br />
Question 15<br />
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.<br />
Social housing is inappropriate given the high amount of social housing in the Greenhill ward. Excessive<br />
distance from shops and lack of public transport will make it a dormitory estate. Add little to regeneration of<br />
Coalville. Object to possible inclusion of gypsies and travellers.<br />
Development of this site will fail to meet Objective SO1 on grounds of sustainability and Objective SO5 in terms<br />
of the potential impact on the National Forest.<br />
40 Mr C T and<br />
Mrs N J<br />
Walsh<br />
41 Long<br />
Whatton<br />
and<br />
Diseworth<br />
Parish<br />
Council<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 34<br />
Issue of affordability has worsened due to irresponsible bank lending and that houses are seen as investments.<br />
This undermines the assumption that 30%-40% of new housing needs to be affordable/social. House building<br />
should be market led and social housing provision should respond to local demand and not national dictat.<br />
Would be better to use public money to buy sub-standard housing and bring it up to standard for tenants.<br />
Question 18<br />
Object to site at South of Ashby. Measham Road area is classed as an area of Outstanding Residential<br />
Character. Trees along Measham Road are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Highway safety and traffic<br />
congestion would result on this road. Development here would also overload roads, schools, social and medical<br />
services. Increase levels of out commuting along the A42 and Ashby would change from a small market town to<br />
an urban commuter town.<br />
Leicester Road site has an access road in place leading to land that could be developed.<br />
Money Hill and Nottingham Road sites have access roads in place and residents bought houses anticipating that<br />
further development would occur.<br />
Question 38<br />
The favoured housing strategy is supported.<br />
Question 40<br />
The preferred option for Strategic Distribution uses is the third option (<strong>North</strong> of Sawley Crossroads) as it would<br />
have the least potential impact on nearby settlements<br />
Question 46<br />
Option 2 is favoured in relation to East Midlands Airport<br />
Question 53
The Parish Council shares the particular concerns about the need to improve the road network in the vicinity of<br />
East Midlands Airport/Donington Park<br />
42 Michael<br />
Specht<br />
Representation is made with respect to land at Loughborough Road, Coleorton. The main issue appears to focus<br />
around the site sustainability. Coleorton is a widely spread village with its own character with a mix of housing<br />
types. Work on the Parish Plan has highlighted a number of concerns, including loss of the Post Office and store.<br />
Other village facilities include school, bus service, doctor, pharmacy, local community hall, chirch, petrol station<br />
and 3 public houses. Therefore it may well be considered that the village could be considered to be a sustainable<br />
location. New housing stock could also support existing facilities.<br />
43 EMRA Vision and objectives – issues to consider are health, cultural heritage, addressing social inequalities, urban<br />
regeneration and sustainable patterns of development. Acknowledged that these matters are included in the list<br />
of objectives, but the objectives do not specifically refer to the contribution of the location, design and<br />
construction of new development to reducing the impact of climate change.<br />
Issue 3a, 3b (Development <strong>Strategy</strong>) – refers to RSS policies re location of development and housing numbers.<br />
In terms of provision beyond 2026 they refer to the partial review of the RSS and governments new household<br />
projections in 2009 which along with advice on Regional Housing provision from NHPAU and analysis of the fist<br />
round of SHMAs will inform the basis of assessing likely future requirement for housing.<br />
Issue 4 (Green Sedge) – does not seem to be an option to allow some development whilst retaining part of the<br />
existing Green Wedge designation.<br />
Issue 5 – (areas or sites to be identified for development) – refer to general principles in the RSS (Regional <strong>Core</strong><br />
Objectives and Promoting Better Design) which also apply to preferred locations for Strategic Employment Sites<br />
but do not comment on specific sites.<br />
Issue 6 – Affordable Housing – Refers to the very high figure needed as par the 2005 Housing needs Survey and<br />
emerging SHMA which is significantly higher that the Regional policy requirement. Consideration should be given<br />
of whether a higher figure in the district is needed subject to this not impacting on the viability of development<br />
sites.<br />
Paragraph 3.3.13 of Draft RSS provides a useful checklist of mechanisms to secure affordable housing provision<br />
in rural areas and Policy 15 sets out priorities for affordable rural housing.<br />
Issue 7 – (G & T) – Refers to additional pitch requirements and that these must be translated into specific site<br />
allocations in one of the DPDs. The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should set out locational criteria which will be used to meet<br />
unexpected demand. In terms of the favoured approach of providing sites and part of strategic housing sites there<br />
is doubt over whether this approach will meet the need for immediate progress in site identification as referred in<br />
the East Midlands Regional housing <strong>Strategy</strong> (2008 – 2016) November 2008<br />
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.<br />
Re EMA and Donington Park, potential development should be restricted to the airport and motor racing related<br />
activities respectively as Policy 12 Draft RSS refers to focus other commercial development associated with EMA<br />
in surrounding urban areas.<br />
In terms of other local employment related development Coalville as a Sub regional Centre will serve a wide<br />
catchment and its vitality and viability should be protected, including its role in accommodating science based<br />
high technology industries.<br />
Issue 13 – 14 (Town Centres) – In the absence of a clear hierarchy, the distribution of additional retail floorspace<br />
should be in line with Policy 3 (Draft RSS) with the potential for Colville as an SRC to retain a higher proportion of<br />
local income and to reduce pressure on the strategic transport infrastructure.<br />
Issue 15 – Transport – refer to RSS policy and focus on behavioural change is welcome<br />
Issue 16 – Design – refers to Policy 2 Draft RSS and as well as bfl reference should be made to BREEAM<br />
standards including Code for Sustainable Homes.<br />
Issue 17 – Infrastructure – in connection with the CIL Hinckley and Bosworth’s submission <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> is<br />
referred to as making reference to the County Infrastructure Plan and a summary of the main infrastructure<br />
required in the District.<br />
Issue 18 – Climate Change – Although opportunities for large scale wind may be limited there are opportunities<br />
for CHP, micro generation and smaller scale wind as business park level, contributing to Carbon neutral<br />
developments. There may also be opportunities for generating energy from waste through different techniques.<br />
Also refer to Policy 2 RSS.<br />
Issue 19 – Green Infrastructure – Consideration should also be given to the creation of new assets to link with<br />
river corridors, waterways, woodlands, nature reserves, urban greenspaces, historic sites and other existing<br />
assets.<br />
44 Neil Hagley There are a number of Faith Groups in the district and the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should recognise that periodically there<br />
is a need to build, redevelop, convert or refurbish places of worship. The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should recognise the<br />
needs and resource limitation of faith groups, and identify suitable zones and locations for places of worship.<br />
45 Mrs Emma<br />
Carter<br />
46 Leicestersh<br />
ire County<br />
Council<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the proposals to build a substantial number of new homes within Ravenstone, particularly at South<br />
<strong>West</strong> Coalville.<br />
1. Vision<br />
<strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> is based on the Vision for the NW Leics SCS and generally aligns well with the Leics Sustainable<br />
Community <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
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<br />
separation of housing in Coalville from new employment in the north.<br />
2. Objectives – support favoured objectives<br />
3. Settlement Hierarchy – Support favoured approach but points out that a one size fits all solution would not be<br />
appropriate.<br />
4. No<br />
5. Housing Provision<br />
Do not support the figure of 9,600 as a minimum provision as this is an overprovision in relation to the draft<br />
Regional Plan (Now adopted). It is extremely important that proper account is taken of the medium and long term<br />
effects of the recession on the demand and requirement for housing. They have made representations that the<br />
review of housing provision in the regional Plan should not go ahead until it can be informed by adequate<br />
evidence which takes into account the very substantial changes in economic and housing market conditions. The<br />
<strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should therefore allocate an amount of housing that is consistent with the draft Regional Plan.<br />
6. Rather than an overprovision of housing within the plan period flexibility should be provided beyond the plan<br />
period.<br />
7. The Coalville focus option is supported for the reasons set out in paragraph 8.29 of the document.<br />
Any SUEs should contain provision for dealing with the waste arising within them which is worth reflecting in the<br />
<strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> which would accord with PPS10. the Regional Waste <strong>Strategy</strong> for the East midlands states that<br />
consideration should be given to ‘Sustainable Growth Parks’ which can lead to a coordinated approach to waste<br />
management preferably in conjunction with other forms of development.<br />
8. Favoured Development <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
Support the focus on Coalville for housing but considers that provision should be made for employment to be colocated<br />
to cater for new residents.<br />
Re Ashby the favoured option should be for a smaller amount of housing due to the towns constrained road<br />
system and it’s a dormitory settlement for the <strong>West</strong> midlands. Also concern re impact of excessive development<br />
on the Giliwiskaw Brook/ River Mease SAC, and exacerbate flooding downstream at Packington. An AA should<br />
therefore be undertaken.<br />
9. Yes. Since services could close/ change for commercial reasons it is appropriate that a settlements place<br />
within a hierarchy should be subject to regular review and the amount of housing allocated should be adjusted<br />
accordingly.<br />
10. Green Wedge.<br />
The statement that large parts of the Green Wedge are of ‘little public amenity value’ is unjustifiably pessimistic<br />
as it is largely the result of current land management practices which have the potential to be changed.<br />
If development does take place between Whitwick, Agar Nook and Coalville there would be significant<br />
requirements for Green Infrastructure which should both reinforce the links between the Urban area and the<br />
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<br />
Charnwood Forest (e.g. the Charnwood Lodge SSSI)<br />
11. Public Access to the Green Wedge. The Stepping Stones Project provides an example of good practice and<br />
its publication ‘ Creating a Green and Prosperous Future: a green infrastructure Delivery Plan for the Stepping<br />
Stones’ can be regarded as a robust evidence base for any Green Wedge Review.<br />
12. Identifying Specific Sites – Agree with the approach which is consistent with advice and the approach in other<br />
districts.<br />
13. Definition of Strategic Site – Consider the threshold of 100 dwellings is too small resulting the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong><br />
losing its Strategic Focus.<br />
14. Option 1 is supported for Coalville as its consistent with the Coalville Focus option.<br />
15. Refers to their SHLAA response in January 2008. Further assessments would be required (e.g. Transport and<br />
Archaeology)<br />
16. No Comment.<br />
17. See Q9 and 15<br />
18. See Q9 and 15<br />
19. No comment<br />
20. See Q15<br />
21. See Q15<br />
22. No comment<br />
23. See Q15<br />
24. See Q15.<br />
25. No comment<br />
26. See Q15<br />
27. See Q15<br />
28. No comment<br />
29. See Q15<br />
30. See Q15<br />
31. No comment<br />
32 – Expanding Coalville.<br />
Any further growth over and above that proposed as part of Option 1 should be considered within the context of<br />
the partial review of the Regional Plan, which will explore alternatives for housing growth across the HMA.<br />
33. See Q15.<br />
34. Provision of affordable housing should reflect the findings of the recently completed SHMA.<br />
35. G & T – Specific mention is needed in the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> of the urgent need to address the issue of G & T<br />
site accommodation paying attention to the outcomes of the Needs Assessment process and the Black and<br />
Minority Ethnic Housing <strong>Strategy</strong> recommendation (Particularly the recommendation for immediate action) but
also extending accommodation facilities and options to G & Ts to reflect unanticipated future mitigation<br />
processes. Attention should be given to community cohesion, monitoring and setting in place mechanisms to<br />
address tensions. Is it necessary for the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> to mention the need for socially rented pitches?<br />
36. No comment<br />
37. No comment<br />
38. Support housing strategy subject to reservations set out earlier.<br />
39. Proposed SFRI is in accordance with the Regional Plan and the recommendations of a recent employment<br />
land study (50HA of rail linked strategic warehousing in NW Leics), and is therefore supported.<br />
40. The site north of EMA appears the most appropriate provided proper provision is made for rail connection and<br />
non car access is integrated with the airport.<br />
41. No comment<br />
42. The Policy for an Economic Activity Zone at Donington Park/ EMA is contrary to the policy of Urban<br />
Concentration in the regional Plan and the policy of focussing development associated with East midlands Airport<br />
in surrounding urban areas. Also concerned that the provision of an economic activity zone in this location away<br />
from the proposed concentration of new homes at Colville would not be the most sustainable location.<br />
The PACEC Study supports this view (2.3.8 & 2.3.54)<br />
43. The amount of small business space should accord with local need.<br />
44. No. See Q42.<br />
45. Should accord with evidence of local need.<br />
46. Support approach to EMA but refer to Q42 re the Economic Activity Zone.<br />
47. No<br />
48. Yes<br />
49. Yes<br />
50. No<br />
51. No.<br />
52. No.<br />
53. Transport- The County Council has commissioned a study into the feasibility of the national Forest Line for<br />
passenger transport which the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> will need to take into account.<br />
54. No<br />
55. Yes<br />
56. Aspects such as energy, renewable energy and sustainable construction may be addressed though County<br />
wide supplementary planning documents.<br />
57 CIL or S106.<br />
Proper consideration needs to be given to how services and infrastructure provision for the proposed SUEs and<br />
to support housing development in rural areas will be resourced.<br />
A robust policy re developer contributions is required although not necessarily in the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> which should
47 Ian M Ward<br />
Object<br />
cross reference to policies for major development proposals and address major developer contributions. The<br />
Leics Infrastructure Plan will form an important part of the evidence base for such policies.<br />
The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> needs to strengthen its reference to proposed changes to developer contributions and should<br />
be adaptable to future changes to enable developer contributions to be secured.<br />
In considering a CIL and joint approach with other Leics authorities would be more efficient and effective.<br />
58. The open space provision mentioned in 26.5 should refer to accessibility and quality. Additionally NWLeics is<br />
presenting the topic differently from other districts such as Hinckley and ideally there should be consistency of<br />
approach.<br />
59. No comment<br />
60. No comment<br />
61. Any targets should be consistent with or exceed the Code for Sustainable Homes.<br />
62. Yes. Energy, renewable energy and sustainable construction may be addressed through County wide<br />
supplementary planning documents.<br />
63. This lacks substance and should also mention biodiversity and geology. PPS9 requires LDFs to cover SSSIs,<br />
Local Wildlife Sites, UK Biodiversity Action plan and Local Biodiversity Action Plan habitats and species.<br />
Important to include biodiversity in Green Infrastructure policies.<br />
The phase 1 and 2 Habitat Surveys will provide an adequate evidence base for assessing the impact of potential<br />
development sites on biodiversity and sites should not be selected for development without taking proper account<br />
of their impact on biodiversity.<br />
The green infrastructure section and site options appraisal should cover opportunities for enhancements to green<br />
infrastructure and biodiversity, especially in the context of climate change which is covered in PPS9.<br />
A Strategic GI <strong>Strategy</strong> for the area should be available in the summer of 2009 and Paragraph 26.2 should be<br />
amended to reflect this.<br />
Paragraph 26.3 should be amended to refer to a ‘possible’ Regional Park and the Trent Valley and Ashby Canal<br />
(included in Hinckleys <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>) should be included (with the National Forest and Charnwood Forest) as<br />
strategically significant GI facilities.<br />
64. No comment<br />
65. Yes and the newly formed Better places Team at the County Council will be able to assist.<br />
66. By setting the context within which the specific issues in each Priority neighbourhood can be tackled.<br />
Other comments- <strong>Leicestershire</strong>’s Community Cohesion Framework can help in terms of engaging with particular<br />
groups and Planning Aid is important<br />
Specific attention and focus should be given to issues of faith with regard to the planning process and strategic<br />
context.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as will result in loss of countryside and agricultural land;<br />
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<br />
contribute to air, noise and light pollution. Employment created would result in in-commuting as there is full<br />
employment for residents in vicinity of airport. The proposed commercial operation is not wealth producing. The<br />
proposal is unworkable with adverse environmental problems.<br />
48 Indigo<br />
Question 3<br />
Support<br />
Support the approach to identify Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as the<br />
focus for development. Development should be permitted which is of a suitable scale for the size of each<br />
settlement e.g. large scale developments to be directed towards Coalville and Ashby as the largest settlements in<br />
the district.<br />
Question 7<br />
Support the principle of further residential development and growth in the district but do not specifically support<br />
any of the proposed options. However sufficient community facilities and infrastructure must be provided to serve<br />
an expanding population, including retail facilities.<br />
The Council’s retail study identifies a need for further food and non food development in the district. The <strong>Core</strong><br />
<strong>Strategy</strong> should identify where future retail development is need to support the community, at an appropriate<br />
scale for the settlement.<br />
Question 49<br />
Support<br />
Indigo supports the Council’s favoured approach to town centres. It identifies that the main provision for retailing<br />
should be in Coalville.<br />
49 King<br />
Sturge LLP<br />
Act on behalf of Ideal Country Homes in respect of their land interests in Measham.<br />
Question 1<br />
Support<br />
Generally supportive. It could include a driver for the growth of the other rural towns to ensure balanced growth<br />
in terms of delivering housing and employment. This will assist in delivering improved services in the rural towns.<br />
Question 2
Support<br />
However consider that there should be an addition which states that “the housing requirements of the district will<br />
be met, after brownfield development, on sustainable urban extensions which in the first instance consolidate<br />
existing development and are supported by sufficient infrastructure and service provision such that they are<br />
realistically deliverable.”<br />
Ensure that for later DPDs there is guidance for the pecking order n terms of the sites coming forward.<br />
Question 3<br />
Support<br />
Support inclusion of Measham as a Rural Town suitable to act as a focus for development.<br />
Support identification of sustainable villages where limited infill will be acceptable. Ensure growth will be<br />
permitted to support rural economy but development must be of suitable scale.<br />
Question 4<br />
Do not consider there to be any options which would be appropriate at this stage.<br />
Question 5<br />
9600 should be an absolute minimum with clear indication that RSS housing requirements will significantly rise in<br />
the future. <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should be flexible to allow release of additional housing requirements, without the need<br />
for an early review of this document.<br />
Question 6<br />
Concur that the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should address potential needs beyond the end of the plan period. Will provide<br />
certainly for developers and allow flexibility were some of the allocated sites not ultimately delivered.<br />
Question 7<br />
All options are consistent with advice contained in the emerging RSS. Option 3 and 4 would provide significant<br />
dwellings in Coalville without constituting over development.<br />
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<br />
genuine sub regional centre. These options could also lead to increase Carbon Dioxide emission, rather than a<br />
reduction.<br />
An analysis is provided for each of the suggested options.<br />
Option1 – relies too heavily on Coalville with sever highway/access issues. Unlikely to stimulate regeneration of<br />
the Rural Towns. Imbalanced economic growth. Loss of facilities and services in Rural Towns. Question<br />
whether Coalville can deliver such a high number of dwellings. Coalescence of Coalville with surrounding<br />
villages. Lack of housing delivery in rural areas.<br />
Option 2 – still lacks a lack of consideration for the four Rural Towns. Would not lead to a balanced spread of<br />
growth.<br />
Option 3- best option in terms of sustainability, market viability and with greatest social benefits. Best fits the<br />
existing spread of population across the settlements. Would not undermine the standing of Coalville as a<br />
strategic centre.<br />
Option 4- A more balanced growth and choice for residents. However, given the nominal growth in Ashby this<br />
could worsen affordability issues in this settlement and Kegworth and Measham would not realise their full<br />
potential.<br />
Question 8<br />
Do not support the favoured approach. Favour Options 3 or 4.<br />
Question 9<br />
Do not support the suggested wording due to objections to the favoured approach.<br />
Question 10<br />
May lead to coalescence with other settlements and alternatives should be investigated fully. Encourage Option<br />
3 which minimises the need to release the Green Wedge.<br />
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.<br />
Question 11<br />
Opportunity to negotiate with landowners in order to investigate options for increase usage within the Green<br />
Wedge areas. Suggest this is undertaken as soon as possible and not as part of the LDF preparation.<br />
Question 12<br />
Provided appropriate work has been undertaken and sites are deliverable, consider it is acceptable to identify<br />
specific strategic sites. Identify sites which have been demonstrated as truly deliverable without negative impacts<br />
or onerous infrastructure requirements.<br />
Question 13<br />
Concur with general parameters of what constitutes a strategic site.<br />
Question 14<br />
Support Options 3 and 4. Most appropriate in terms of balancing growth across the District, supporting the<br />
sustainability of Rural Towns, enabling Coalville to realise its housing requirements, without leading to significant<br />
infrastructure issues and raising questions over deliverability and over development.<br />
Question 15<br />
Land at Green Lane<br />
Question whether the coalescence of Coalville and Whitwick is appropriate. Loss of agricultural land. Distance<br />
from town centre raised sustainability and accessibility issues.<br />
Enterprise House and Ashby Rd<br />
The 2006 permission has not been implemented leading to questions over viability. The site is adjacent to a<br />
nature conservation area and may have ecological constraints.<br />
Buckingham Road
Loss of public open space. Sustainability and accessibility issues and poor highway access.<br />
Leicester Rd/Standard Hill (South west Coalville)<br />
Loss of public open space. Sustainability and accessibility issues and question appropriateness of the<br />
coalescence of Coaville and Ravenstone.<br />
Berry Hill Lane, Donington le Heath<br />
Loss of agricultural land. Sustainability and accessibility issues and poor highway access.<br />
Beveridge Lane/Grange Road, Hugglescote<br />
Sustainability and accessibility issues. Loss of agricultural land. Reclaimed land. May have ecological<br />
constraints. Question appropriateness of the coalescence of Coalville and Hugglescote to Ellistown and Bardon.<br />
Object<br />
Bardon Grange, Hugglescote<br />
Railway noise. Query viability. May have ecological constraints. Poor highway access options.<br />
East of Whitwick<br />
Woodland (National Forest). SSSI. Site of ecological or geological interest. Area of Particularly Attractive<br />
Countryside. Landscaping area. Sustainability and accessibility issues.<br />
Thornborugh Road, Whitwick<br />
Question appropriateness of coalescence of Coalville and Whitwick. Loss of agricultural land. Sustainability and<br />
accessibility issues. Loss of sports facility. Flood plain.<br />
Grange Road Farm, Hugglescote<br />
Question appropriateness of coalescence of Coalville with Ellistown and Bardon. Loss of agricultural land.<br />
Sustainability and accessibility issues. Flood plain.
Question 16<br />
Do not support the favoured option.<br />
Question 17<br />
Support development Option 3 as the Preferred Option. Provides a more balanced distribution of housing across<br />
the district and improve the sustainability criteria of each district. It would avoid the concentration of development<br />
in one location and remain in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Plan.<br />
If Option 3 is not pursued, then would consider Option 4 more viable that both Options 1 and 2, as Ashby would<br />
receive more limited housing allocation avoiding any detrimental impact on the Rover Mease SAC and<br />
exacerbation of downstream flooding issues.<br />
Question 18<br />
Leicester Rd Allocation, Ashby<br />
Sustainability and access issues and road and rail noise.<br />
Prior Park Rd, Ashby<br />
Loss of public open space and sports pitches. Archaeological interest. Poor highway access.<br />
Money Hill (<strong>West</strong>), Ashby<br />
Loss of sport pitches. Lack of access. Detached from any other built development.<br />
Money Hill/<strong>North</strong> of A511, Ashby<br />
Road Noise. Potential conflict with industrial land uses. Loss of established homes. Loss of agricultural land.<br />
Park Road, Ashby<br />
Loss of employment land. Potential conflict with industrial land uses. Contaminated land. Flood plain.
South Of Moira Road, Ashby<br />
Loss of agricultural land.<br />
Land of Measham Road, Ashby<br />
Road noise from A42. Loss of agricultural land. Sustainability and accessibility issues.<br />
Millhouse Farm/Nook Lane, Ashby<br />
Sustainability and accessibility issues. Road noise from A42. Flood plain. Area of Special Residential character.<br />
Loss of protected Public Open Space.<br />
Holywell Spring Farm, Ashby<br />
Sustainability and accessibility issues. Loss of agricultural land.<br />
Question 19<br />
Do not support the favoured development strategy and therefore the question is not applicable.<br />
Questions 20 -28<br />
Given the context of our interest in this consultation, have not considered the details of potential allocations at<br />
Castle Donington, Ibstock or Kegworth. Therefore have not answered Questions 20 to 28.<br />
Question 29<br />
Support Option 3 as the Preferred Options with second preference for Option 4. These options provide the<br />
critical mass to ensure that the Measham Wharf development proposals are viable and sustainable to benefit the<br />
new community and existing community. Increasing the catchment population will also assist in achieving this<br />
which will also improve the sustainability credentials and the best mix of uses.<br />
Question 30<br />
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<br />
well to the re-introduced canal link. The development will deliver a mix of uses to supplement and support the<br />
good service provision within the town centre.<br />
Site to the north of east of Aston Road is not well located to the existing town centre, is removed from services,<br />
facilities and amenities and there are questions over its deliverability. It also does not sit within the existing<br />
development.<br />
The site to the ‘South of Bardon Road’ is distant from the settlement and physically separated by the A42. It<br />
would represent an incursion into open countryside and be incongruous with existing settlement.<br />
Question 31<br />
Do not support the favoured development strategy.<br />
Question 32<br />
Expansion of Coalville on the scale envisaged would be overly intensive, and given the infrastructure needed it is<br />
questionable whether it could be delivered in the timescale. Option 3 or 4 would be a more balanced and<br />
sustainable approach.<br />
Questionable whether the number of houses in one location could be delivered at such high numbers and<br />
whether properties could be sold at such high numbers.<br />
Extension of Coalville on this scale would subsume Hugglescote and Donington le Heath into Coalville and lead<br />
to coalescence with Ravenstone and Ellistown.<br />
Question 33<br />
A southerly expansion of Coalville would be wholly inappropriate given that there are alternative approaches<br />
under Options 3 and 4 which would lead to development that would round off other sustainable rural towns and<br />
provide support for existing infrastructure and services.<br />
Question 34<br />
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<br />
identified in Option 1 may compromise the deliverability of the housing requirements. Suggest a flexible<br />
approach be adopted to affordable housing which includes an open book approach to viability and finance in<br />
order that houses targets are not jeopardised and then at least some affordable hosing is provided.<br />
Questions 38<br />
In general terms, concur with the objectives of the favoured housing strategy. However regard should be made<br />
to our comments with respect to the target of 9600 houses, the need for flexibility to avoid an early review and the<br />
preferred options in term of the location of housing.<br />
Question 39<br />
The favoured approach will require further clarification in terms of economic development and the provision of<br />
employment opportunities. However the balanced approach to housing provision, contained in Options 3 and 4,<br />
would enabled a balanced approach to employment, enabling mixed use developments in a variety of locations.<br />
Provides potential to reduce the necessity for out migration and commuting and better balance between housing<br />
growth and employment opportunities.<br />
Question 40 and 41<br />
In principle support the favoured approach for strategic distribution uses. Reserve right to comment further if<br />
more detailed information is available.<br />
Question 42<br />
An employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport would be appropriate given the infrastructure<br />
provision which surrounds this location. In following Option 3 or 4 there is potential to combine this development<br />
with targeted employment opportunities along with leisure and recreation facilities.<br />
The release of the 40acre Redfern site at Measham will enable balanced growth. Will create a unique<br />
environment for new start up businesses alongside residential, office and restaurant and leisure development.<br />
Also offer opportunities to enhance the National Forest and recreational opportunities.<br />
Question 43
It is counter productive to set a benchmark in terms of business space associated with new developments and<br />
this should be considered on a site by site basis, based on what the market will support and recognise the unique<br />
characteristics of each site that might come forward.<br />
Question 44<br />
In general terms are supportive of the favoured economic strategy. However it is inappropriate to set specific<br />
benchmarks in terms of new mixed use developments. Would welcome discussion on what the Measham Wharf<br />
proposals may offer and investigate how a strategic allocation of the Redfern Site would further support facilities<br />
and services which might be delivered in this location.<br />
Question 45<br />
Policy should provide a mechanism for investigating the appropriate level of provision as development sites come<br />
forward and should not be strictly pre-determined. Would provide market with some certainty about types of uses<br />
which might be appropriate. Flexibility is essential to work with the more challenging circumstances of the current<br />
economic climate.<br />
Question 49<br />
Options 1 and 2 are appropriate in terms of the provision and enhancement of town centres. Note that Option 2<br />
concentrates revitalisation on the Coalville Town Centre and also appears to be encouragement for revitalising<br />
and enhancing the vitality and viability of the other town centres.<br />
Please confirm this is the correct interpretation of Option 2. If it is, this option would not preclude the full and<br />
proper consideration of the Measham Wharf development and would support its principle.<br />
Question 50<br />
The Measham Wharf proposals will offer a unique opportunity to provide retail and leisure uses. Also offers<br />
opportunity to improve the retail offer of Measham.<br />
Given that the reinstatement is a strategic proposal, it may be opportune to consider a <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> policy which<br />
refers to the Measham Wharf development and the uses which might be appropriate in this location as an<br />
extension to Measham High Street.
Question 51<br />
Given the strategic objectives sought to be delivered in terms of Coalville, it would appear appropriate to define<br />
town centre boundaries through the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>. However would necessitate a proper review of services,<br />
facilities and catchment areas and question whether this is possible at this stage and whether this would affect<br />
the soundness of the plan.<br />
Question 52<br />
Measham Wharf development represents a strategically important site. If town centre boundaries are<br />
considered, the boundary should be extended to include the Measham Wharf development site. Enable a full<br />
consideration of what mix of retail, employment, leisure and residential would be acceptable in this area.<br />
Issue 15<br />
Public transport is the most important facility serving Rural Towns. New development should be located to<br />
ensure long term viability of these services. Over development of Coalville and Ashby could potentially have a<br />
negative impact on the long-term viability of Rural Towns.<br />
50 Andrea<br />
Cole<br />
Question 27<br />
Detailed comments have been submitted for each of the potential identified sites in Kegworth. In summary these<br />
are:<br />
<strong>North</strong> of Ashby Road, Kegworth: – Permission was refused some 20 years ago on grounds that the existing<br />
sewer system was insufficient. Why has this been changed to allow this development? No mention of new<br />
infrastructure for the village, e.g. schooling, policing, medical facilities etc. Also problems with parking and traffic<br />
congestion and highway safety. Have these services been budgeted and if not why not? No indication of<br />
access. Local roads cannot cope with increase traffic movements. Has the need for additional gritting facilities<br />
been considered? A weight restriction of Ashby Road leads to questions as to how construction traffic would<br />
access the site.<br />
Adjacent Computer Centre: - No indication of access. How is increase in traffic flow to be accommodated? What<br />
are the contingencies for motorway closures?Station Road and Long Lane, and Adjoining Cott Factory and Slack<br />
and Parr Land: - No indication of access. Station Road is a rat run. Problems with congestion. Questions<br />
whether there are any proposals for improving roads.<br />
Bridgefields: - Located in a floodplain.<br />
Deleted:
Station Road: - Need sufficient on-site parking not in the form of a garage.<br />
Whiteholme: -Ashby Road has a weight restriction and a rat run.<br />
Brookes Machine Tools: -Must be sufficient on-site parking and not convinced that the Police would allow<br />
development adjacent to their Police Station.<br />
Other general concerns relate to parking, enforcement of illegal parking, the proposed bypass may be of only<br />
limited help, no detail of the proposals have been provided and lack of detail relating to infrastructure<br />
requirements.<br />
51 Packington<br />
Nook<br />
Residents<br />
Association<br />
An Ashby Local Development Survey was conducted by Packington Nook Residents Association. Over 95% of<br />
the respondents are against large scale development of the town. The preference is for housing to be limited to<br />
500 homes or less by 2026.<br />
Approximately 54% of respondents said that affordable housing should be less than the preferred figure of 40%.<br />
Only 28.8% supported the preferred approach.<br />
52 Mrs<br />
Doreen<br />
Worth<br />
53 P<br />
Saddington<br />
54 Mr N Hoult<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
92% object to the preferred approach to integrate sites for travellers with new developments.<br />
In order of importance, NHS doctors and dentists, roads and car parks, public transport and sewage system are<br />
all in need of urgent expansion for today’s population.<br />
Question 10<br />
Protest against the loss of the Green Wedge between Coalville and Whitwick.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to potential developments within the villages of Ravenstone and Snibston and surrounding. Object to loss<br />
of villages, loss of countryside, joining up with Coalville, impact on National Forest, inadequacy of infrastructure<br />
and impact of economic recession. It would be better to develop on Brownfield land and provide grants to<br />
upgrade housing stock.<br />
Question 7<br />
The reopeoning of the Leicester-Burton railway is key to the development of Coalville but notes that this has been<br />
rejected. Without it the town will grind to a halt, as 10,000 new houses means 10,000 more cars. The amount<br />
of houses planned is like an ‘Eco Town’ with no thought of transport infrastructure and gridlock, no jobs within the<br />
locality, loss of green wedge and too many people too close together. The strategy lacks common sense.
Object<br />
Question 10<br />
Green Wedge must be protected. Appropriate uses include National Forest, recreational use and allotments. The<br />
disadvantage of its loss outweighs any advantage.<br />
Question 15<br />
Due to traffic congestion problems the development of South East Coalville must not go ahead without<br />
completion of the Coalvillle bypass. The railway line should also be opened otherwise the town will become<br />
gridlocked.<br />
Question 35<br />
Sites in the Coalville urban area are not needed. The District exceeds government targets and sites in urban<br />
areas could create social problems.<br />
55 Mr J Ball<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
The Lounge site should be the preferred site as it is a rail connected site with good road access. Junction 24 is<br />
unsuitable as the surrounding area is gridlocked at peak times and impact on the environment.<br />
Question15<br />
Object to the potential development of Greenhill Farm for new houses. Site is within the National Forest and<br />
Charnwood Forest. Development would result in the loss of ‘an area of particularly attractive countryside’.<br />
56 Indigo Act on behalf of Tenens Limited who have property and land interest in <strong>North</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Leicestershire</strong>.<br />
Question 3<br />
Support the approach to identify Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as the<br />
focus for development. Development should be permitted which is of a suitable scale for the size of each<br />
settlement e.g. large scale developments to be directed towards Coalville and Ashby as the largest settlements in<br />
the district.<br />
Question 7<br />
Support the principle of further residential development and growth in the district but do not specifically support<br />
any of the proposed options. However sufficient community facilities and infrastructure must be provided to serve
57 J<br />
Thompson<br />
58 M<br />
Thompson<br />
59 M J<br />
Fletcher<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
an expanding population, including retail facilities.<br />
The Council’s retail study identifies a need for further food and non food development in the district. The <strong>Core</strong><br />
<strong>Strategy</strong> should identify where future retail development is need to support the community, at an appropriate<br />
scale for the settlement.<br />
Question 15<br />
Development of Greenhill Farm would lead to traffic congestion and affect highway safety, result in flooding, and<br />
drainage problems. The natural environment must be protected and there is a lack of social amenities in the<br />
vicinity. Is there economic demand for housing?<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to development at Greenhill Farm. This would lead to traffic congestion and affect highway safety,<br />
increase risk of flooding and result in loss of wildlife. There is no economic demand for housing and once<br />
permission is granted for housing this could lead to permission being granted for industrial development.<br />
Question 10<br />
The Green Wedge should be kept as a Strategic Gap or Area of Separation. The village of Whitwick has lost so<br />
much of its identify that a separation of green area is needed between Whitwick and Coalville.<br />
60 Ian Merrill Question 10<br />
Preserving Strategic Landscape and Wildlife Links<br />
The Green Wedge Study states that the Central Green Wedge has a ‘lack of a continuous link from the urban<br />
area to the surrounding countryside in landscape and wildlife terms’. This is challenged as there is a wildlife<br />
corridor formed along the watercourse draining in a north-easterly direction through the Central Green Wedge,<br />
and ultimately meeting the Grace Dieu Brook corridor, this has been ignored. The watercourse is lined, through<br />
its entirety, by mature hedgerows, trees and small blocks of woodland which undoubtedly act as a wildlife<br />
thoroughfare and link directly to Grace Dieu Valley. Also there is a direct link to the landscaping adjacent to the<br />
Coalville bypass, with indirect connections to the excellent Brownfield habitat of Nature Alive and the newly<br />
wooded areas beyond.<br />
Preventing Coalescence<br />
The Green Wedge Study states that there is ‘no obvious physical delineation along…Thornborough Road and<br />
Hermitage Road’. The very fact that a road is present removes all possibility of a totally ‘green’ physical<br />
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<br />
coalescence in the form of a block of contiguous development. Other than the ribbons of development following<br />
several arterial roads, the existing Green Wedge quite clearly separates Whitwick from Coalville, the purpose for<br />
which it was originally prescribed. Argues strongly that the Green Wedge still serves its purpose in prevention of<br />
coalescence and in preserving the individual character of the communities in question. Reference to a plan or<br />
aerial view of the area instantly reveals Coalville and Whitwick to be clearly identifiable entities; the removal of the<br />
Central Green Wedge would clearly move Coalville and Whitwick into the realms of one sprawling<br />
conglomeration, the very scenario for which the Green Wedge designation was originally made.<br />
Recreational Resource<br />
Although the Central Green Wedge is essentially under private ownership, it is served by a particularly extensive<br />
network of well used Public Footpaths (shown in an Appendix). LCC Public Footpaths numbered 08 to 011 all<br />
provide access across the full length and width of the Central Green Wedge (photographs of the footpaths are<br />
provided). The images all depict footpaths of well-trodden delineation that are clearly well traversed.<br />
Public Footpaths 09 and 010 which give access from the extensive residential developments off Church Lane,<br />
Whitwick, directly to green space and ultimately to the recreational areas otherwise accessed off Hermitage<br />
Road. The Central Green Wedge does indeed provide an invaluable recreational resource in that formal and safe<br />
access to picturesque countryside and open space is provided within an otherwise urban environment<br />
(photographs are provided).<br />
Conclusions of Green Wedge Study<br />
The Green Wedge Study concludes that Criteria A and D are met by the Central Green Wedge, but the<br />
supporting information laid out above shows that Criteria C and E are also met, thus greatly enforcing the need to<br />
retain the Green Wedge designation (Summaries of the Green Wedge Criteria are provided).<br />
Additional Supporting Factors<br />
The following factors are extremely important to the local environment and are surprisingly omitted from the<br />
Green Wedge Study.<br />
Site Archaeology<br />
The Green Wedge Study does not mention the archaeological value of any of the sites. However, the presence of<br />
clear evidence of ridge and furrow farming techniques and associated ancient hedgerow boundaries may be seen<br />
close to the northern limit of the Central Green Wedge (shown in an appendix). Photographs are provided as<br />
evidence of the ridge and furrows from ground level in the field where footpaths 09 and 010 met. The tall and<br />
species-rich surrounding hedgerows add further evidence that this area has remained unaltered since mediaeval<br />
times. A map from 1888 is also included to show the field boundaries marked as mature hedgerows and that the<br />
elongated form is indicative of ancient boundaries demarcating fields farmed with a ridge and furrow technique.<br />
Very little evidence of ancient ridge and furrow farming techniques remain undisturbed in <strong>Leicestershire</strong> as a<br />
whole, and this small area of land and its surrounding ancient boundary hedge are an invaluable link to our past<br />
which must be protected for future generations.
Site Ecology<br />
As well as species rich ancient hedgerows there is unimproved grassland which combined contribute an<br />
extremely valuable ecological asset in this area. The hedgerows provide an excellent habitat for invertebrates<br />
and in particular support a number of notable bird species (a non-comprehensive list is included). The brevity of<br />
the survey period has prevented attempts to locate other protected species, however it remains likely that bats<br />
use the mature hedgerows for foraging and may breed in some of the site’s mature trees. Reptiles may also be<br />
present, as this section of the site appears to provide suitable habitat for several species. No botanical survey<br />
information is available at present.<br />
As previously stated the arterial watercourse which drains the Central Green Wedge to the Grace Dieu Valley is<br />
lined by mature hedgerows, trees and small blocks of woodland. This provides an additional habitat for wetland<br />
species as well as serving as an effective wildlife corridor linking the Grace Dieu Valley with the newly planted<br />
woodland habitat adjoining the A511. In terms of protected species this section of the site is also likely to provide<br />
host to both foraging and breeding bats and the wetlands in fields adjoining the watercourse are likely to hold<br />
population of amphibians; again the lack of survey work at the appropriate season means that this cannot be<br />
proven at present.<br />
Conclusions<br />
As can clearly be demonstrated the central Green wedge still retains the attributes which led to its original<br />
designation. It maintains a strategic wildlife corridor to the Grace Dieu Valley protects structurally important open<br />
land and prevents the coalescence of Coalville and Whitwick, thus maintaining the individual character of these<br />
areas.<br />
The public amenity value of the Central Green Wedge remains very high, a public access is rendered to an area<br />
of very apparent aesthetic appeal. The value of the site is further reinforced by the presence of important<br />
archaeological and ecological assets, as demonstrated above; the Central Green Wedge, Whitwick’s ‘Green<br />
Lung’, is clearly an invaluable asset to the local community, plus the environment as a whole, and must be<br />
protected at all costs.<br />
61 David Cole<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 1<br />
Why is there no mention of increased business development in the area where housing is to be developed? Why<br />
is there only mention of business development in the area of East Midlands Airport and surrounds?<br />
Question 7<br />
Support Option 2 so that there is less emphasis on Coalville and the ‘Rural Towns’ making Ashby a more equal<br />
partner in the district.
Object<br />
Question 35<br />
Gypsies and Travellers sites should be provided away from existing communities.<br />
62 Ashby<br />
Woulds<br />
Town<br />
Council<br />
Para 1.2 - Agrees that the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should conform to both the Regional Plan and national policies whilst<br />
reflecting local issues and circumstances.<br />
Para 3.1 - AWTC support the approach detailed in Para 3.1 regarding seeking views on key issues.<br />
Question 1<br />
The favoured approach is supported but AWTC reserve the right to comment on any changes as they develop.<br />
Para 7.2 – Given the lack of consensus from their previous consultations, they have not developed any options<br />
but instead set out their favoured approach having review the responses to the Summer 2007 consultation and<br />
the general objectives in the Community <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
Question 2<br />
The favoured objectives are supported<br />
Question 3<br />
AWTC agree with the option with Coalville as a sub-regional centre, market town Ashby and four villages as rural<br />
centres as the main focus to develop settlements. AWTC agrees that Ellistown and Moira cannot be identified as<br />
Rural Towns.<br />
Para 8.3 – In regards to potentially including Albert Village as a location for future development AWTC state that<br />
they must be involved in future discussions, especially with SDDC, regarding this issue.<br />
Question 8<br />
AWTC supports option 1 – the Coalville focus option but reserves the right to comment further when the plan is<br />
certain.<br />
Question 38<br />
AWTC supports the favoured housing strategy with the exception of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show<br />
People it is considered these should form part of strategic industrial sites<br />
Question 40<br />
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<br />
in surrounding areas e.g. Conkers<br />
Question 49<br />
AWTC supports the favoured approach regarding the strategy for Town Centres<br />
Question 54<br />
The other options that should be considered include Lounge as Ivanhoe Railway Station with huge park and ride<br />
facilities to take visitors to the National Forest. Also consider holts in Moira, Daybell Estate and Conkers<br />
Question 55<br />
AWTC supports the favoured approach subject to proper consideration of flooding issues<br />
Question 57<br />
AWTC would wish to continue with Section 106 agreements and not CIL<br />
Question 58<br />
In regards to infrastructure AWTC considers there is an urgent need for a recreation ground at Spring Cottage<br />
and a Community Hall at Albert Village<br />
Question 65<br />
AWTC supports the favoured approach but with the inclusion of Albert Village and Spring Cottage. AWTC would<br />
like to open a debate whether Albert Village should for a Parish Council dependant on development of new build<br />
63 Malcom<br />
Allsop<br />
Quite clear that the Development Plan is in response to national policies. The District Council should proceed<br />
cautiously until there is a better understanding of the banking system and the economic recession.<br />
Object<br />
Question 1<br />
Concerned about the emphasis for significant new housing to be in the Coalville. Without corresponding local<br />
employment increase it will become a commuter town. The scale proposed responds to national directive rather<br />
than local needs. The ‘Greater Coalville’ proposal would result in villages being subsumed into Coalville and loss<br />
of strong cohesive communities. New housing should follow new jobs, e.g. around East Midlands Airport.<br />
Question 2<br />
Objectives are admirable. However the sheer scale of housing proposed and inevitable increase in traffic volume<br />
is in direct opposition to SO3. It is not possible to reduce the district’s carbon footprint with this scale of
64 Claire<br />
O’Neill<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
development.<br />
Question 3<br />
Favour identification of Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham as the focus of<br />
development with those areas outside of Coalville as Rural Towns.<br />
Agree that restriction to only Local Needs outside of Rural Towns could raise potential issues over long term<br />
sustainability of smaller communities.<br />
Agree with the criteria used to identify what constitutes a Sustainable Village and that lower order settlements<br />
should not have such a wide range of facilities as Rural Towns. Sustainable Villages should have three out of the<br />
four facilities identified and the list should be kept under review.<br />
However the restriction of infill development to the size of 0.1 ha in Sustainable Villages is not supported. This is<br />
too small. Development should be small scale and sensitive to the area and application judged on its merits.<br />
Question 1<br />
Do not support the proposed Vision. Why build houses that are not required? Council should redevelop existing<br />
housing. Building new houses will not enhance environment and there will be a loss of communities.<br />
Question 2<br />
Recession has halted house building. Ravenstone does not receive any mention in the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> although<br />
700 houses are proposed. Ravenstone does not have enough facilities to support growth.<br />
Question 3<br />
Why are only a few towns listed as Sustainable Villages? The amount of development suggested for<br />
Ravenstone is not “limited development within the village”. It would double the size of Ravenstone, put a strain<br />
on services and it is not on previously developed land. Land has not been put forward by landowners. Council<br />
will waste money on compulsory purchase.<br />
Question 4<br />
The shortfall of housing should be sited in a new location which will not upset residents.<br />
Question 39<br />
If there is no provision for employment in the area where will the occupants of the 12,200 new houses go to<br />
work? No thought appears to be given for the provision of services such as hospital, jobs, schools, medical<br />
facilities, shops etc to cope with the proposed growth.
Question 42<br />
Working with partners to influence the shape of the local economy of the future as long as it isn’t covered in<br />
houses.<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Question 46<br />
Do not support the favoured approach<br />
Question 49<br />
Theoretically yes but in practice it is not realistic. Coalville has nothing to offer, not big enough, road layout<br />
inadequate and appearance is not pleasing. A Retail Park is the only answer.<br />
Question 50<br />
The town centres are not large enough to attract key players. It needs to be totally redesigned and expanded on<br />
the Tesco Park.<br />
Object<br />
Support<br />
Question 51<br />
Important to keep the villages identity. Cannot take away a community’s identity as this is people’s lives. Can’t<br />
force people to sell land.<br />
Question 52<br />
Ashby and Coalville should remain town centres and development should only be expanded in directions that do<br />
not swallow up village communities. Option to create a new town centre is ideal.<br />
Question 53<br />
800 new spaces for Coalville town centre would not provide sufficient parking. Facilities are not within a suitable<br />
walking distance and therefore people will still need to use their cars.<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 55<br />
Such a large number of houses in such a concentrated area will have environmental impacts. Houses should be<br />
evenly distributed between all sustainable town and not villages.<br />
Question 56<br />
Building so many houses requires large numbers of industrial equipment and lorries etc. How can this help the<br />
environment?
Question 58<br />
Lack of schools, doctors, dentists, leisure facilities, hospitals, petrol stations, parking etc<br />
65 Jean<br />
Rowena<br />
Dawson<br />
In terms of evidence base. Has account been taken of Parish Plan Action Plans and surveys? The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong><br />
seems straightforward and covers most eventualities. Innovative design and use of alternative technologies<br />
would be great progress. Suggest Human Rights issues should be addressed.<br />
Support<br />
Support<br />
Support<br />
Question 1<br />
Sounds good but can it be upheld? The Sustainability Triangle should not have too much emphasis in any one<br />
direction, for example, a community should not be overwhelmed by business needs. Quality of life of residents is<br />
high consideration.<br />
Question 2<br />
Agree with the favoured objectives. These seem to be sound principles for action.<br />
Question 3<br />
Support the favoured approach. Designation of Kegworth as a Rural Town will be beneficial and in keeping with<br />
history of the town. Need to maintain a viable community and new facilities will be used and appreciated. All<br />
potential infill housing development in smaller communities should be explored before more countryside is<br />
developed.<br />
Question 5<br />
Do not have the information to comment. 9600 houses sounds a lot but it does depend on where it will be<br />
situated.<br />
Question 7<br />
All of these options seem reasonable but option 3 proposes a fair distribution between settlements. Infrastructure<br />
requirements needed in Kegworth include measures to deal with the amount of type of through traffic and parking<br />
problems. Concerns over inability of sewerage systems to be able to cope with growth.<br />
Support<br />
Question 10<br />
Support the identification of the western part of the Green Wedge as countryside. Green spaces enhance quality<br />
of life and work and are an important community resource. Do not support the proposal for the eastern and<br />
central parts of the Green Wedge. Access to these areas is not essential - they should be retained with an<br />
environmental; sustainable use. The Green Wedge should be maintained.
Question 11<br />
Public footpaths and rights of way could be explored together with grants for tree planting and encouragement of<br />
wildlife.<br />
Support<br />
Support<br />
Support<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Question 12<br />
Broad locations with detailed planning to take into consideration local opinion. Agree with this approach to some<br />
extent in making sure the development can be carried out.<br />
Question 13<br />
Agree with the approach of what should constitute a Strategic Site.<br />
Question 27 and 28<br />
Given the health implications and effect of noise and air pollution it would be unwise to develop a site near the<br />
motorway. The development of Station Rd/Long Lane would be preferable along with the Sidely development.<br />
Question 34<br />
This is an important issue for smaller communities and support the favoured approach. Object to the argument<br />
that inclusion of small numbers of affordable housing would impact on economic viability.<br />
Question 35<br />
Support the favoured approach.<br />
Question 38<br />
Support the favoured approach.<br />
Question 39<br />
Support the favoured approach.<br />
Support<br />
Question 40<br />
The favoured site seems full of potential hazards and development expense. Do not agree with the favoured<br />
approach.<br />
Question 42<br />
Careful consideration would need to be given to the necessary infrastructure particularly road systems.<br />
Question 44
Agree with the favoured approach<br />
Question 45<br />
Careful consideration would need to be given to the necessary infrastructure particularly road systems.<br />
Support<br />
Question 49<br />
Unlikely that development in Kegworth would affect Coalville or Ashby, given the largely non existent transport or<br />
social links. Kegworth residents are more likely to shop in more accessible places such as Loughborough,<br />
Nottingham and Derby. Coalville is unlikely to be our principle shopping destination.<br />
Question 53<br />
Agree with the favoured approach<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Question 55<br />
Important to use appropriately trained and experienced, professional architects and designers to achieve this.<br />
Question 59<br />
Agree with the favoured approach<br />
66 Savills on<br />
behalf of<br />
the Curzon<br />
Coaker<br />
Trust<br />
Support<br />
Question 60<br />
Disagree. East Midlands Airport has planned wind turbines and more can be added. Suggested locations<br />
include industrial sites, motorways, Long Lane and railway lines.<br />
Question 61<br />
A higher target would be better.<br />
Question 63<br />
More planting in general especially in towns and villages, and maintenance of parks and playing field to include<br />
wildlife areas.<br />
Question 1<br />
Support recognition of the role of East Midlands Airport. This approach is appropriate and reflects the emerging<br />
RSS.
Suggest consideration be given to opportunities to deliver housing near the Airport and improve public transport<br />
infrastructure in the area in order to maximise wider benefits from economic activity.<br />
Question 2<br />
SO1: Suggest that reference is made to PPS3 by including reference to “sustainable communities”<br />
SO6: The LDS suggested a Design SPD. Suggest reference to this in this objective.<br />
SO7: Land must be of sufficient quality and suggest that the word “quality” is added to the objective.<br />
SO8: Detailed requirement of affordable housing must be based on a robust assessment of need.<br />
SO14: Term ‘alternative modes of transport’ should be clarified i.e. non-car transport?<br />
Question 3<br />
Support identification of Kegworth as a Rural Town and it surpasses the criteria used to identify such.<br />
Question 4<br />
No comments to make on this issue.<br />
Question 5<br />
Support identification for 9,600 houses as a minimum. Reflect RSS policy, and allows flexibility and longevity.<br />
Question 6<br />
PPS12 requires a 15 year timescale. When looking beyond 15 years will have to be mindful of the limitations of<br />
evidence base. However it would be expedient to provide a ‘direction of travel’ beyond the 15 years.<br />
Question 7<br />
Question necessity of providing housing figures in a <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> as this may reduce flexibility and longevity of<br />
the document.<br />
If housing numbers are included, figure should be based on robust evidence e.g. SHLAA, and considered against<br />
objectives such as sustainability and regeneration.
There are regeneration and sustainability benefits to further development in Kegworth. For example, employment<br />
around the Airport and Donington Park, opportunities to improve public transport , enhancement of the<br />
sustainability of the settlement of Kegworth reflecting its status as a Rural Town. Land adjacent to the Cott<br />
Factory is suitable and achievable.<br />
Therefore support the provision of 400 dwellings (Option 3) to 800 dwellings (Option 4) in Kegworth. Have no<br />
evidence to suggest whether the numbers of accurate but the general approach of significant housing ion<br />
Coalville, slightly less in Rural Towns and less again in Sustainable Villages is supported.<br />
Question 8<br />
Question the need to include specific numbers. Kegworth is a sustainable location with available land that is<br />
suitable and achievable.<br />
Question 9<br />
Suggest that numbers are replaced by proportions of the overall housing requirement but have no specific<br />
comments on the wording.<br />
Question 10<br />
No comments to make on this issue.<br />
Question 11<br />
No comments to make on this issue.<br />
Question 12<br />
Para 4.6 of PPS12 provides advice on this matter. Suggest that the Council “allocate” strategic sites rather than<br />
“identify” strategic sites.<br />
Question 13<br />
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 <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
Sufficient for the SHLAA do identify sites of this size as ‘available’, ‘suitable’ and ‘achievable’.<br />
Question 14 to 25<br />
No comments to make in relation to Coalville, Ashby, Castle Donington and Ibstock. We have no robust local<br />
evidence to suggest whether or not the level of housing proposed for the settlements is accurate or otherwise.<br />
Question 26<br />
Support the provision of 400 dwellings (Option 3) to 800 dwellings (Option 4). Housing would Support the<br />
delivery of businesses at and adjacent to East Midlands Airport and Donington.<br />
Question 27<br />
‘Land adjacent to the Cott Factory’ is the most suitable site for housing at Kegworth and closer to the core of the<br />
settlement. Although the site is in Flood Zone 3 it is demonstrated that development is acceptable on flood risk<br />
grounds.<br />
In addition, ‘Land to the west of Kegworth’ has potential for housing delivery and ’Land adjacent to Computer<br />
Centre’, and ‘ <strong>North</strong> of Ashby Road’ could be developed on as sequential basis.<br />
‘Land at Station Rd/Long Lane’ is Flood Zone 3.<br />
‘Land at the Computer Centre’ is in employment use and to allocate it for housing would be unacceptable loss of<br />
employment and also contrary to SO7.<br />
Question 28<br />
Development of the three most suitable sites (LA Cott Factory, LA Computer and north of Ashby Rd) would<br />
achieve a total of 1,196. This land could deliver the 800 units put forward by Option 4 along with appropriate<br />
services and infrastructure.<br />
Question 29 to 31<br />
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.<br />
Question 32 and 33<br />
No comments to make. Have no robust local evidence to suggest whether or not the level of housing proposed<br />
for the settlement is accurate or otherwise.<br />
Question 34<br />
Consider 15 as an arbitrary minimum. More practical approach would be to require a contribution (financial to offsite<br />
provision) fro all sites from one dwelling upwards. Would allow lower level of provision on larger sites thus<br />
improving viability of the schemes.<br />
The percentages proposed appear arbitrary. Policy must be based on sound evidence, the Council be satisfied<br />
the level is feasible and not undermine the strategies objectives.<br />
Question 35 to 37<br />
Provision for sites should be made only where there is evidence of need within that locality and where that use is<br />
most appropriate for the site, i.e. where not required to meet Objectives SO1 to SO14.<br />
Question 38<br />
Support general approach to housing. Suggest that affordable housing provision and provisions for gypsies and<br />
travellers be based on robust evidence of local need.<br />
Question 39<br />
Support pro-active approach to strategic employment sites. Should help deliver strong local economy and further<br />
objective SO7.<br />
Question 40<br />
Strongly support proposals to deliver a strategic distribution site at land west of M1 Junction 24.<br />
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<br />
transport infrastructure to allow for a locally based workforce to access new employment opportunities without the<br />
use of a car.<br />
Question 41<br />
Do not know of more appropriate sites.<br />
Question 42<br />
Strongly support the approach which accords with the Spatial Objectives as stated within the consultation<br />
document.<br />
Question 43<br />
Must be based on up-to-date evidence base. Need to take care that viability of otherwise positive schemes is not<br />
undermined.<br />
Question 44<br />
<strong>Strategy</strong> appropriate in general terms. Suggest recognition of economic and employment benefits outside of<br />
classes B1, B2 and B8, e.g., role of retail and care homes.<br />
Question 45<br />
Suggest flexible approach is taken to location of small units (on or off-site) so can maximise benefits. Need up to<br />
date evidence and that viability of schemes is not adversely affected.<br />
Question 46<br />
Restriction of development near airport appears to be contrary to the favoured strategic distribution centre site.<br />
Suggest that the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> provides more clarity on the meaning of ‘operational development’ (maybe useful<br />
to refer to the permitted development rights given.)<br />
An approach that allows for some development at the Airport within defined limits would be more appropriate.
Question 47<br />
Controlled growth at the Airport.<br />
Question 48<br />
‘Operational’ is the term issued within the GPDO. Airport related development is an appropriate term.<br />
Question 49<br />
Support this approach. Particularly the promotion of Rural Towns, including Kegworth. Must ensure that when<br />
Coalville is promoted, this does not lead to the decline of other town centre. Need to ensure the satisfactory<br />
growth and change in other centres.<br />
Question 50<br />
Give priority to development of town centres where there are significant development proposals, e.g. Kegworth<br />
due to the proposed strategic distribution site. Treat Rural Towns as equal to Coalville.<br />
Question 51<br />
Not necessary to include this level of detail and inclusion of boundaries could create debate and delay. Issue<br />
could be dealt with as part of Site Specific Allocations document.<br />
Question 52<br />
No comments<br />
Question 53<br />
Support approach to reduce the need to travel by car. Housing growth at Kegworth, coupled with employment<br />
growth and improved transport infrastructure, will help deliver a sustainable patterns of development.<br />
Question 54<br />
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.<br />
Question 55 and 56<br />
No comments<br />
Question 57 and 58<br />
Suggest proactive approach, determining need and location of infrastructure and talking with organisations.<br />
Question 59<br />
Approach is too specific but agrees that it is appropriate to test large sites differently. Suggest that any less than<br />
2,500 residential units might be unable to supply and maintain a carbon free energy supply, due to economies of<br />
scale.<br />
Suggest a proactive approach. Allocate sites energy generation. <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> can establish policy framework<br />
and Site Specific Allocations can address the issue in detail.<br />
Question 60<br />
No comments<br />
Question 61<br />
Decentralised and local sources of energy supply can be expensive too establish with inconsistence<br />
performance. Unable to request this of a 10 unit scheme.<br />
Deal with on a site by site basis and a later SPD to deal with the detail.<br />
Question 62<br />
Question necessity of district targets given the regional targets.<br />
Question 63 and 64
67 Professor<br />
Simon<br />
Langley –<br />
Evans<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
No comments<br />
Question 65 and 66<br />
No comments<br />
Question 3<br />
Strongly disagree. Kegworth is a village and should not be ruined by creating it into a town. It does not have the<br />
facilities to support a larger population. For example, the school is oversubscribed, there are no leisure facilities<br />
and development would result in a transport nightmare. How will the town be policed as the recreation ground<br />
and the community centre will not keep people entertained.<br />
Question 4<br />
Build a new town or village. Suggest an Eco town to be sited on some of the old coalfield land.<br />
Question 5<br />
Do not agree that 9600 should be considered a minimum. There is no justification for this. Question whether this<br />
many are needed.<br />
Question 7<br />
Focus on Coalville is optimal. This large town has the space and infrastructure to allow expansion.<br />
Question 8<br />
Do not support the approach. Do not see a need for all this housing to be built in rural areas.<br />
Question 12<br />
Do not agree with the identification of specific sites at this stage as not enough of the affected people are aware<br />
of such proposals.<br />
Question 26<br />
Only Options 1 and 2 are remotely feasible. Prefer to see new housing on site north of Ashby Road. Options 3<br />
and 4 are unacceptable as Kegworth lacks the necessary infrastructure to support these homes. Where will all<br />
these people work.<br />
Question 27
68 Shelley<br />
Saunt<br />
Object<br />
What is the rationale for the Computer Centre being the optimal site? This would locate housing near the main<br />
road and contribute to congestion and provide unpleasant living conditions. Why not build houses on the margins<br />
of the village i.e. Slack and Parr site.<br />
<strong>North</strong> of Ashby Road or the Station Road sites would have the least impact on the village in terms of traffic and<br />
noise.<br />
Question 12<br />
Do not agree<br />
Question 14<br />
Support development at Ashby but disagree with the amount of development in Coalville. Too much<br />
development has already taken place at Thornborough Road and Stephenson Road. Why not build in less<br />
problematic areas, for example, on the outskirts of Ashby or Coleorton, land at Flagstaff Island with its good rail<br />
links. Such an approach would not ruin existing communities.<br />
Question 15<br />
If development has to occur then it should be at Donington le Heath or as an extension to Agar Nook.<br />
Question 16<br />
Alternative sites could include Bardon or Flagstaff Island next to the M42.<br />
69 Jonathan Question 23<br />
Comments reference development at Ibstock:-<br />
Ravenstone Rd/Leicester Rd - to big, too far from village core, significant proportion of children would be sent to<br />
Woodstone, visually prominent, too close to former mine workings and active pig farm.<br />
<strong>North</strong> of Ashby Rd – potential of domestic fly tipping, disturbance of Sence Valley Park, removes potential for<br />
wind turbine installation, through village traffic to Bardon, M1, and Leicester<br />
South of Ashby Rd - through village traffic to Bardon, M1 and Leicester<br />
Pretoria Rd – Local roads will not support extra traffic, Impinges on allotment<br />
Question 24<br />
Station Rd - through village traffic to Bardon, M1, Leicester, may impinge on allotment<br />
Pretoria Rd – Local roads will not support extra traffic, Impinges on allotment<br />
Leicester Rd – nearer to village commercial core, less traffic generated. Most likely to be Brownfield. Housing<br />
may impinge on informal recreation area next to brick works.
70 Eric<br />
Goodyer<br />
71 Andrew<br />
Mousley<br />
Question 53<br />
Like to see more emphasis on promotion and integration of public transport with through ticketing across<br />
services. Re-opening of the National Forest Rail line is a key commitment.<br />
Question 63<br />
Very easy to colour in large areas of land and allocate this to future development but should also include land to<br />
be set aside for future parks and open spaces rather than cramming houses in. Must also give consideration to<br />
location of new education and sports facilities. The sport field at Ibstock should not be taken away for housing.<br />
72 R I Chester Question 15<br />
Object to the plans relating to Greenhill Farm based upon the additional flood hazards. The existing houses in<br />
the “Wilson Estate” have been subject to flooding in the past. If houses are built on Greenhill Farm the potential<br />
for flooding will increase. It will also lead to the urbanisation of Green Hill Farm.<br />
73 Trevor<br />
Finney<br />
Question 7<br />
Would like a 5 th option. Council should inform the government that building on this scale is not warranted in this<br />
area. Where do all the jobs come from to justify 10000 houses? How will the schools cope with such an influx of<br />
people? Where do we find extra Doctors/Dentists? Who will live on the new estates with Travellers? What<br />
happened to protecting the Green Wedge?<br />
74 L Leonard Question 14<br />
Concerned about development sites in the area of Whitwick. Traffic on Church Lane is busy and there is no<br />
traffic calming with further development exacerbating these problems.<br />
75 Tracy Hall<br />
76-79 Miss C E<br />
Draycott<br />
and on<br />
behalf of<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the development of 2000 houses on land at Green Lane. This is not a suitable area for development.<br />
The open area is well used by residents and it is not necessary to build on every bit of greenspace. Why not fill<br />
the empty properties? Other concerns relate to noise, extra traffic, highway safety, loss of flora and fauna and<br />
loss of natural environment and open space.<br />
Traffic Issues<br />
Concerned about the potential impact to existing residential areas from increased traffic as a result of new<br />
developments. Also concerned that will impact upon traffic, pedestrian and highway safety, whilst also<br />
exacerbating the existing poor state of roads/pavements, use of road by lorries, infrastructure is not capable of
other<br />
residents.<br />
Mr C<br />
Haywood,<br />
Mrs J<br />
Haywood,<br />
& Mr B A<br />
Haywood<br />
80 & 204 Peatfield<br />
Associates<br />
81 Mrs J<br />
Abrey<br />
82 B S<br />
Granger<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
coping with these extra demands.<br />
Propose that sites of approximately 0.4ha be included as employment sites and the housing sites.<br />
Propose that the 0.4 acre parcel of land fronting the northern side of Prior Park Road, Ashby, be allocated for<br />
residential/employment/institutional development. This site presents an opportunity for a building of architectural<br />
merit recognising there will be a need for open land.<br />
Wish to object to the proposal for open cast mining at Minorca Pit, Measham. Object on the grounds that<br />
Measham has been regenerated, it is in the Heart of the National Forest, dust and noise will have an adverse<br />
impact on health, lorries will impact on highway safety and will not abide by the weight restrictions on specific<br />
roads.<br />
Question 30<br />
Object to houses on land at Atherstone Road, owned by Hanson. No change in circumstances since a proposal<br />
was last refused. Inadequate infrastructure and facilities to cope with extra demand. Already plans to build new<br />
houses on the large new estate at Measham.<br />
Question 88<br />
Object to the proposals for the development strategy. Would make a mockery of the National Forest and<br />
undermine the work that has taken place to create a wildlife habitat, the environmental projects and the<br />
development of a tourist industry.<br />
Large developments cause noise and light pollution, traffic congestion and pollution, increase in criminal activity,<br />
loss of amenities and stresses on insufficient infrastructure systems.<br />
Question the need for such a quantity of housing and suggest that the Council advise the government that such<br />
development is inappropriate for this area. Any development should be kept to a minimum with a few properties<br />
built on two sites rather than one. Houses should be spaced further apart with better soundproofing, larger<br />
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.<br />
83 Fox<br />
Bennett<br />
84 Ian Forman<br />
85 Angela and<br />
Chris<br />
Bexton<br />
86 Diane Pill<br />
and Robert<br />
Woodland<br />
87 Janet<br />
Stevenson<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Support the identification of Greenhill Farm as a potential housing site. The site is strategically placed adjoining<br />
existing houses and appears to form a natural progression. The land is no longer viable for agriculture. Site<br />
could accommodate up to 250 houses and many would have the benefit of open views to the south and west.<br />
Land is available immediately once planning permission is granted. There are concerns that itinerants may move<br />
onto the site, in its current form and condition.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to plans to build a distribution centre close to Lockington. Adverse impact on landscape, conservation<br />
area, air, noise and light pollution as well as visually intrusive. Negative impacts outweigh the benefits. The<br />
environment and quality of life of Lockington residents should be protected.<br />
Question 15<br />
Do not want Ravenstone to become part of the greater conurbation of Coalville. Concerned about the plan for a<br />
number of houses in the area of Swannington Rd/Church Lane area. This area should be preserved and the<br />
proposal would have a devastating impact on the nature, wildlife, flora and fauna. Village life needs to be<br />
maintained.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to potential housing development in and around in Ravenstone. Ravenstone does not have the<br />
infrastructure to support such a large influx of families. Loss of wildlife, open land and the green wedge.<br />
Ravenstone should not be part of Coalville and should retain its separate village identity and conservation area.<br />
Development would spoil this well-preserved architectural and historic part of <strong>Leicestershire</strong> and has already had<br />
to endure the Long Moor mine building work and disruption from lorries.<br />
Question 5<br />
Why are so many houses needed in the district when there are so many empty properties?<br />
Question 10<br />
Thringstone is quite separate in its identity from Whitwick, Swannington and Coalville. The green wedges do<br />
provide a continuous corridor. The Whitwick Leisure Centre is the only one this side of Coalville. It has outdoor<br />
facilities, environmental value and links up with the green wedge to Swannington and Thringstone.
88 Heart of<br />
the<br />
National<br />
Forest<br />
Foundation<br />
(John<br />
Colburn)<br />
89 - 91 L Blockley,<br />
L Blockley<br />
and J<br />
Blockley<br />
92 and<br />
92b<br />
Katherine<br />
M Cohoon<br />
Object<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 14<br />
The villages surrounding Coalville have a heritage and history which provides distinct identities. The merging of<br />
these villages with the town of Coalville would be to the detriment of the environment and historical heritage.<br />
Facilities in the village would be affected by a large influx of families, for example, primary school, health care,<br />
sewers (existing severe problems), road access from A512 and land to rear of Glebe Rd is wetland and<br />
unsuitable for building. Area around Thringstone is not suited to development of this size and would result in an<br />
adverse impact on the quality of life in the community.<br />
Question 57<br />
The Heart of the National Forest (HNF), including Conkers, is developing as the main leisure, recreation and<br />
forestry project within the National Forest, with full of support of district and county council as well as Regional<br />
Economic Bodies. HNF supports the recognition of the National Forest as a major recreational resource but also<br />
maintains that there is a clear case for identifying the HNF Park and Conkers as the main focus for major<br />
sustainable leisure and recreational developments, including intensive recreation, leisure and tourism facilities.<br />
To continue to develop and achieve its potential as a leisure and tourism destination and economic regeneration<br />
of Ashby Woulds, the Forest Park needs specific recognition and support through the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>. This would<br />
underpin project funding bids and planning applications. Suggest that it should be seen as the ‘Umbrella Project’<br />
and that the Forest Park is identified as a special policy area with is extent diagrammatically indicated on the<br />
<strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> plan. (Reference to the Forest Park need not be project or site specific). The supportive policies<br />
should identify and promote leisure, recreation and tourism development opportunities as ma means of<br />
regeneration of the Ashby Woulds area.<br />
Question 24<br />
Ibstock has enough houses. Fully opposed to housing development on Station Road. Object to new building, the<br />
use of machinery associated with such works and the extra traffic that would be generated.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to development at the top of Greenhill Road/Warren Hills Road. Development must be confined to<br />
Brownfield sites. Coalville must not be merged into Hugglescote/Ellistown/Ibstock, Ravenstone or Whitwick.<br />
Green land must be preserved for the benefit of the environment.<br />
Do not agree that an ECO town should be built in the area of Coalville and Ashby. Future developments should<br />
be concentrated upon Coalville Town Centre which is in urgent need of a revamp.
93 The<br />
Friends of<br />
Thringston<br />
e<br />
94 Mr and Mrs<br />
Thorpe<br />
95 Mrs P M<br />
Caddick<br />
96 Ruth Bayes<br />
97 Julie<br />
Harwick<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
The Group are concerned over the impact of large scale development on the village and the provision of services.<br />
The playgroups and schools have existing waiting lists, there is a lack of medical and dental facilities, and there<br />
are questions over the ability of the medical practice in Whitwick to be able to cope with additional patients.<br />
Concern is also raised over the ability of the sewage and drainage systems to cope without massive investment.<br />
Previous flooding events have highlighted the deficiencies with the systems. Existing development has already<br />
overstretched the system with some properties having ‘pumped’ sewage systems due to the terrain.<br />
Development of the identified site at Thringstone would result in the loss of wetland meadows and archaeological<br />
sites that are currently being investigated. It would also bring together the conurbations of Swannington,<br />
Whitwick and Thringstone resulting in the loss of the village’s separate identities.<br />
Development of the site at Thringstone would be detrimental to the community and therefore suggest that sites<br />
are looked at elsewhere<br />
Question 15<br />
The site identified to the north of the A511 between Whitwick and Coalville currently consists of fields being<br />
farmed or used for grazing, and is used by residents for walking. There must be plenty of non Greenfield land<br />
that can be developed. The noise and traffic on the A511 would create an unacceptable environment for new<br />
development.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington . Environment has been covered in concrete that suffers<br />
from air, sound and visual pollution with no indication of consideration being given to alternatives such as the use<br />
of Brownfield sites. The aim should be to feed the increasing population by using local products which can be<br />
farmed on such Greenfield land.<br />
Question 17<br />
Do not want Ashby to expand any more and turning the countryside into housing and development. There are<br />
already unfinished building sites that are not being sold. Hugh new development would destroy the countryside<br />
and lead to Ashby being turned into a polluted, large and busy town.<br />
Question 27<br />
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<br />
great.<br />
98 Advantage<br />
<strong>West</strong><br />
Midlands<br />
The Agency supports the preferred approach to East Midlands Airport. This recognises its regional and subregional<br />
importance and seeks to balance economic growth with environmental mitigation.<br />
The Agency notes the potential for a Strategic Distribution Site to be located in the District and the preferred<br />
approach. Due to the potential impact on the <strong>West</strong> Midlands the Agency would like to be kept informed on the<br />
progress of this matter.<br />
Creation of a Donington Park/East Midlands Employment Zone could offer potential new employment and training<br />
benefits for the District. However the potential significant displacement from Silverstone should be analysed<br />
when potential benefits are assessed.<br />
99 Howard<br />
and Carol<br />
Cairns<br />
100 Richard<br />
Lee<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
There is a covenant on ‘Land lying to the west of Highfield Street, Coalville’ that prohibits development and<br />
therefore should not be included in any future development for housing. Have concerns over any proposed<br />
development on land between Wentworth Road and St Faiths Drive, if vehicular access is allowed from St Faiths<br />
Drive, due to road conditions and parked cars.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to development on the Green Wedge site. Loss of privacy to residents on Hermitage Road. The<br />
development of fields either side of Green Lane would destroy the rural feel. To build 2500 houses would be<br />
totally irresponsible and would result in the loss of the last remaining green wedge.<br />
Strain on the road network would be immense. Hermitage Road is already impassable at certain times of the<br />
day. New infrastructure facilities need to be provided either as part of development or separately. Effect on the<br />
public purse would be considerable and could lead to an increase in Council Tax. Loss of farmland resulting in<br />
loss of flora and fauna. Once the land is paved, flooding problems would be exacerbated<br />
Whitwick enjoys an identity separate from that of Coalville. Whitwick existed long before Coalville was created.<br />
This separate identity will vanish when the green wedge between them is built upon.<br />
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.<br />
101 Linda<br />
Hobbs<br />
102 Paul<br />
Wileman<br />
103 Janice<br />
Turner<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 10 and 15<br />
Object to building on wedge of land off Green Lane, Whitwick. Important for Whitwick to retain a separate identity<br />
from Coalville and would support a parish council for Whitwick.<br />
Building such a large number of houses is unnecessary. Pockets of derelict land, including closed public houses,<br />
could provide enough land to build the houses that are needed. Due to the economic climate there are still many<br />
houses for sale and developers seem reluctant to build new houses. There is not a shortage of houses, just a<br />
shortage of affordable houses for first time buyers. There is no point in building more houses in the Coalville area<br />
until the town has greatly improved shopping facilities, there are improved leisure facilities such as a cinema and<br />
a restored rail link and station.<br />
Question 10<br />
The green belt should stay the green belt. The green wedge in Whitwick should be preserved.<br />
Question 26<br />
Kegworth does not have adequate facilities to support such an excessive amount of housing - only one village<br />
primary school, one playing field and a small community centre. Do however have the negative impacts of an<br />
airport, power station and frequent traffic hold ups due to proximity of motorway. Question whether new houses<br />
so close to the M1 and the runway would be beneficial to the lives and health of these people. Isn’t the<br />
permission on the Slack and Parr site sufficient for the village to absorb?<br />
104 Ms P Gate Object Question 10No account has been taken of the social, recreation or ecological requirements of the area and there<br />
would be a detrimental impact on the environment of the surrounding area<br />
There are already two major industrial estates, business parks, night flights and racetrack noise. Proposal would<br />
lead to further noise, light and air pollution.<br />
Already suffer from the use of roads as rat runs and this development would put more pressure on the local road<br />
network.<br />
Castle Donington, Lockington and Hemington would loose a natural barrier and the loss of countryside pursuits.<br />
Proposal would result in an urban sprawl of commercial and industrial development<br />
Diminish the aesthetic appearance and make the village less desirable as a place to live with an adverse impact<br />
on house prices.<br />
Will lead to a snowball effect and further demands will be placed on the north side of the airport.
105 Ms K<br />
Wright<br />
106 Mrs M<br />
Wakefield<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
107 Robin<br />
Batchford<br />
108 Hugglescot<br />
e and<br />
Donington<br />
Le Heath<br />
Forum<br />
109 Mr & Mrs<br />
Frazer<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Raise objection to the plans being proposed in and around Ravenstone. Too much development to be focused in<br />
Coalville. The identity of Ravenstone would be threatened as it would no longer be a village and distinctly<br />
separate from Coalville. Why does Ravenstone not have the protection of a green wedge whereas Swannington<br />
does? Why are villages within the Charnwood Forest area protected from such development and villages in the<br />
National Forest are not? Ravenstone has already had to experience an open cast mine and three proposals for<br />
a travellers site. It does not appear that the Council is acting in the best interest of Ravenstone’s residents. The<br />
potential areas for development seem excessive and extend the village further into the countryside.<br />
Loss of valuation to people’s properties due to loss of view and proximity of affordable housing.<br />
Recognise that planning policy has to be produced to meet the requirements of National and Regional policies.<br />
Therefore have endeavoured to give a reasoned and objective response.<br />
Option 3 of the Development <strong>Strategy</strong> is the favoured approach, as it would provide a fairer spread of<br />
development across the District. Option 1 with a figure of 9,800 dwellings in Coalville with 60% to be located in<br />
the Hugglescote area is not a fair option.<br />
The Forum is also concerned that Hugglescote is no longer named in the document, and is referred to as South<br />
<strong>West</strong> Coalville and South East Coalville. Any future plans to amalgamate Hugglescote with Coalville will be<br />
vigorously opposed.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the proposals for development in the Whitwick area, Hermitage Leisure Centre and Recreation Ground.<br />
Locality is already overcrowded. Negative impact on wildlife, possible flooding and overloading of the sewage<br />
system. Green areas should be preserved to benefit of keeping the different villages identities instead of<br />
cramming too many houses in each location.<br />
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<br />
pollution and noise pollution. Impact on residents would be made unbearable and loss of value to properties.<br />
111 Mr & Mrs<br />
Slack<br />
112 Mrs<br />
Margaret<br />
Flecther<br />
113 K J<br />
Godfrey<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington.<br />
Question 40<br />
Concerned about noise, traffic and light and air pollution from a freight terminal near the airport and Castle<br />
Donington.<br />
Question 7<br />
Disappointed to see that Whitwick would cease to have any separate identify as a village but has instead been<br />
thrown together with Thringstone and Swannington to be part of the Coalville Urban Area. Preferred Option<br />
places the burden for accommodating almost all the development in Coalville and surrounding areas. There are<br />
other parts of the district where communities could be created, which are in need of regeneration and affordable<br />
housing.<br />
Preferred Option is 3 but would like to see to a reduced burden on Whitwick. Whatever plans are introduced<br />
there will need to be a commitment to the development of infrastructure to support those developments. Will<br />
need a significant increase in provision of schools, health centre, roads, parking, shops and leisure facilities. Also<br />
need for consideration to be given to sewage and drainage and flooding.<br />
Question 10<br />
Abandoning the Green Wedge will create a continuous urban area that will swallow up Whitwick, Swannington<br />
and Thringstone. Little justification has been given for abandoning these green wedges that separate<br />
communities. If there is no designation for the land that is not developed, these areas would remain open to<br />
further future housing plans.<br />
The Council’s report identifies housing land capable of accommodating twice as many houses as are needed in<br />
the plan. It should therefore be possible to accommodate housing without abandoning the green wedge<br />
designated areas.<br />
Proposal to abandon the Central and Green Wedged is completely unacceptable. This area is used for<br />
recreation. If development does take place would ask that there is at least a bridleway to connect Whitwick to<br />
Coalville.
114 Peter and<br />
Sheila<br />
Robinson<br />
115 P A Booth<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Green land around the Hermitage lake and golf course is of recreational importance. If there are to be further<br />
Leisure facilities these should be in addition to the existing facility.<br />
Additional representation received 3 March 2010<br />
Request that houses are not built on the land around the Hermitage Lake or the land off Green Lane. This would<br />
result in the loss of an area in Coalville that is used for walking. Development here would also overload the local<br />
roads and sewers.<br />
Question 26<br />
Support the scenario for Kegworth using the Slack and Parr and Computer Centre option.<br />
Question 27<br />
Support the Slack and Parr option subject to suitable access onto Station Road. If Long Lane access is not<br />
upgraded it is likely that there will be additional traffic congestion problems along Station Road. Extra traffic from<br />
the Computer Centre would exacerbate this problem. Traffic control will be needed.<br />
Question 40<br />
The proposed distribution centre along the A453 will create traffic problems on this road. There are already<br />
currently problems in this area.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the proposal of a site for a Strategic Distribution Centre south of Lockington. There is enough<br />
development in the area causing noise and pollution, namely the airport, racetrack and large industrial estate.<br />
Proposal would result in the loss of much needed agricultural land.<br />
116 J Healey Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
117 M<br />
Hawkswort<br />
h<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as will result in loss in house values; loss of green space<br />
and adverse impact on wildlife. Increase in traffic congestion and use of roads as a rat run and by heavy goods<br />
vehicles; High levels of pollution, including noise and air. There are existing established industrial sites which<br />
are already poorly served by local roads and are congested. Such a proposal would be a visual plot on the<br />
landscape and destroy the landscape.
118 H England Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
119 S England Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
120 Sam<br />
Forman<br />
121 Susan<br />
Pilkington<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as such a proposal would deface the landscape. The<br />
negative externalities of such a proposal far outweigh the benefits. There will be excessive environmental<br />
damage in terms of air pollution, noise pollution, light pollution as well as an eyesore. Detrimental impact on the<br />
quality of life of Locking residents.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would destroy the countryside; Increase traffic in<br />
the vicinity of one of the busiest motorway junctions - traffic in the area is already busy with existing attractions<br />
such as markets, race meetings and concerts. When accidents occur long delays occur in the area. Decrease in<br />
property values. Pollution and noise levels. Industry and industrial sites and areas are already overcrowded.<br />
Where will the travellers be located to?<br />
122 Mr S C<br />
Bolton<br />
123 Ms J<br />
Rawling<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
124 M<br />
Hawkswort<br />
h<br />
Object<br />
Question 27<br />
Would like to make an objection to the potential housing sites in Kegworth (Station Road). Traffic problems are<br />
already experienced in the area with roads used as rat runs and there is the presence of heavy goods vehicles.<br />
Problems occur on roads including, Side Ley, Station Rd, Nottingham Rd/A6 junctions. Inadequate parking<br />
facilities. Loss of green space in the village. Adverse impact on local wildlife.<br />
Inability of local facilities, doctors and post offices being able to cope with such an increase in the number of<br />
residents. Existing facilities are already poor with this village having been neglected by the Council. Adverse<br />
impact on drainage and sewerage farm which is already overloaded and cannot cope. Local flooding of fields will<br />
worsen. What new facilities will be provided?<br />
Recent developments are hideous and out of keeping with the village. Houses must be in keeping with those in
the surrounding area and affordable<br />
125 Tracy Hall<br />
126 Keith and<br />
Joy Pollard<br />
127 Richard<br />
Baugh<br />
128 Lisa<br />
Auston-<br />
Matysik<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to proposed development in Whitwick.<br />
Question 7<br />
Prefer Option 3 - the Coalville Focus with a significant amount in two of the Rural Towns. Prefer this approach as<br />
a number of dwellings would be spread over a wider area. Areas such as Packington should have their share of<br />
social housing. The areas of separation between towns and villages should be maintained to preserve<br />
community identity.<br />
With Option 1, it would appear that Coalville and the surrounding villages of Ravenstone, Donington-le-Heath<br />
would become a concrete jungle. There would be no countryside left and the value of existing houses would<br />
drop. Villages would be swallowed up and there would be a massive concrete jungle with villages becoming part<br />
of a massive housing estate.<br />
Do not know if more housing developments would make Coalville more viable although a more attractive town<br />
centre might help. However the propose 12000 new houses in the district is too many.<br />
Issue 7<br />
Cannot comment on the employment questions as do not know where the land is to be? But if small villages<br />
were involved this would lead to traffic problems and need for major road construction.<br />
Question 10<br />
Support the fight to prevent the loss of green belt land. As it would preserve green spaces of countryside and<br />
farmland for living and breathing space for the population to benefit from. It would also help the village of<br />
Whitwick to retain its identity and prevent it being swallowed up into an unrecognisable concrete mass of housing<br />
with nearby towns.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington This is the only large site left on the area where wildlife<br />
has a chance of survival. The area is supposed to be a national forest. A vital wildlife area will be lost forever.<br />
129 Ms Key Question 14 and 15
and Mr<br />
Watkins<br />
130 Mr Jenkins<br />
and Doctor<br />
Jenkins<br />
131 Ray Neal,<br />
Community<br />
Guardian,<br />
Thringston<br />
e<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Why do so many houses have to be built in such close proximity to Ravenstone and Whitwick? They should be<br />
more evenly distributed throughout the whole area. Ravenstone does not want to become part of Coalville. It is<br />
a village with community spirit and has already had to suffer the impact of the open cast mine.<br />
Ravenstone could possibly cope with one more small development but does not have the facilities to cope with<br />
such a large number of proposed dwellings and questions the impact on water, electric, sewerage and local<br />
roads. For example, there is only one primary school. There is no doctor or chemist, and only one village shop.<br />
Electricity pylons run across one of the suggested site (Health concerns) and where is the employment going to<br />
be located that will employ the new residents or will development add to level of out-commuting.<br />
Where is the money going to come from to build the 12,200 houses? Some of the landowners of these identified<br />
sites do not want to sell and do not want compulsory purchase.<br />
Question 18<br />
Object to the proposal to develop land at Money Hill between Nottingham Road and Smisby Road. This would<br />
have a detrimental effect on Ashby, the environment, traffic congestion, amenities and services.<br />
Question 10 and Question 15<br />
Concerned about development in the Green Wedge surrounding Thringstone Village. The area to the north of<br />
Thringstone earmarked for 450 plus houses appears to incorporate the school playing field and land adjoining.<br />
This proposal compromises the intention to maintain the integrity of the National Forest and its relationship to<br />
Charnwood forest.<br />
Thringstone is a separate community, distinct from Whitwick, Swannington and Coalville, with a long history and<br />
listed in the Domesday book with historical remains. Thringstone should be designated a Sustainable Village<br />
with due regard paid to its long and separate history as a settlement of archaeological interest.<br />
The Green Wedge (Land to rear of Glebe Rd and Main Street) provides separation from Swannington. This is<br />
currently wetland and is a valuable and ancient resource, home to flora and fauna in need of conservation. Local<br />
residents have spent many years caring for this resource. This area requires preservation and a commitment to<br />
its conservation.<br />
Scrap Option 1. It doesn’t acknowledge the realities of the communities and will create one sprawling<br />
conurbation. Such an increase in population in the village is not sustainable and will overload the infrastructure<br />
and current services.
132 Mr & Mrs<br />
Webster<br />
Question 7<br />
Coalville does not have significant employment for people already living there or for people moving into the area.<br />
Suggest the provision of homes near the centres of employment, yet Castle Donington and Ashby both fail to<br />
have a significant allocation of new homes, unless Option 2 is chosen.<br />
133 D Richards Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
134 M Parker Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Question 15<br />
Would welcome for The Limes to be redesignated as Coalville. Strongly against all of the four options contained<br />
within the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>. Would result in the loss of open outlook and flora and fauna; devaluation of property<br />
values and quality of life. Unacceptable and significant increase in traffic onto Coalville Lane and the A447.<br />
These roads are already busy, dangerous and noisy. Public transport is poor with a reliance on car. Population<br />
density will bring anti-social behaviour, parking problems, litter, dog fouling, and a strain on services, including<br />
sewerage, water and schools.<br />
Also concerned that some of the land maybe earmarked as a site for Gypsy and Travellers. Housing numbers<br />
are too high. Ludicrous that these numbers are being considered before a full housing needs assessment has<br />
been undertaken.<br />
135 N and J<br />
Tatlock<br />
136 E M<br />
Chaplin<br />
137 E C<br />
Wilmott<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
138 Mr G A<br />
Roworth<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As the roads are already unsuitable for existing traffic.<br />
Following an accident there is turmoil with traffic diverted to narrow lanes that are unsuitable. Hemington Village<br />
has cars and vans parked on both side of the Main Street with narrow and winding lanes. This scenario is
139 Paul<br />
Andrew<br />
140 Elizabeth<br />
Riding<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
repeated in Lockington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. This development would exacerbate these road<br />
conditions, spoil the countryside and generate air pollution.<br />
Question 18<br />
Development at Money Hill, Ashby is inappropriate.<br />
The increase in population will have a major negative impact on the services infrastructure, such as schools,<br />
doctors, dentists, hospitals etc. As the birth rate further increase the impact will be magnified.<br />
Detrimental effect of the availability of amenity space and leisure facilities.<br />
Development will have an economic affect upon the viability of the continuity of the remaining farmland and thus<br />
open up the remainder of the site for future development.<br />
Such a development will be completely unsustainable.<br />
Question 10<br />
Object to the potential loss of the Green Wedge as it will result in urban sprawl. The Green Wedge is an<br />
important area and the distinction between Whitwick and Coalville needs to be preserved. Whitwick is a<br />
Domesday village and should not be made part of Coalville – loss of the Green wedge would destroy heritage.<br />
Question whether the land between Green Lane and Hermitage Road is fit for building so many houses as the<br />
land is always flooding. Will the riparian ditch that crosses my land be covered in? Would also lead to the loss of<br />
heritage in that the piece of land between Hermitage Lake and Thornborough Road is part of the original three<br />
field system.<br />
Will the Council Guarantee that subsidence will not affect the new houses. This causes difficulties in getting<br />
house insurance. Why cannot empty houses be put to use and provide housing accommodation?<br />
141 Mr A Taylor Object Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it would cause a significant deterioration of the local<br />
environment and quality of life. Strongly opposed to such a proposal. This would also result in poorer air quality,<br />
noise and air pollution and greater congestion on the roads.<br />
142 L Botterill<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
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<br />
people. Suggest the Option 3 is considered. This would allow communities to identify themselves in smaller<br />
groups whilst also maintaining separation between town and villages.<br />
143 Sharon and<br />
Richard<br />
Nield<br />
Question 5<br />
Do not believe that the district needs so much additional housing. However understand that these targets are set<br />
by Government and are out of control.<br />
144 Robert and<br />
Margaret<br />
Logan<br />
Object<br />
Question 8<br />
Preference would be for a purpose built ECO town on otherwise empty land. This could be created with the<br />
necessary schools, healthcare etc and would not impact on established locations. If this is not an option, do not<br />
add large amount of houses onto otherwise small communities. Coalville could probably cope with a large<br />
amount of development on land at Grange Road.<br />
Question 14<br />
Strongly against adding houses to villages and they will lose their identity. Ravenstone in particular is in danger<br />
of merging with Coalville. It is important that villages maintain their identity. In addition, Ashby is becoming spoilt<br />
and unattractive.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington due to the impact on house values, increased road<br />
congestion, noise, light and air pollution and commerce and industry – airports, racetrack etc. The area is<br />
already saturated with development.<br />
145 Mrs M Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Bond<br />
146 A W Fowler Question 14<br />
Proposals suggest an abnormal quantity of dwellings for Ravenstone. Why can’t development be more evenly<br />
spread and why is Swannington Village not earmarked as a building site. High volume of properties would mean<br />
a substantial increase in population and cars, worsening existing traffic congestion problems.<br />
Where would all the incomers work? It would be sensible to position these dwellings near sites identified for<br />
employment development. Question ability of schools to accommodate additional numbers. Additional policing<br />
will be needed. Who will pay for this?
Strong argument to preserve the individual identities of communities. Ravenstone will be swallowed up into an<br />
extension into Coalville. The majority of houses should not be dumped on Coalville.<br />
147 B and L<br />
Travers<br />
148 David<br />
Kershaw<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The number of jobs created would be few and low paid<br />
and the majority of the workers would be from outside of the immediate area and would probably travel in by car.<br />
Concerned about the air quality adjacent to our residence. The area is already in an Air Quality Management<br />
Area and the level of Nitrous Oxide in atmosphere is anticipated to exceed EU levels in the near future. Loss of<br />
land available for walking and leisure. May need to drive to access such facilities.<br />
149 G Baker<br />
150 Jennifer<br />
Burnett<br />
151 Mr and Mrs<br />
Crockett<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the development of land at north of Stephenson Way due to large amount of noise on the A511. This<br />
already exceeds the national noise traffic limit and if you lived abroad you would get a reduction in Council Tax.<br />
Coalville residents are proud and patriotic towards their town and do not want 12,000 new houses. The planning<br />
proposals need to be revised. The town itself has nothing to offer. Who would want to come and live in a town<br />
that has no facilities?<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the proposed rail distribution centre sited just north of East Midlands airport. Such a proposal would<br />
generate extra traffic, exacerbate problems due to proximity to Junction 24 of the M1, and pollute the air, flood<br />
the village of Hemington with less natural drainage available fro excess rain. There are other, more suitable sites<br />
in <strong>Leicestershire</strong>.<br />
152 Mrs H<br />
Newall<br />
153 Mr and Mrs<br />
Occleston<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Local people’s health and what the area has to cope<br />
with already should be considered.<br />
154 P J Newall Object Refer to Representation 104
155 Mr F R<br />
Sanderson<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Will impact directly upon home. The area already<br />
experiences too much noise, congestion, pollution and intrusion due to airport, industrial estates and additional<br />
housing. There has been no improvement in the road systems or services. Council seem determined to turn<br />
Castle Donington into an industrial area.<br />
156 Betty<br />
Barge<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington It would devastate the area where there is already too<br />
much development.<br />
157 Ivan Wain<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the site off is too large and the necessity for major<br />
alterations to M1 would cause more delays. With reference to the other options, the site which might be flooded<br />
is also out which leaves the other site near Ashby.<br />
The Ashby site is ideal with the possibility of rail access and no major road or rail links to consider. Do not<br />
consider the size of the site to be a problem.<br />
158 Vic<br />
Goodman<br />
Question 15<br />
The vast majority of those attending the public meeting in Ravenstone did not understand why such a large<br />
amount was pencilled in for Ravenstone. The character of the village would be destroyed and it appears a lot<br />
more works needs to be done before such major expansion takes place.<br />
159 Mr<br />
Bagshaw<br />
and Mrs<br />
Neat<br />
Object<br />
Question 27<br />
Object to development of land at the rear of Data Centre, Packington Hill, Kegworth. Such a development would<br />
impact directly upon nearby homes and the village amenities cannot cope with additional housing developments.<br />
If development goes ahead need to ensure that does not impact upon nearby homes.<br />
Deleted: <br />
160 Christine<br />
Healey<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Castle Donington has already suffered enough. Do not<br />
consider that all future development should be located in this area. There will be negative impacts on transport<br />
infrastructure and traffic congestion and increase flooding problems. The Council has a duty of care, to protect<br />
the environment and reduce harmful gases and these developments will not meet these requirements. Should<br />
consider alternative sites before making choice and should not allow financial gain to cloud the issue.
161 J Penny Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
162 Mrs L<br />
Olsson<br />
163 E A<br />
Bestwick<br />
164 Mrs J<br />
Bradley<br />
165 W M<br />
Franklin<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
166 N and M W Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Hassall<br />
167 D Young Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
168 D and B<br />
Clarke<br />
169 Mr and Mrs<br />
J E Milne<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. It will have a devastating impact on the community at<br />
Castle Donington. There will be a loss of rural landscape which should be producing our own food; noise, light<br />
and air pollution problems and impacts and will add to the traffic congestion problems that are experienced.<br />
Flooding has been caused due to building on flood plains. Further development will exacerbate this problem.<br />
Many roads in the area are affected by flooding.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Already have to contend with the greater burden of<br />
noise from the airport at all hours of the day and night as well as fumes from the aviation fuel. This is in addition<br />
to the noise and disturbance cased by Donington Park. Taking into account the Formula One Grand Prix, this will<br />
cause more problems for the local infrastructure.<br />
170 Mr C J<br />
Wright<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
171 Mrs H Object Refer to Representation 104
Wright<br />
172 Mr W<br />
Bradley<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
173 Mr Roger<br />
Chaplin<br />
174 Mrs Lynda<br />
Chaplin<br />
175 Mr and Mrs<br />
F V<br />
Gaffney<br />
176 Mrs Elaine<br />
Hall<br />
177 Mr and Mrs<br />
Brewer<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Strongly object to the proposed strategic rail distribution centre to be sited on 100 hectare site just north of East<br />
Midlands Airport. Disgraceful that this location is even considered. The area already suffers from the airport,<br />
race tracks, new rail station, M1 – how much more can the local villages take?<br />
Question 40<br />
Strongly object to the proposed strategic rail distribution centre to be sited on 100 hectare site just north of East<br />
Midlands Airport. Disgraceful that this location is even considered. The area already suffers from the airport,<br />
race tracks, new rail station, M1 – how much more can the local villages take?<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. The area already suffers traffic, air and noise pollution<br />
generated by the Airport and the two large industrial estates. Will impact upon property values. There has already<br />
been an increase in traffic, pollution, wagons and lorries cutting through the High Street. During racetrack days<br />
lives becomes impossible and object strongly to any further development.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The proposal only serves to degrade the quality of life of<br />
the surrounding villages. It is detrimental to the local environment, socially, recreationally, ecologically and<br />
visually. The area has already more than its fair share of industrial, commercial and residential developments.<br />
This includes deregulation of night flights. Noise and traffic chaos caused by the racetrack and two large<br />
industrial estates. The strategic distribution centre would occupy land currently used by walkers, jogger and<br />
plane spotters. It will create further noise, light and air pollution and diminish the appeal and appearance of the<br />
local villages. This development would not give anything back to the local inhabitants.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington<br />
178 Ms M<br />
Bosley<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104
179 Ashby de<br />
la Zouch<br />
Town<br />
Council<br />
180 John<br />
Bayliss (J<br />
& W<br />
Investment<br />
s Ltd)<br />
181 Mrs Kerrie<br />
Evans<br />
182 Joanne<br />
and<br />
Nicholas<br />
Salt<br />
183 Mr Peter<br />
Alp<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
So far as significant new housing developments in Ashby are concerned, the Town Council will continue to seek<br />
and support proposals which bring positive benefits to the Town, and resist proposals perceived to be against the<br />
best interest of the Town.<br />
Question 13<br />
Support the inclusion of land at Beveridge Lane, (Bardon) (plan provided) within the South East Coalville SUE<br />
and its use as employment land. The site has good road accessibility to the M1 Motorway and the surrounding<br />
road network with scope for improvements to be made. There are also good bus services to Coalville and<br />
Leicester. It is an infill site with adjacent employment land and possible uses suggested include B1 or hotel.<br />
Question 14<br />
Object to possible development in Ravenstone which is a village location and would result in a loss of the<br />
countryside and pollution. The village has already suffered with the mines.<br />
Question 18<br />
Object to development of land at Money Hill for housing. It would result in an increase in population and lack of<br />
services and facilities will cause the standard of these services and facilities to suffer. Traffic congestion, the<br />
associated poor air quality and excessive wear on road infrastructure.<br />
Loss of agricultural land which is also suitable for forestation. Long term competition for local employment. Loss<br />
of an extensive area of wildlife habitation. Reduction in property values.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington Junction 24 of the M1 comes to a standstill on a daily<br />
basis due to the volume of traffic. The site is sloping and undulating, and already subject to drainage problems<br />
due to airport and roadworks. The Power Station site has full rail access in place. Long been government policy<br />
to ban commercial development adjacent to an airport due to danger and pollution.<br />
184 G Clowes Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
185 Mr and Mrs<br />
P Foster<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The area already suffers from noise, air and transport<br />
pollution in from the airport, racetrack, junction24, Radcliffe Power Station, industrial estate and new railway<br />
station on the A453. The infrastructure can hardly cope and this proposal will only add to these problems.
186 Mr A Jones<br />
187 Councillor<br />
Gerald<br />
Dalby<br />
188 Chris and<br />
Janet<br />
Smith<br />
Support<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Totally unacceptable to destroy the two small villages of Hemington and Lockington as well as Castle Donington.<br />
Urge the Council to withdraw from the area and look elsewhere<br />
Question 30<br />
Support the development of the site identified as ‘<strong>North</strong> East of Atherstone Road’. See residential development<br />
as a good thing for Measham in terms of shops, employment/investment, bringing more trade into the main<br />
street, all of which are beneficial to the community. The developers would also be required to provide much<br />
needed associated facilities e.g. Doctors, schools, sport facilities, dentists etc.<br />
Question 40<br />
It is understood that the Council has been instructed to identify possible sites for strategic distribution centres.<br />
However Council also has a duty to recognise the impact that such a major development would have on local<br />
communities and the environment.<br />
With its favoured approach, there has been a failed appreciation that Locking and Hemington are two very<br />
attractive and unspoilt villages. The scale of development proposed would be visually intrusive and overshadow<br />
these two villages as well as Castle Donington. Other adverse impacts would include noise pollution, visual<br />
intrusion, loss of rural character, traffic congestion and increase in risk of flooding.<br />
Strongly object to the suggestion that there should be a strategic distribution centre to the west of Junction 24 of<br />
the M1. Castle Donington already has a major distribution centre and to have a second would be totally<br />
unacceptable. An alternative more suitable site in <strong>Leicestershire</strong> or to the north of Derbyshire should be found.<br />
The <strong>Strategy</strong> document’s use of the word ‘favour’ is unfortunate and gives the wrong impression. The document<br />
should also describe the adverse impact that the development of this site would have including the disastrous<br />
environmental damage.<br />
Question 10<br />
Object to the removal of the Green Wedge and believe there are good reasons for maintaining these. It is an<br />
essential feature of the County and allows the rural or semi-nature of the area to remain as well as allow the<br />
villages to maintain their identities. Removal would result in urban sprawl and bring about the associated issues<br />
of crime, social deprivation and reduction in the quality of life.<br />
Essential that the village identities are maintained with development limited to allow this. In the case of Whitwick<br />
and Coalville development should be limited to land immediately opposite the Pines on Hall Lane. However
189 Jo Straw<br />
Object<br />
development behind the existing estate served from Hall Lane by Torrington Avenue, or behind the houses on<br />
George Street, would not be acceptable. No access should be allowed via Torrington Avenue or the drive to<br />
Coalville Rugby Club. The recreational field off Sharpley Avenue should be protected as an important local<br />
amenity. The infrastructure of Torrington Avenue and connected roads is not suitable for more traffic, has barely<br />
adequate sewage facilities and poor water supply.<br />
Question 35/36<br />
The development of Traveller sites should not be allowed in Whitwick.<br />
Question 10 and Question 15<br />
Totally opposed to any building on Green Wedge, in particular that which is identified as the ‘Eastern Green<br />
Wedge’.<br />
Health<br />
The Wedge provides separation between Whitwick and Coalville. Whitwick is an historic village and was included<br />
in the Domesday Book. Development on the Green Wedge will cause Whitwick to lose its strong sense of<br />
identify and character. It will just become part of urban Coalville.<br />
The Eastern Green Wedge is used daily by the people of Whitwick and Coalville. It is the last open area that<br />
people can appreciate from the pubic footpaths that pass through it. Reference is made to a published report that<br />
shows that exposure to open green spaces, promotes good health and is crucial to reducing health inequalities.<br />
Future generations should be able to grow up in the same healthy environment as previous generations. If the<br />
Green Wedge is lost, they will be forced to experience only urban culture and not become engaged with their<br />
environment. The Green Wedge consists of hedges and fields that are part of the English heritage and provides<br />
vital habitats to valuable wildlife. Do not agree with the Council’s assessment of the Green Wedges against the<br />
criteria.<br />
Traffic Congestion<br />
The Eastern Green Wedge is an island of green surrounded by some of the busiest roads. 2000 new homes will<br />
produce thousands of cars and add to existing traffic congestion. Existing roads are already at a standstill and<br />
chaotic along Stephenson Way and Hermitage Road. New roads will not compensate for the thousands of new<br />
cars that would result due to development. This will also lead to damaging environmental effect and health<br />
hazards such as congestion chaos and the reduction in air quality. Increased dwellings will need increase<br />
services, more buses, lorries and emergency services and congestion will prolong response times.
190 Mrs J L<br />
Harper<br />
191 Mick<br />
Feliciant<br />
192 Angela<br />
Moore<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Sustainability<br />
The regeneration of Coalville Town Centre will not provide enough employment for new residents to maintain<br />
current unemployment levels. Thousands of new residents will put pressure on hospitals, surgeries, schools etc.<br />
Increase electrical demand will increase the amount of pylons, water pressure will be an issue and sewage could<br />
overload the current system. Why build so many houses when there are so many empty properties and buildings<br />
should be on brown land. Such a development would result in an unacceptable adverse impact.<br />
Flood Risk<br />
Should the Eastern Green Wedge (112.25ha) be hard surfaced the rainfall will just run off and cause flooding in<br />
the surrounding area. Rainfall in Whitwick is increasing year on year.<br />
The demolition of the Green Wedge can never be revered. Whitwick residents deserves a bright future, their<br />
community and their identity<br />
Question 15<br />
Strong objection to the proposed Greenhill Farm Development due to detrimental impact on the forest, potential<br />
flooding, along with a clear lack of facilities to accommodate such a development. Would urge the Council to<br />
reconsider and the development will do nothing to improve the area.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to possible development at Greenhill Farm as it will bring disruption to residents and wildlife. There will<br />
also be traffic chaos. Does Coalville need anymore houses and would anybody want to live here? Object to this<br />
site being used as a traveller site.<br />
Question 14<br />
Object to the building of 12,200 homes in Coalville and other local areas. It would result in a change in the<br />
landscape and communities forever and it is unfair that the district should shoulder such an amount.<br />
Question 15<br />
Would particularly object to development at Greenhill Farm. This is part of Charnwood Forest and development<br />
would destroy an important area and set an uncomfortable precedent. It is obvious why this loss of green land<br />
and large increase in population would be detrimental to local communities and environment.
193 Mary<br />
Bayliss (J<br />
& W<br />
Invetsment<br />
s Ltd)<br />
Support<br />
Questions 12 and 13<br />
Recommend that the site at Beveridge Lane, Bardon be included in the South East SUE and that the land be<br />
considered as a Strategic Site. Suggest the site is developed as employment land with some housing on the<br />
eastern side of the site. Mixed use could accommodate offices and hotel and there has been interst from a<br />
number of interested parties.<br />
The site has good access to the motorway and road network, with scope for improvements and good<br />
accessibility. Suggest that it is a form of infill development due to adjacent employment uses. New housing and<br />
employment would be beneficial to the area, with the prospect of the re-opening of the railway station at Bardon.<br />
194 Karen and<br />
Graham<br />
Dayman<br />
Question 1<br />
The Vision talks about a sustainable community but such a massive distribution centre seems inappropriate and<br />
irresponsible at this time. It would also not be an enhancement to the environment. It would be visually intrusive,<br />
create additional pollution and cause further traffic congestion.<br />
Question 2<br />
SO8 is fine but there must be better parking provision. There is already a severe problem in Kegworth, which has<br />
been highlighted in the recent Parish Plan survey.<br />
SO11 seems contradictory or impossible to achieve. How is it possible to expand the traffic access to the airport<br />
at the same time as protecting the environment?<br />
Question 4<br />
Are empty properties being looked at first? There are a number of such properties in Kegworth.<br />
Question 5<br />
9600 dwellings should be considered a maximum. Who will be able to afford these houses?<br />
Question7/8<br />
Options 1 and 2 are the only workable, viable options for Kegworth, when taking into account road congestion,<br />
pollution, healthcare and social care provision.<br />
Question 9
What research ahs been done to establish the need for such a massive distribution centre in this locality. Raises<br />
questions whether this would actually provide diversity or just more of the same. Presume that without this<br />
business development there would be no additional housing demand.<br />
Question 10<br />
Important that the plan and the Green Wedge issue is taken in context of the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire<br />
development plans. If each is considered in isolation there is a danger that significant green wedge land will be<br />
lost. If theses issues are not taken into account, Kegworth will merge with Nottingham via Clifton<br />
Question 11<br />
There is little understanding of what access exists in the Green Wedge. To increase their use, walks and trails<br />
need to be developed and could be facilitated by local groups.<br />
Question 26<br />
As Slack and Parr has been approved for development, with options 1 and 2 no further provision would be<br />
needed. This should be taken into consideration when considering the application for development on land<br />
behind the Computer Centre. This land is very close to the Motorway and noise and pollution would be<br />
unacceptably high. Loss of local employment would be inconsistent with the objectives of sustainability.<br />
Question 27<br />
Use of land adjacent to the Cotts Factory and land on Station Road would seem the best option if required as<br />
there is little adjacent housing to disrupt and these developments could facilitate improved access to the A6.<br />
Question 35<br />
Has anybody asked the gypsy community if they want to be integrated? Is this not against the ethos of this way<br />
of life. Suggest that additional resources are put into enforcing responsible co existence.<br />
Question 39<br />
Focus of the plan is the provision of employment via massive distribution centres. What about developing<br />
existing local businesses. Many are disappearing in Kegworth and resources could be redirected to preserve<br />
these or to establish them.<br />
Question 40<br />
Hard to believe that the creation of a strategic distribution centre can be done in a way that preserve the<br />
character and amenity of the surrounding area. Concerns have also been raised, on the traffic, noise and air
195 K M<br />
Jackson<br />
196 Jane<br />
Davies<br />
197 Kegworth<br />
Parish<br />
Council<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
pollution that is already suffered by Kegworth and would be exacerbated by further development.<br />
Question 17<br />
Regarding future planning of housing in Ashby, this is completely over the top for a town of this size as the<br />
infrastructure at present is bursting at the seams. Ashby would be unable to cope with even 500 homes (2000<br />
people) with existing waiting lists for doctors, poor hospital facilities, poor parking, packed schools and small sport<br />
and leisure facilities.<br />
Make more sense to build a new town in the area with the necessary infrastructure built at the same time, leaving<br />
the green belt land and town intact.<br />
Question 24<br />
Object to possible development on land off Leicester Road, Ibstock. There is a mine shaft in the identified site.<br />
Question 1<br />
The Vision is supported; it is considered so as the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> is based on the vision for the Council’s<br />
Sustainable Community <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
Question 2<br />
Some are supported, as follows:<br />
SO1 – Supported<br />
SO2 – Supported<br />
SO3 – Supported, but question how the Council can propose this when a large Strategic Rail Distribution<br />
development at J24 of the M1 is suggested and is near the most polluted area in NWL, close to the Airport,<br />
Ratcliffe of Soar Power Station and the major road network.<br />
SO4 – Supported<br />
SO5 - Supported<br />
SO6 – Supported<br />
SO7 - Supported, however it is considered there is too much warehousing already. The Castle Donington Power<br />
Station site is underutilised. Employment provision should be located nearer to larger areas of population as<br />
appose to near small villages which are predominantly Conservation Areas.<br />
SO8 – Supported, a reduced mix of housing with estates of similar sized houses is supported not ranges from 2<br />
bed houses to large five bed houses on each estate.<br />
SO9 – Supported<br />
SO10 – Supported
SO11 – Supported, but not at the expense of the local villages for example bus services have been diverted from<br />
Kegworth to the Airport leaving the village with no bus service in the evenings or on a Sunday.<br />
SO12 – Supported<br />
SO13 – Supported<br />
SO14 – Supported<br />
Question 3<br />
The favoured approach is supported<br />
Question 4<br />
No other options at the present time<br />
Question 5<br />
Supported but the word ‘minimum’ should be removed as there are too many houses proposed under the<br />
Regional Plan, house numbers should be reduced to reflect the current recession.<br />
Question 6<br />
The plan should not address potential development needs beyond the plan period as it is already a long time until<br />
2026 and the economy is subject to change.<br />
Question 7<br />
Kegworth Parish Council support option 1<br />
Question 8<br />
Not supported – the Parish Council considers there is sufficient employment land in Kegworth<br />
Question 9<br />
Not supported, the wording is too open ended, there needs to be a definite numbers of hectares quoted.<br />
Question 10<br />
Not supported, unhappy to lose Green Wedge<br />
Question 11<br />
More footpaths could be provided across these areas. This could be done through joint working with Sustrans.<br />
Question 12
The identification of specific sites is supported<br />
Question 13<br />
The approach of what should constitute a strategic site is supported<br />
Question 14<br />
Option 1 is supported due to the regeneration possibilities it would bring to Coalville<br />
Question 15<br />
The Parish Council does not support any specific sites as it considers this decision should be made by local<br />
people.<br />
Question 16<br />
It should be local people who chose the sites<br />
Question 17<br />
Option 1 is supported as this would maximise the development at Coalville but would allow some development to<br />
take place in Ashby.<br />
Question 18<br />
Sites should be decided by local residents<br />
Question 19<br />
Local people should decide<br />
Question 20<br />
Option 1 is supported as this supports option 1 for Kegworth<br />
Question 21<br />
This is for Castle Donington residents to decide<br />
Question 22<br />
This is for local residents to decide<br />
Question 23<br />
Option 1 is supported as this supports option 1 for Kegworth
Question 24<br />
This is for local residents to decide<br />
Question 25<br />
This would be for local residents to decide<br />
Question 26<br />
Option 1 is supported as this would allow for the minimum number of houses to be built in Kegworth<br />
Question 27<br />
Clauses 10.33 and 10.34 state that if planning permission is issued on the Slack & Parr site, no other land would<br />
be required for housing in Kegworth in the plan period. However, if the Slack & Parr site is not developed then the<br />
Computer Centre would be favoured.<br />
Question 28<br />
See responses to question 27 – The Computer Centre<br />
Question 29<br />
Option 1 is supported as this supports Option 1 for Kegworth<br />
Question 30<br />
This is for local residents to decide<br />
Question 31<br />
This is for local residents to decide<br />
Question 32<br />
The expanding of Coalville is supported<br />
Question 33<br />
The direction for possible expansion of Coalville is for local residents to decide<br />
Question 34<br />
The favoured approach regarding affordable housing is supported
Question 35<br />
The favoured approach for Gypsy and Traveller provision is not supported<br />
Question 36<br />
Not aware of any potential sites<br />
Question 37<br />
No other options which should be considered<br />
Question 38<br />
• The Parish Council have made the following comments:<br />
It is considered that the minimum net density on new developments is causing many problems with<br />
houses and flats shoehorned on to land with little provision for parking e.g. Persimmon Housing off Derby<br />
Road, Kegworth. In the long term this could lead to disharmony when Council’s/Planners should be<br />
working towards better community cohesion<br />
• Housing estates should comprise similar types and values of properties, a mix of very small houses or<br />
flats with large five bed houses causes neighbour disputes<br />
• Providing sites for Gypsies and Travellers and Travelling Show People should not be done as part of<br />
strategic housing<br />
Question 39<br />
Option 1 is supported<br />
Question 40<br />
This is not supported – it is considered that the area between and including Kegworth, Lockington, Hemington<br />
and Castle Donington is already one of the most polluted areas of NWL due to the Airport and Aircraft traffic<br />
using the major roads that are close to Kegworth and attracting more lorries to this site would only exacerbate the<br />
already in tolerable situation. Kegworth has an air quality management area along London Road/Derby Road and<br />
the Ratcliffe on Soar Power Station adds to the poor air quality in the area. The major road network, which makes<br />
the site appear attractive, is already overloaded and development in the area would increase congestion.<br />
The Parish Council considers that, due to the economic downturn, that already vacant office premises will sustain<br />
the market during the plan period<br />
Question 45<br />
Small units should only be developed purely for very local need
Question 46<br />
Option 2 is supported, but reference is made to Para 19.3.<br />
• The Parish Council fell that the links with all the villages around the Airport should be strengthened and<br />
each Airport related Parish Council consulted<br />
• Reference to the Aviation White Paper should be a guide only, as the speculated figures within the<br />
document for numbers of passengers and tonnage of freight are far too high, as they are in the EMA<br />
Masterplan<br />
• The noise and track monitoring of aircraft should be done by an independent company and not EMA itself<br />
• The operation of EMA should be transparent in terms of environmental impact on the local population<br />
Question 47<br />
No other options that should be considered<br />
Question 48<br />
The use of the definitions of operational and airport related development are supported<br />
Question 49<br />
The favoured approach regarding town centres is supported<br />
Question 50<br />
There are no other options that should be considered<br />
Question 51<br />
It is considers that town centre boundaries should be defined as part of the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
Question 52<br />
No suggestions on what the town centre boundaries should be<br />
Question 53<br />
The favoured approach is supported but there are reservations about 22.4, 22.5 and 22.6. Concern is raised<br />
about the lack of car parking e.g. Holland’s Way off Derby Road, Kegworth. People in rural areas should be<br />
encouraged to produce travel plans and to use public transport, which needs to be improved; reducing car<br />
parking does not encourage people to use public transport. Different guidelines should be used in rural areas for<br />
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<br />
would request reference is made to improvements that would be made by the building of the Kegworth Bypass.<br />
Question 54<br />
There are no other options that should be considered<br />
Question 55<br />
The favoured approach is supported but the Parish Council have strong reservations about whether the District<br />
Council would adhere to this approach, more particularly with reference to Para 23.2 (good design as part of new<br />
developments). It is considered that the Hollands Way development and the application for ‘Whiteholme’ both in<br />
Kegworth are examples of very bad design and the adherence to Government policies.<br />
Para 23.7 (not increase the risk of flooding) The Parish Council are not sure the Council will adhere to this. In<br />
addition in regards to unacceptable impact from noise, vibration, smell, light or other pollution the Parish Council<br />
fell that little heed is taken of this when decisions are made regarding EMA and the impact on surrounding<br />
villages. It is considered that a good use of this clause would be to refuse the ‘Whiteholme’ application.<br />
Question 56<br />
There are not any other issues that should be addressed.<br />
Question 57<br />
The Parish Council consider that Section 106 Agreements should continue to be used. There is concern that if a<br />
CIL was introduced the Parish Council would have little influence about how much money it could obtain to<br />
sustain the infrastructure within the village for which it was responsible. If the Government of Sub-Regional Body<br />
was set up to administer a CIL the Parish Council would be a long way down the ‘food chain’ for receiving<br />
anything to support the future development required in rural villages to ensure their sustainability.<br />
Question 58<br />
In terms of infrastructure the Parish Council state there is a lack of accessibility to facilities sin Market Towns and<br />
larger villages due to inadequate bus services, for example residents in the <strong>North</strong>ern parishes cannot access the<br />
Hermitage Leisure Centre as there is no public transport provision.<br />
Question 59<br />
The favoured approach is supported<br />
Question 60<br />
It is agreed that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines, the Parish Council knows of no suitable
198 T D<br />
Redfearn<br />
Object<br />
sites in Kegworth<br />
Question 61<br />
No the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should no go further than the Regional Plan<br />
Question 62<br />
There should be District wide renewable energy targets.<br />
The District Council could have a policy that every new house should have solar panels and/or small wind<br />
turbine, as well as the ability to flush toilets from retained rainwater. It is much cheaper to install these energy<br />
saving devices whilst the property is being built rather than trying to convert them afterwards.<br />
Question 63<br />
The Soar Valley should be protected and the encouragement of replanting trees and hedgerows is supported<br />
Question 64<br />
The standard of Open Space provision recommended in the Open Space Audit is not supported.<br />
Kegworth Parish Council does not support the insistence on play areas on new housing developments as these<br />
areas are too small and children playing causes noise and nuisance to neighbouring properties. Evidence of this<br />
in Kegworth is the play areas on Staffords Acre, Windmill Way and 2 on Suthers Road. Instead of providing small<br />
play areas on housing estates, money should be used to purchase other, larger areas of land for use as<br />
recreation grounds with comprehensive playground equipment. The District Councils Play Area Policy<br />
encourages parents to send their young children away from home to play, when they should be playing in their<br />
gardens. This would reduce the risk of bullying, abduction and interference by sex offenders. Younger children<br />
could then be taken to the larger play areas to play under the watchful eye of their parents. Older children would<br />
be able to use the larger recreation ground themselves without causing a nuisance to adjacent residents.<br />
Question 65<br />
The favoured approach is supported<br />
Question 66<br />
The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> could encourage different organisations to work together, which includes all Parish Councils.<br />
Question 20<br />
Strongly oppose all the development scenarios for Castle Donington. In recent times Castle Donington has been<br />
the focus of residential development and had its fair share. The amount of development continues to put<br />
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<br />
the village community be preserved.<br />
Object<br />
Question 21<br />
Have great concerns reference development south of Park Lane as this encroaches onto the countryside of<br />
outstanding natural beauty. There is a range of wildlife on this site. Development of the site would destroy this<br />
area and deny future generations the benefit of a rural childhood.<br />
199 Mr and Mrs<br />
Redfearn<br />
200 A Kendrick<br />
201 P Houston<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
If this number of houses is truly required, paramount importance must be given to the preservation of rural life<br />
and villages. Sites for development should be searched for in existing towns where they have already got the<br />
infrastructure, or explore brownfield sites where the impact on natural history is reduced.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the favoured approach.<br />
Whilst understanding the importance of industry, Castle Donington has sustained massive industrial development<br />
in recent years. For example, expansion of the Trent Lane Industrial estate, former Power Station site and<br />
growth of the airport. In addition, the racetrack will be staging the F1.<br />
Believe that the village’s social, recreational and ecological requirements must take president over the desire for<br />
further industry and commerce. As it stands the villages of Castle Donington, Lockington and Hemington have<br />
maintained a natural barrier from the airport perimeter. The proposal would adversely affect the villages, and<br />
transform a beautiful area into a concrete urban sprawl putting pressure on wildlife and environmental issues.<br />
If such a site is needed in Castle Donington, it should go on the former power station site. This is already a<br />
brownfield site which links directly onto the rail system and would allow such a development without the proposed<br />
destruction of the area.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to building on the Green Wedge at the back of Stephenson Way. Keep Whitwick a village.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to building on the Green Wedge at the back of Stephenson Way. Keep Whitwick a village.<br />
202 B Butler Question 15
Object<br />
Object to building on the Green Wedge at the back of Stephenson Way. Keep Whitwick a village.<br />
203 Mick<br />
Burton<br />
Question 40<br />
Not against development in the region. However the proposed strategic distribution centre at junction 24 will be<br />
hugely damaging to the villages of Lockington, Hemington, Castle Donington and Kegworth. A grossly unfair<br />
amount of development sites for housing and industry is proposed in the area.<br />
A number of environmental issues are highlighted:-<br />
Emissions from the road network will only get worse if the site goes ahead; Noise will result from the road<br />
network; Emissions and noise from the airport; And Light pollution. The proposals will exacerbate these<br />
problems and there will also be an adverse impact on amenity created by the necessary construction works.<br />
204 Peatfield<br />
Associates<br />
205 Mr and Mrs<br />
White<br />
206 Mr J<br />
Healey<br />
207 Mr K P<br />
Wallace<br />
208 Mrs G<br />
Smith<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Refer to Representation 80<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As this will affect the way of life of the local<br />
communities with no apparent benefits. The area already suffers from the airport and racetrack and Kegworth<br />
used as a rat run when the A453 is closed.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington Castle Donington village has already been blighted with<br />
industrial estates. The former power station site has not been developed so why build another when it is not<br />
needed. If the district is short of employment prospects, why not build at Coalville.<br />
Believe that house prices in Castle Donington will decrease severely as result of the scale of development<br />
proposed in the area.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as there will be a huge detrimental impact on the<br />
environment. Already suffer from the airport, the racetrack, Sunday market and two major industrial estates. The<br />
proposal would bring the local area further into urban sprawl and put the local infrastructure under pressure. The<br />
preferred site is much too close to the airport, which would lead to further expansion, to the detriment of the local<br />
population. No justification for spoiling the countryside and villages. It would have an adverse impact on lives,<br />
noise, air and light pollution and traffic congestion.
209 Ms V J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Blake<br />
210 Mrs J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Barton<br />
211 Mrs H Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Thompson<br />
212 Mr P Allcott Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
213 Mr A Swift Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
214 – 217 Thompson Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
218 Ian Forman Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
219 Susan<br />
Forshaw<br />
220 Mr and Mrs<br />
Evans<br />
221 Emma<br />
Lagon<br />
222 Marie<br />
Hooper<br />
223 John<br />
Stevenson<br />
224 Susan<br />
Stevenson<br />
225 Peter<br />
Stevenson<br />
226 Miss Clare<br />
Wintle<br />
227 Mr Rex<br />
Sharpe &<br />
Mrs Sheila<br />
Marie<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington Further housing will be needed to support any large<br />
influx of incomers to the area and this will place extra pressure on infrastructure. Development will significantly<br />
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<br />
and air pollution. There is already plenty of industrial and commercial buildings in the Castle Donington area and<br />
the need is for small businesses to be adequately supported. No need for further large scale development of any<br />
kind.<br />
228 & 229 Mr D. A.<br />
Thornton &<br />
Mrs G.<br />
Thornton<br />
230 Bruce H.<br />
Cosway<br />
231 William<br />
Barton<br />
232 S J and A<br />
T Baylis<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington, as the local motorway is already frequently congested<br />
and the motorway and Airport create 24 hour noise and land pollution which would worsen if the proposal was to<br />
go ahead.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Castle Donington has had too many industrial sites<br />
developed over recent years. The road system is inadequate for the existing developments and would not cope<br />
with further traffic movements. Reference is made to the additional future impact of Formula One on the local<br />
road network and also the additional noise pollution. The proposal is completely out of context with the existing<br />
facilities, which struggle to cope at present. Possible site access to the east would put too much pressure on the<br />
local road network.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington The proposed site would have a detrimental impact on<br />
the nearby villages and ecological impact on the whole area. The northern part of the District has already had too<br />
much industrial and commercial activity. There is noise pollution, traffic congestion and two industrial estates<br />
with business parks. If this particular site is chosen, it will inevitably produce increasing and damaging pressures<br />
on the social, ecological and transport matters in the area. It will also remove the natural barrier between Castle<br />
Donington, Hemington and Lockington and the Airport, leading to the urbanisation of the whole area.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Castle Donington has had enough dirt, noise and air<br />
pollution and there has been a long neglect of the welfare of the people who live in the northern parish.<br />
233 Mr & Mrs P<br />
J Borg<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal would create extra noise, smells and foul<br />
air pollution in an area already polluted by air traffic, the power station and road traffic. Local people’s welfare and<br />
quality of life should be put before profit.
234 Mr and Mrs<br />
P<br />
Saddington<br />
Object<br />
Question 14<br />
Why base the majority of new development in Coalville and the immediate surrounding areas? The District is not<br />
just Coalville, Ashby de la Zouch, Castle Donington, Ibstock, Kegworth and Measham (the proposed areas for<br />
new houses) but consists of all the villages so why not divide the new developments fairly between ALL<br />
communities and not just one and by doing so ruining Ravenstone as a village and a community. Perhaps,<br />
consider smaller developments of between 25 and 100 dwellings in ALL of the villages/Parishes of NWL, in the<br />
long term this would rejuvenate these villages and make them more sustainable.<br />
In regards to the sites have landowners and other parishes of NWL been approached or just those landowners in<br />
the areas chosen by NWLDC as potential sites? Also why should developers be stipulating sites they wish to<br />
develop as they will choose sites that are easy to develop and generate the most profit.<br />
If employment is going to be generated in the northern part of the District then homes could be built closer to the<br />
employment areas to reduce the carbon footprint.<br />
Strong objection to the potential areas of development within the villages of Ravenstone and Snibston, they will<br />
lose their identity and the proposed area of development would join Ravenstone and Coalville.<br />
Even though the area is in the heart of the National Forest this does not seem to prevent green areas from being<br />
destroyed. The use of brownfield sites and improving older/empty houses would be a better way of providing<br />
housing. If housing is to be located near Ravenstone it is requested that only one of the identified sites be<br />
developed and the remainder be distributed around the District.<br />
235 Object Mrs L<br />
Hulsman<br />
236 Object A M<br />
Charsley<br />
237 Object M<br />
Charsley<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
238 Object M Smith Refer to Representation 104
239 Object Brenda<br />
Cudworth<br />
240 Object Brian<br />
Highton<br />
241 Object M<br />
Highton<br />
242 Object Mr J<br />
Silver<br />
243 Object Mr A<br />
Reed<br />
244 Object Peter<br />
Frame<br />
245 W. B.<br />
Wright Object<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Refer to Representation 104<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would greatly increase<br />
aircraft and traffic movements on already congested roads. Noise levels, due to air and road traffic are already<br />
unacceptably high and would increase with this proposal as would air pollution. If the area was subjected to<br />
housing development the roads would become more congested and local amenities such as schools would be<br />
overloaded. The Airport, Race Track and the M1 already create an unacceptably high level of noise pollution in<br />
Kegworth and the surrounding area. Development of this magnitude would add to the considerable problems and<br />
inconveniences that residential already suffer.<br />
246 Mrs Smith Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
247 Mr Smith Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
248 Mrs S Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Wragg<br />
249 Mrs C Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Flewitt<br />
250 Carol Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Chantrill<br />
251 Andrew Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Chantrill<br />
252 Peter Object Refer to Representation 104
Chantrill<br />
253 J Chappell Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
254 Mr and Mrs<br />
Dermott<br />
255 Nick<br />
Gillham<br />
256 Imogen<br />
Trile<br />
257 K & F<br />
Dodson<br />
258 Mrs J.<br />
Kaye<br />
259 Mr & Mrs<br />
Brown<br />
260 Helen<br />
Forman<br />
261 Mr & Mrs<br />
Rayns<br />
262 Mrs D<br />
Hooper<br />
263 Mrs P<br />
Scheyer<br />
264 Mr & Mrs B<br />
Milne<br />
265 David<br />
Higgins<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the scale of development is too big compared to the<br />
surrounding villages and would further blight an already degraded area.<br />
Object Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington.<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal would increase car travel and lorry<br />
movements. Agricultural land should not be developed when brown field sites are always available.<br />
266 R. A. Hill Para 2.2 Appears to be no reference to studies regarding the capability of infrastructure services to facilitate new<br />
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<br />
development, leaving little for the public to be consulted on.<br />
Question 2<br />
It is difficult not to agree with the favoured objectives<br />
Question 3<br />
The favoured approach is agreed although Thringstone seems to meet all of the criteria for a Sustainable Village<br />
although for some unknown reason it is classified as part of the Coalville Urban Area<br />
Question 5<br />
No idea of the numbers needed therefore no contribution<br />
Question 7<br />
The potential development scenarios seem to be reasonably sensible but the conclusion is not, Option 3<br />
represents a better way forward. There are flooding issues in the Thringstone area caused by inadequate<br />
sewerage systems and the amount of development that has taken place in the District.<br />
Question 8<br />
The favoured development strategy is not supported, creating large swathes of new development results in new<br />
communities being thrown together with little community spirit. Significant strategic extensions of the Rural Towns<br />
would be preferable with some reasonable development in Coalville Urban Area. The strategy of Sustainable<br />
Villages would be supported but it is considered that Thringstone should be placed in that category.<br />
Question 10<br />
The approach to the Green wedge is not supported. The suggestion that the western part be classified as<br />
Countryside is supported but would need to be clear what protection that would give it from development.<br />
If an environmental study had been completed then it would have highlighted that the missing wildlife corridors<br />
could be created between the three wedges and the countryside. The lack of such a study impacts on the whole<br />
document and many of the proposals.<br />
Question 11<br />
Agreements should be made with landowners for additional permissive footpaths. Car parks should not be<br />
adjacent to them as this encourages fly-tipping, litter and destruction.<br />
Question 12
Agreed as it provides some certainty for the future<br />
Question 13<br />
More helpful would be an initial assessment of the major areas around Coalville proposed for development.<br />
Question 14<br />
Option 3 is supported as the housing development would be spread around the District.<br />
Question 15<br />
Insufficient information to provide comments on all of the sites. In relation to Thringstone 470 homes is almost a<br />
30% increase in the size of the village, which is too much. The school cannot cater for such numbers, the<br />
sewerage infrastructure cannot cope and healthcare provision won’t be able to cope with the increase. The area<br />
lies within the National Forest and as such should be protected.<br />
Question 12<br />
The only potential benefits in larger sites are that planning gain through Section 106 can be obtained.<br />
Question 40<br />
Employment should be located near to housing to increase sustainability.<br />
Question 42<br />
The theory would be agreed if all the homes were not located in Coalville as this will increase commuting and is<br />
not sustainable.<br />
Question 46<br />
The approach is reasonable<br />
Question 54<br />
More provision is needed for cyclists, especially more town centre secure parking racks.<br />
Question 55/56<br />
Real targets should be set to ensure all new developments have increased insulation levels. A figure should be<br />
set as developers will only conform to the minimum to meet regulations. Policy should seek to ‘reduce the risk’ of<br />
flooding, instead of ‘not increasing the risk’ of flooding.<br />
Question 57
Insufficient information to understand the difference between the two processes.<br />
Question 59<br />
Yes<br />
Question 60<br />
Not accepted, if east Midlands Airport can erect a turbine on its site then there must be opportunities elsewhere.<br />
Question 61<br />
No, if anything is to be done about climate change it is to regulate to have a reduced carbon production. On site<br />
production is unrealistic and a carbon production target for building types should be aimed for which reduction<br />
targets could be set against.<br />
Question 61/62<br />
There should be targets but insufficient technical information to suggest what these should be.<br />
Question 63<br />
The existing Green Wedge should be retained, there is a contradiction between the suggestion to develop on part<br />
of the Green wedge and then requesting what other provision for Green Infrastructure should be made.<br />
267 F & R<br />
Taylor<br />
Object Question 14<br />
Strong opposition to the joining of Ravenstone with Coalville. Ravenstone has already had to suffer 5 housing<br />
estates built in the village. The green belt should be protected not built upon and the amount of development<br />
proposed would devalue properties in Ravenstone. An increase in traffic would also cause serious traffic<br />
problems.<br />
Reference is made to the unwelcome opencast mine in the village and associated noise and pollution. In addition<br />
as the new school was built in an unsustainable location it has caused increased traffic congestion.<br />
Question 35<br />
The favoured approach is not supported.<br />
268 Mrs J<br />
Radcliffe<br />
269 Mr J. M.<br />
Hollis<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Question 26<br />
Housing development in Kegworth needs to be carefully assessed as to the ability of facilities (schools, doctors
270 Miss S.<br />
McLavy<br />
271 Castle<br />
Donington<br />
Parish<br />
Council<br />
Object<br />
and road network) to cope as well as any potential damage to the village.<br />
Question 40<br />
There are already business/distribution centre developments around the Airport and any further development<br />
could overwhelm Kegworth. Also the M1 J23A-J25 is already excessively busy and additional traffic will add to<br />
this problem.<br />
Question 15<br />
Objects to the proposed site south of Coalville, adjoining Berryhill Lane, Donington le Heath. The setting of the<br />
medieval manor house should be preserved. There are concerns regarding the capacity of the local road network<br />
and the local schools, doctors and dental surgeries.<br />
Question 1<br />
Agrees favoured vision<br />
Question 2<br />
Agrees favoured objectives<br />
Question 3<br />
Agrees favoured approach<br />
Question 4<br />
No comment<br />
Question 5<br />
Disagree – owning to the recent downturn in the economy for the foreseeable future, the Parish Council feel that<br />
9600 dwellings should be seen as a maximum to be built<br />
Question 6<br />
Disagrees, the core strategy should not address potential development needs beyond the end of the plan period<br />
Question 7<br />
The preferred view of the Parish Council regarding development scenarios is option 1<br />
Question 8
Agrees favoured approach to Development <strong>Strategy</strong><br />
Question 9<br />
Agrees with suggested wording of the Development <strong>Strategy</strong><br />
Question 10<br />
Agrees favoured approach on the Green Wedge issue<br />
Question 11<br />
No suggestion as to how NWLDC could secure increased public access to the Green Wedge areas<br />
Question 12<br />
Agrees with approach to identify specific sites in the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong><br />
Question 13<br />
Agrees with the approach to the issue of what should constitute a strategic site<br />
Question 14<br />
Support Option 1 (development scenario for Coalville)<br />
Question 15<br />
The Coalville area needs the houses and the Parish Council supports any/all of the sites.<br />
Question 16<br />
No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Coalville<br />
Question 17<br />
Option 1 – The Money Hill site<br />
Question 18<br />
The Parish Council supports housing on Holywell Springs Farm as this can take the number of houses identified<br />
in option 1<br />
Question 19<br />
No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Ashby
Question 20<br />
Option 1 is supported in Castle Donington<br />
Question 21<br />
Land to the north of Park Lane as this has been allocated for housing in previous development plans<br />
Question 22<br />
No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Castle Donington<br />
Question 23<br />
The Parish Council supports Option 1 (development scenario for Ibstock)<br />
Question 24<br />
Land off Leicester Road as it is already a brownfield site<br />
Question 25<br />
No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Ibstock<br />
Question 26<br />
Option 1 (development scenario for Kegworth)<br />
Question 27<br />
The land identified is adjacent to the Computer Centre - reason is that there are already houses in this area and<br />
there is only a need for 50 extra houses under Option 1 and therefore the number will be small<br />
Question 28<br />
No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Kegworth<br />
Question 29<br />
Option 1 (development scenario for Measham)<br />
Question 30<br />
Land between Burton Road and New Street as it is nearer to the Town Centre<br />
Question 31<br />
No suggestion of how alternative provision could be sought in Measham
Question 32<br />
The Parish Council support the expanding of Coalville very much<br />
Question 33<br />
Agrees that a southerly expansion of Coalville would be appropriate<br />
Question 34<br />
Agrees with the favoured approach regarding affordable housing<br />
Question 35<br />
Agrees with the favoured approach on the issue of making provision for gypsies and travellers<br />
Question 36<br />
Not aware of any potential sites that could be looked at under option 2<br />
Question 37<br />
No other options which could be considered<br />
Question 38<br />
The should be a maximum of 9600 not a minimum<br />
Question 39<br />
The favoured approach is supported<br />
Question 40<br />
The favoured approach is supported<br />
Question 41<br />
No other potential sites are known<br />
Question 42<br />
The idea of creating an employment zone at Donington Park/East Midlands Airport is supported but not south of<br />
the A453<br />
Question 43
N/A<br />
Question 44<br />
Not know whether the possible economic strategy is appropriate<br />
Question 45<br />
N/A<br />
Question 46<br />
Agrees the favoured option<br />
Question 47<br />
No development south of the A543<br />
Question 48<br />
Yes, the definitions of operational and airport related development used in the Local Plan should continue to be<br />
used<br />
Question 49<br />
Agrees the favoured approach<br />
Question 50<br />
No, there are no other option that we should consider<br />
Question 51<br />
Yes, the boundaries of the Town Centres should be defined as part of the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong><br />
Question 52<br />
N/A<br />
Question 53<br />
The favoured approach is supported<br />
Question 54<br />
No, there are no other options to consider
Question 55<br />
The favoured option is supported<br />
Question 56<br />
No, there are no other issues to consider<br />
Question 57<br />
Section 106 Agreements should continued to be used<br />
Question 58<br />
Not aware of any infrastructure issues<br />
Question 59<br />
Agrees with favoured approach<br />
Question 60<br />
It is accepted that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines in the district<br />
Question 61<br />
No, NWLDC should not go further that the Regional Plan regarding renewable energy<br />
Question 62<br />
Yes, there should be a District wide renewable energy target<br />
Question 63<br />
Support green areas of separation and green wedges already identified with this plan<br />
Question 64<br />
Yes, the standard of open space provision as recommended in the Open Space Audit is supported<br />
Question 65<br />
Agrees with the favoured approach<br />
Question 66<br />
N/A
272 Mr J<br />
Haywood<br />
273 Mr & Mrs<br />
R. Brewin<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Reference is made to the building of an Eco Town; this should only be considered after the Ivanhoe rail line has<br />
been opened to passenger traffic.<br />
274 Janet Tribe Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Question 8<br />
Potential housing sites should not necessarily be located close to employment. This is an old fashioned idea<br />
stemming from Victorian times when there was no personal transport available. Better local bus services would<br />
be desirable but will not tempt people to relinquish their cars.<br />
There are concerns at the speed in which the countryside is being developed (in <strong>Leicestershire</strong> generally). The<br />
priority should be for infill development, all sites proposed for Ravenstone are set to expand the outer edges of<br />
the village.<br />
Question 10<br />
There should be an area of separation between all the villages and Coalville. Green Wedges are to be valued<br />
and can reduce urban sprawl. Ravenstone should not lose its rural identity especially as the heart of the village is<br />
a conservation area.<br />
Question 14<br />
Ravenstone will be unable to accommodate the level of development proposed as enormous pressure would be<br />
put on the roads, schools and village facilities.<br />
Under the impression that more housing was planned between the railway line and Bardon Road, Hugglescote.<br />
However what is needed is improved infrastructure for the existing housing and for the centre of Coalville. The<br />
development of a large supermarket will not benefit any of the existing businesses.<br />
Question 35<br />
Is it intended to place Gypsy and Traveller areas on land originally interpreted as green belt? This will be a<br />
problem in itself.<br />
Question 53<br />
Throughout the District there needs to be road improvement schemes and better public transport. Many of the<br />
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<br />
Murphy<br />
276 Deborah Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Swift<br />
277 Ms J S Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Richmond<br />
278 Jane Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
McLaughlin<br />
279 Mrs A Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Flower<br />
280 B Brown Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
281 Peter Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Endall<br />
282 Carolyn Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Gothard<br />
283 Paul Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Gothard<br />
284 P J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Gothard<br />
285 June Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Chamberlai<br />
n<br />
286 T. <strong>West</strong>by Object Question 40<br />
Strongly protests against the plans to build a large distribution centre so close to Kegworth village. This would<br />
increase the levels of pollution in an already polluted area. Traffic congestion on local roads and within the village<br />
would increase. The 24 hour Aircraft movements and the nearby power station are causing increased pollution in<br />
the air. Due to the low ground which Kegworth lies in the debris in the air cannot disperse easily and resident’s<br />
health should not be compromised for commercial gain.<br />
287 Mr & Mrs<br />
Osborne<br />
288 P Cokayne<br />
and S<br />
Foster<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104
289 Mr & Mrs G Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Archer<br />
290 P Young Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
291 S M Scalfe Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
292 Richard Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
and<br />
Christine<br />
Holland<br />
293 Mr F G Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Neal<br />
294 Mrs J Neal Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
295 J. Mellors<br />
and R.A.<br />
Mellors<br />
296 Mrs B. M.<br />
Poulter<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would cause the formation<br />
of one urban and commercial centre effectively removing the boundaries between Kegworth, Lockington,<br />
Hemington and Castle Donington. The development will cause a loss of countryside and small community<br />
identities will also be lost. This area already has its fair share of industry and commerce which causes adverse<br />
impacts on the community. The proposed development will have an effect on the value of homes as well as<br />
causing increased congestion in an area that already has the busiest motorway intersection in the country. There<br />
will be an increase in noise, light and air pollution. The Ambush action group has identified far more suitable sites<br />
in and around the County which are existing industrial parks.<br />
It appears that the Council are acting in this matter with no County-wide consultation or consultation with<br />
neighbouring counties.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As the villages surrounding this area already have<br />
enough disruption from 24 hour aircraft movements and traffic congestion. This development would cause further<br />
traffic congestion on the roads and increased noise and air pollution. Parts of Kegworth are already used as ‘rat<br />
runs’ due to road congestion leading to increased danger to all road users, including children.<br />
It is hoped that the negative effects on the environment will be considered before a decision is made.<br />
297 A Allenson Object Refer to Representation 104
298 Mr C J<br />
Sharpe<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
299 Tina Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Perkins<br />
300 George Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Clifford<br />
301 Roger Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Winfield<br />
302 S J Paxton Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
303 C Driscoll Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
304 S Driscoll Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
305 Stephanie Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Collyer<br />
306 R V Wood Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
307 Becky Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Collyer<br />
308 Ralph Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Mason<br />
309 Mrs J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Hollinworth<br />
310 Duncan J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Young<br />
311 Emma Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Sunley<br />
312 L Sunley Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
313 Scott Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Sunley<br />
314 Chris Dakin Object Refer to Representation 104
315 Helen Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Dakin<br />
316 Howard Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Sander<br />
317 Mr & Mrs Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Sisson<br />
318 Hugh Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Dennis<br />
319 Eleanor Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Dennis<br />
320 Mrs M Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Barker<br />
321 A Dennis Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
322 G Dennis Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
323 M Patrick Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
324 D Patrick Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
325 N Dennis Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
326 Mr D Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Barker<br />
327 D P Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Stewart<br />
328 D R J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Burrows<br />
329 J Robinson Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
330 D<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Robinson<br />
331 Mrs L J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Burrows<br />
332 Mr D G Object Refer to Representation 104
Burrows<br />
333 Mr M Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Marcer<br />
334 Mrs J M Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Marcer<br />
335 Mr & Mrs Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
<strong>West</strong>morel<br />
and<br />
336 J. E. Daniel Object Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would result in the<br />
permanent destruction of rural NWL. There has already been far too much commercial development in the area<br />
and the proposed development would destroy Castle Donington and the surrounding villages.<br />
337 Mrs S.<br />
Brady<br />
Object Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as Castle Donington already has too much industry and<br />
pollution and the proposed development will be devastating for the local countryside as well as to resident’s<br />
health.<br />
338 T.<br />
Eastaugh<br />
339 South<br />
Derbyshire<br />
District<br />
Council<br />
Object<br />
Question 18<br />
Objects to the proposed development site at Money Hill, Ashby. The proposal would put extreme pressures on all<br />
areas of Ashby and is not in keeping with the Market Town that Ashby currently is. The site has public footpaths<br />
running through and if it was turned into housing another area of countryside would be lost. The bypass has<br />
reduced congestion in the town but the proposed development would lead to the loss of the sense of community<br />
and market town status.<br />
Development <strong>Strategy</strong> – Considers that the four broad options for Strategic Growth are in accordance with the<br />
(Draft) Regional Plan.<br />
Away from Colville and the rural towns development is proposed to be restricted to sustainable villages. In terms<br />
of development adjacent to Albert village, they point out that Albert village has very few of the necessary services<br />
capable of meeting the day to day needs of local residents and businesses. They note the proposal not to include<br />
Albert Village as a suitable location for new housing development and to keep this matter under review which is<br />
supported.<br />
Meeting regional and Sub-Regional Economic needs- At present the Regional Plan does not include any specific<br />
requirements for regionally significant employment development in any district, with Policy 21 which highlights
oad locations (including <strong>Leicestershire</strong>). They point out that there is not a requirements that potential site(s) be<br />
identified in each of the areas of search listed but that sites are brought forward through partnership working<br />
between public and private sector agencies. In bringing forward any specific proposals through the LDF, more<br />
detailed guidance and evidence is needed to help identify specific needs to justify the release of any particular<br />
site.<br />
Transport – Refers to the two options being consulted on re the Airport and considers that Option 1 does not<br />
conform with Policy 55 of the Draft Regional Plan.<br />
With regard to the national Forest Line, modal shift away from the car is a key government aim and the reopening<br />
of the railway line (to passengers) could provide opportunities to reduce congestion on key east-west routes<br />
between Burton on Trent and Leicester including the A511.<br />
General – Assurance is sought that any new development in land in the vicinity of Shardlow adjacent to the South<br />
Derbyshire border does not exacerbate or contribute to flood risk (e.g. through surface water run off). They<br />
welcome the continued support for the reopening of the national Forest Line and keep under review<br />
developments at Albert village.<br />
340 J. W. Blaza Notes that has previously corresponded with the Council regarding land that could be developed at Appleby<br />
Parva.<br />
Question 7<br />
Option 3 is supported as this would spread future development around the area as opposed to a Coalville focus,<br />
this would increase the likelihood that local services would be retained or improved. Local services are valuable<br />
to the elderly and those with limited mobility therefore some acceptable development should occur both in<br />
Measham and Appleby Magna/Parva.<br />
Question 49<br />
Option 2 is supported as it would be advantageous if sustainable villages such as Appleby Magna and rural<br />
towns like Measham could have support in maintaining and improving shop facilities as the elderly population<br />
increases.<br />
Fully supports the process that has been put in place to achieve a framework for future development.<br />
341 British<br />
Wind<br />
Energy<br />
Point out that the UK has a rich variety of renewable energy resource, including 40% of Europe’s Wind resource.<br />
This resource will need to be utilised if the UK is to deliver its share of Europe’s 20% renewable energy target by<br />
2020. Given the UK’s low baseline levels of renewable heat, the majority of this target will need to be met through
Association<br />
342 Mrs E. A.<br />
Clennett<br />
343 Mr N.<br />
Mutimer<br />
onshore wind. It is therefore important to encourage the growth of this sector.<br />
Question 18<br />
Strong objection to the proposed site at Money Hill, Ashby. The infrastructure cannot cope with so many<br />
additional residential and commercial buildings. The development would build upon ridge and furrow land<br />
therefore destroying an area of archaeological significance together with the flora and fauna that inhabit it. The<br />
proposed development does not lend itself to maintaining our local green environment and constitutes a major<br />
loss of open countryside and farmland.<br />
Question 15<br />
Objects to the proposed development site at Greenhill Farm. The proposed development would unnecessarily<br />
intrude into the Charnwood Forest which should be protected as such (as it was in the previous development<br />
plan). In the past development in many areas in and around Coalville was constrained due to subsidence caused<br />
by mining operations. Now there are lots of available places to develop.<br />
Question 35<br />
Favoured approach is not supported. Suggestions put forward for possible sites. One, to buy land around the<br />
Costalot site as this is already a popular traveller’s site. Secondly, purchase the former ‘coal’ site where the A511<br />
approaches the A42, as the access is ideal. Thirdly, the site of the old tip at Lount has ideal areas on or adjacent<br />
to the site. A properly equipped and well managed site could be a great asset to the District and would meet with<br />
widespread approval.<br />
344 J. S. & P.<br />
M. Bee Object<br />
Question 15<br />
Concern and objection regarding the proposed development at Greenhill Farm. There is already a flooding<br />
problem in the area as the land does not adequately absorb even medium levels of rainfall. The proposed<br />
development would exacerbate this problem. The local infrastructure will not be able to cope with and there will<br />
be an increase in traffic congestion. There will also be a detrimental impact on the flora and fauna in this are of<br />
outstanding natural beauty. There is a wide variety of wildlife in the area which would be adversely affected.<br />
Greenfield land should not be lost to development.<br />
345 Elaine &<br />
Colin Bates<br />
Object Question 15<br />
Strongly objects to the proposed development at Greenhill Farm. The proposed development would create<br />
additional traffic congestion on local roads. There is also concern regarding the loss of wildlife habitats and the<br />
risk of flooding as the removing of fields/floodplains has created problems elsewhere in the country. The Planning<br />
Portal shows that the proposed site is within Charnwood Forest; an area limited to development and is also an<br />
area of particularly attractive countryside. It is considered that alternative Brownfield sites should be developed
346 F. J.<br />
Denham<br />
347 / 348 D. R. King<br />
the letter is<br />
also<br />
agreed and<br />
supported<br />
by Mrs D.<br />
Colver<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
instead and the countryside should be left as it is.<br />
Question 8<br />
Whilst understanding the Council’s dilemma regarding the need to provide 12,500 homes - why is this all focused<br />
towards Coalville? This would obliterate the green wedge that separates Coalville from the surrounding villages<br />
when development could be spread around the District. There are other settlements in the District that could easy<br />
accommodate some development.<br />
Question 15<br />
Further development in and around Ravenstone should not go ahead. Good agricultural land will be lost and<br />
there will be an increase in traffic congestion, noise and danger. Additional development of around 1000 homes<br />
would destroy Ravenstone’s rural culture and the local community has already had its fair share of development.<br />
If large scale development is located in Coalville it will effectively overrun Ravenstone and other surrounding<br />
villages creating massive urban sprawl. Some of the arguments put forward for this growth and criteria for land<br />
allocation seemed inconsistent and incomplete. The following points are raised:<br />
• If industry and shopping came to Coalville first housing demand should follow without reserving swathes<br />
of land now<br />
• Where are all the extra people coming from?<br />
• Why does Coalville need to be a bigger sub-regional centre when it is already a large town?<br />
• Why not spread new development evenly around the District?<br />
• What improvements can be expected in infrastructure to minimise disruption?<br />
• As the area lies in the Heart of the National Forest, why aren’t more trees planted instead of building<br />
more houses?<br />
• Green belt should be preserved, surely there are Brownfield sites that could be redeveloped<br />
• Ravenstone is called as a ‘sustainable village’ what does this really mean?<br />
• Many of the landowners whose land had been earmarked for development said they hadn’t been<br />
consulted, can this be explained?<br />
• Are the views of the individual village communities being heard?<br />
349 & 350 Mrs R<br />
Williams<br />
351 Mrs V<br />
Derrick<br />
352 Mr W B<br />
Milne<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104
353 J McCree Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
354 Mrs S Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Grimshaw<br />
355 Mr & Mrs Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Metcalfe<br />
356 Neil Barker Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
357 Carol Clay Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
358 David Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Hooper<br />
359 Tristan Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Yates<br />
360 C E Barker Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
361 J<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Hammersle<br />
y<br />
362 M Simes Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
363 T R Simes Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
364 Natalie Hall Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
365 C McCree Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
366 John Clay Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
367 M K Hill Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
368 D Hill Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
369 Andrew<br />
Rhodes<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104
370 Miss C J Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Buckle<br />
371 A A Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Knowles<br />
372 C Baines Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
373 V Baines Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
374 Mrs G<br />
Trickitt<br />
375 Mr Roger<br />
Shelton<br />
376 Mr & Mrs<br />
JWP<br />
Metcalfe<br />
377 Mrs A. K.<br />
Usher<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as Castle Donington has already had its fair share of<br />
development including the Airport, Racetrack and industrial areas. Green belt and the historical character of the<br />
area should be preserved. There are other places that the Distribution centre could be located that would not<br />
destroy local communities.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the massive scale of the proposal would swamp<br />
surrounding villages. Local communities have suffered a process of ever increasing noise, air, light pollution and<br />
diminishing aesthetic appearance caused by 24 hour air traffic movements, ongoing gravel extractions,<br />
increasing motorway traffic movements and development of the racetrack and business parks.<br />
There seems to be some contradiction between balancing commercial need and environmental issues whilst<br />
having regard to recreation areas. The proposed site has benefitted from extensive tree planting resulting in an<br />
abundance of wildlife. The area is used for many different recreational purposes and the proposal does not take<br />
account of social, recreational and ecology issues. There are other more suitable sites within <strong>Leicestershire</strong> and<br />
NWL based on a need for regeneration and employment.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington As the proposal would reduce amenity value and create<br />
a significant increase in traffic and noise, light and air pollution. The area is also an important wildlife habitat.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. As this area has been subjected to intensive<br />
development over recent years and the increased levels of pollution in the area cause health problems for<br />
residents.<br />
378 Mr Frank Object Question 10
Kovacs<br />
379 Delia<br />
Richards<br />
380 Zoe Allery<br />
381 Elizabeth<br />
Riding<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Objects to development on the Eastern Green Wedge. Open spaces are important in the community for well<br />
being. Development of the area would destroy a wildlife habitat and nature resources should be preserved for<br />
future generations who would then have the opportunity to use the land more wisely.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed development would increase the risk of<br />
water run-off which would affect Hemington and Lockington which both lie lower than the proposed site. The<br />
cumulative affect of drainage from both the airport and the proposed site must be taken into account. Also objects<br />
to the prospect of 24 hour illumination of the proposed site and accompanying noise and pollution. Presently, the<br />
site is a recreation and wildlife resource for the local community and it is considered that there are other more<br />
suitable Brownfield sites available. These include Toton Sidings, Stanton Ironworks, Sawley Crossroads and<br />
many more throughout the Region that would not impact so many people. The distribution site on the former<br />
power station should be fully utilised before further development is considered. There should be a requirement to<br />
earmark and avoid specific areas which are presently used for agriculture to ensure that produce can still be<br />
grown in the future.<br />
Question 56<br />
Wherever new developments are planned it should be mandatory for developers to provide the means of<br />
generating their own power and hot water by the use of photovoltaic and water heating panels.<br />
Question 18<br />
Objects to the proposed development at Money Hill, Ashby. The proposed development will cause increased<br />
traffic congestion and overstretch local services and schools. Losing a large area of open space and farmland will<br />
have a detrimental effect on the quality of life of local people in terms of rural views and air quality. The Market<br />
Town character of Ashby de la Zouch should be maintained.<br />
Question 10<br />
Central Green Wedge<br />
There is subsidence of properties in the local area and it should be ensured that any new development is not<br />
similarly affected. This area of land is the only remaining area that was part of the three field system, if this is<br />
correct then the heritage of the area needs to be preserved.<br />
Eastern Green Wedge<br />
Concern is raised regarding flooding issues in the area and surface run off into Hermitage Lake. Any further<br />
development would exacerbate this situation. Presently traffic along Hermitage Road in particular is very<br />
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<br />
Coalville. Whitwick will lose its identity of a Domesday Village.<br />
382 Mrs H. M.<br />
Lorimer<br />
Question 14<br />
The Coalville area has seen a large amount of development in recent years. There is no requirement for more<br />
houses for local people partly as there are limited jobs in the area. The villages surrounding Coalville have their<br />
own character and do not want to be part of an urban sprawl.<br />
Coalville has historically been a mixture of rural and urban which promotes human health and well-being. Small<br />
housing developments for local people are sensible. Large housing estates will destroy the character and nature<br />
of the area. There will also be a reduction in health caused by the removal of access to a natural environment<br />
and development would create massive traffic and social problems caused by an increase in population with no<br />
local jobs. Coalville is in the National Forest, huge developments cannot be in accordance with the policy of a<br />
National Forest.<br />
Question 15<br />
Regarding the Grange Road, Hugglescote site - unless the reopening of the Ivanhoe line is completed (as<br />
previously agreed) no large expansion of housing should be developed. Housing at Grange Road could<br />
potentially have less impact on the area. The proposals for housing at Donington le Heath are not supported; this<br />
area provides much needed access to the countryside and opportunities for recreation.<br />
Question 53<br />
Statements about environmentally friendly housing are ludicrous if there is no decent public transport, new<br />
development would bring an increase in car commuting.<br />
383 Councillor<br />
Colin Gell<br />
Question 7<br />
Option 3 would appear the fairest, although if Ashby was increased to 2,400 this would make it better balanced.<br />
There is too much concentration of development in Coalville in options 1, 2 and 4. Concern is raised for future<br />
development in Ravenstone as the village should be preserved and should not become part of Coalville.<br />
Question 10<br />
Areas of separation should be maintained between the towns and villages to preserve community identity.<br />
Question 39<br />
Housing should not necessarily be located close to sites identified for employment development. To alleviate<br />
problems with traffic and transport if most development is located at Castle Donington then housing should be
384 Elaine &<br />
Colin Bates<br />
385 G. Curtis<br />
386 Y. N. Curtis<br />
387 D. G.<br />
Curtis<br />
388 Mr & Mrs<br />
T. W.<br />
Kendrick<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
located close by.<br />
It is considered that the development of an Eco-Town should be considered and should be sited near East<br />
Midlands Airport.<br />
Question 15<br />
Strong objection to the proposal at Greenhill Farm. The development would increase congestion and put a strain<br />
on local amenities. There is also concern regarding flooding as a result of building on fields which act as<br />
floodplains. On the Planning Portal the land referred to is within Charnwood Forest and an area limited to<br />
development classed as particularly attractive countryside. Surely there are other plots which can be developed<br />
and the green belt, forest and wildlife habitats can be protected.<br />
Question 15<br />
Strong objection to the proposal at Greenhill Farm. The area has flooding problems and more drainage/sewerage<br />
would exacerbate the problem leading to increased widespread flooding problems. The development would<br />
increase traffic congestion along local roads. Accepted that development must go somewhere but consider the<br />
development of the other two sites to be enough.<br />
Question 15<br />
Strong objection to the proposal at Greenhill Farm. The area has flooding problems and more drainage/sewerage<br />
would exacerbate the problem leading to increased widespread flooding problems. The development would<br />
increase traffic congestion along local roads. Accepted that development must go somewhere but consider the<br />
development of the other two sites to be enough.<br />
Question 15<br />
Strong objection to the proposal at Greenhill Farm. The area has flooding problems and more drainage/sewerage<br />
would exacerbate the problem leading to increased widespread flooding problems. The development would<br />
increase traffic congestion along local roads. Accepted that development must go somewhere but consider the<br />
development of the other two sites to be enough.<br />
Question 15<br />
Object to the number of houses proposed at Greenhill Farm. This will have a big impact on Coalville Town,<br />
especially increased traffic congestion. Also school provision as the local schools are already nearing capacity<br />
how could they cope with more pupils?<br />
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<br />
built on the outskirts of a small town.<br />
389 Ashby de<br />
la Zouch<br />
Civic<br />
Society<br />
Question 1<br />
Support the Vision of “<strong>North</strong> <strong>West</strong> <strong>Leicestershire</strong> will be a place where people and businesses feel they belong<br />
and are proud to call home.” However the remainder is a goal and not a vision. The summary of the<br />
sustainability triangle destroys the aim of sustainability as housing, the environment and businesses can only<br />
contribute to sustainability if they are located together and not located in different areas.<br />
Question 2<br />
Development is to be in the most sustainable locations with the criteria being access to services and minimising<br />
impact on environment.<br />
Creation of National Forest is a unique opportunity andhould create wildlife corridors and havens in developments<br />
and integrated woodlands. Enforce 20% tree cover on developments.<br />
Need to diversify economic base and encourage hi-tech industries to help reduce out commuting of the District’s<br />
skilled workforce. Too heavy a reliance on warehousing.<br />
Insufficient regard to the vitality and viability of village and rural centres. Focus on towns encourages<br />
unsustainable commuting from these villages.<br />
Question 3<br />
An unsustainable and biased approach to the development of towns to detriment of their locations. Lack of<br />
investment in smaller locations adversely affects their vitality and viability and encourages unsustainable<br />
commuting from villages to access services.<br />
Question 4<br />
Consider an option that allows sufficient development of smaller locations to sustain and enhance the services<br />
currently available.<br />
Formatted: Font color: Auto<br />
Question 5<br />
Employment land should be allocated contiguous with developments.<br />
Question 6<br />
The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> would be unsound if over provision is provided and addresses potential development needs<br />
Formatted: Font color: Auto
eyond the end of the plan period. However strategic sites and SUEs should be allocated with a view to future<br />
needs for their expansion to accommodate future growth.<br />
Question 7<br />
Only Option 1 allows for the RSS recommendations for a large percentage of future build to be in Coalville. This<br />
focus is also needed to achieve regeneration of Coalville. However this approach needs to be measure against<br />
reports on impact on environment, roads, facilities and employment etc.<br />
Question 8 and 9<br />
The LDF must conform to the RSS to be sound. There is no strategy for employment land, the quantity and<br />
location of this is a key issue that must be detailed. Policy on sustainable villages it too restrictive and would<br />
result in the death of village facilities.<br />
Question 10<br />
Partial development of the Green Wedge is needed for large scale development of Coalville. There is some<br />
partial coalescence of surrounding villages through ribbon development along arterial roads. Design and<br />
National Forest planting within the developments will maintain separation of villages and allow greater public<br />
access into the Green Wedges.<br />
Question 11<br />
National Forest planting with public access to sites could increase public amenity value of Green Wedges.<br />
Question 12<br />
Agree with the approach of identifying specific sites in the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
Question 13<br />
Agree with what is suggested to constitute a strategic site. The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should identify sufficient sites,<br />
strategic or otherwise, to satisfy the total housing numbers required.<br />
Question 14<br />
Option 1 of the Development <strong>Strategy</strong> is the only one that is sound and conforms to the RSS.<br />
Question 15<br />
Support the identified sites at South East Coalville, <strong>North</strong> of Stephenson Way and South <strong>West</strong> Coalville. The<br />
other Coalville sites are countryside extensions and should be avoided.
Question 16<br />
Regeneration sites in the town centre should be utilised, i.e. industrial wasteland.<br />
Question 17<br />
Option 1 which equates to 500 dwellings for Ashby. Any other option will mean greater expansion of Ashby than<br />
Coalville.<br />
Question 18<br />
The preferred site is South of Moira Road, a small extension and the most sustainable.<br />
Question 19<br />
To achieve 500 houses in Ashby a site of only 150 houses is required (340 are already approved). Release of<br />
other sites would be gross overprovision.<br />
Question 20-31<br />
No Comment<br />
Question 32<br />
Do not support the possibility of expanding Coalville. Would effectively be a ECO village requiring new<br />
infrastructure and would also move the focus from the centre of Coalville and be detrimental to its likely<br />
regeneration.<br />
Question 33<br />
A southerly expansion of Coalville would be most appropriate.<br />
Question 34<br />
Support Option 1 for provision of affordable housing but are disappointed in how this policy has been<br />
implemented and enforced.<br />
Question 35<br />
Support Option 2 that seeks to make provision for gypsies and travellers on a number of specific sites. Option 1<br />
would not be acceptable to either residents or travellers.<br />
Question 36<br />
Not aware of any potential gypsy and traveller sites.
Question 37<br />
Suggest the extension of existing travellers sites is considered.<br />
Question 38<br />
The Housing <strong>Strategy</strong> is supported.<br />
Question 39<br />
Do not support the favoured economic strategy approach. The LDF should make provision for not only a<br />
strategic distribution site but must also allocate land for sustainable general employment sites.<br />
Question 40<br />
The Junction 24 site is the only site that meets the criteria for a strategic distribution centre and has benefit of<br />
potential links to the Airport. The Ashby site is not big enough and the National Forest line is not to be developed<br />
and is incapable of taking W12 traffic.<br />
Question 41<br />
Alternative sites could be around Bardon to service employment sites in the area and the proposed incinerator.<br />
Question 42<br />
Support the concept of an employment zone and the airport area should be developed as a high tech industrial<br />
park rather than warehousing only.<br />
Question 43<br />
No evidence to be able to comment on this. (Need for small business space).<br />
Question 44<br />
Support the favoured possible economic strategy<br />
Question 45<br />
No evidence to be able to comment on this. (Creation of small units)<br />
Question 46<br />
Supports the favoured approach in respect of East Midlands Airport.<br />
Question 47
Consider development needs of Airport and Donington Racetrack synergistically.<br />
Question 48<br />
Support the continuation of the use of definition of operational and airport related development used in the<br />
adopted Local Plan.<br />
Question 49<br />
Support the favoured Town Centre <strong>Strategy</strong> and no further options to consider (Question 50)<br />
Question 51<br />
Town Centres should be defined as part of <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> to ensure maintenance of the vitality of current centre.<br />
Creation of new centres outside these boundaries will lead to loss of retail focus.<br />
Question 52<br />
Town Centre boundaries should be as existing.<br />
Question 53<br />
Do not support the favoured approach with reference to transport issues.<br />
Question 54<br />
For the large expansion of Coalville and its town centre regeneration to be viable, a transport system will need to<br />
be integrated into the plan. Impact of development on A511 and A42 junction will need analysis.<br />
Question 55<br />
Support the favoured approach for the delivery of well designed, high quality sustainable developments.<br />
Question 56<br />
Location is the most important feature of sustainability.<br />
Question 57<br />
Benefits of CIL is the flexibility of the use of the levies but concerned as to what controls would be used to ensure<br />
monies are directed to the appropriate use.<br />
Question 58Biggest concern is lack of a plan locally for health services sewage treatment and road systems. Deleted:
Question 59<br />
No need for local targets on climate change but should conform to national and regional policy.<br />
Question 60<br />
Agree that there are no suitable sites for large scale wind turbines in the District.<br />
Question 61<br />
Do not agree target should go further that the Regional Plan.<br />
Question 62<br />
Do not agree with district wide renewable energy targets for Low Carbon Energy Generation in line with Policy 39<br />
of the Regional Plan.<br />
Question 63<br />
Local parks and footpaths through open countryside should be considered as aspects of Green Infrastructure.<br />
Question 64<br />
Support the Open Space Standard as recommended in the Council’s Open Space Audit<br />
390 Michaela<br />
Ward<br />
Object<br />
Question 65<br />
Supports the favoured approach to Priority Neighbourhoods.<br />
Question 66<br />
<strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> can assist with improvement in Priority Neighbourhoods by enacting policies on affordable<br />
housing, transport and local infrastructure.<br />
Question 40<br />
Strong objection to the proposed development between the Airport and Lockington. The proposal would decimate<br />
the countryside and dwarf everything in the vicinity (except the airport). The land contours would mean the<br />
buildings would be visible and also the proposal would reduce natural drainage and rainwater would flood<br />
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<br />
increase in air, noise and light pollution. The employment created by this proposal would bring more people in<br />
from outside the area, increasing road traffic. The adverse environmental problems that would be created are at<br />
odds with Governments intentions.<br />
391 N.<br />
Robinson<br />
392 Gabriel M<br />
Ward<br />
393 Mr & Mrs<br />
P. M.<br />
Jesson<br />
394 Whitwick<br />
Juniors FC<br />
Object<br />
Question 8<br />
Comments relate to the future development of Appleby Magna. Preference for cars to be parked at the rear of<br />
properties. The entrance to the village from Measham Road could be improved and until it’s developed Appleby<br />
will never win an award for the best kept village. Sports fields and parks should be retained at all costs. However,<br />
if open spaces are not used they are wasted.<br />
Question 40<br />
Strong objection to the proposed development between the Airport and Lockington. The proposal would decimate<br />
the countryside and dwarf everything in the vicinity (except the airport). The land contours would mean the<br />
buildings would be visible and also the proposal would reduce natural drainage and rainwater would flood<br />
Lockington. The proposed railway line would cut off Lockington from the east and would also run through a<br />
conservation area. The proposal would increase traffic volumes in and around J24. There would also be an<br />
increase in air, noise and light pollution. The employment created by this proposal would bring more people in<br />
from outside the area, increasing road traffic. The adverse environmental problems that would be created are at<br />
odds with Governments intentions.<br />
Question 24<br />
Objects to the proposal for development on Pretoria Road, Ibstock. Pretoria Road is a narrow road and parking is<br />
very limited, especially at the end of the road. There would be increased traffic congestion, loss of peace and<br />
tranquillity of the area and it would adversely affect wildlife habitats. A new road running from Ellistown to Ibstock<br />
would not be acceptable. The need for so many houses is not understood, especially considering the current<br />
economic climate. Queries whether there is going to be a large development of businesses in the area to match<br />
the number of houses? Presently some local businesses are closing down and building more houses will only put<br />
additional strain on every service and employment in the area. Concerns regarding how the schools would cope<br />
with an increase in numbers as well as disruption to utility services. Ibstock and its surrounding villages should<br />
remain as villages and not become one big housing estate.<br />
The Football Club is an agency with attendance of over three hundred children in the local area, including<br />
children from the local area of Whitwick and surrounding villages. Work with children from a range of social<br />
backgrounds, working on their personal development, responsibility and interactive social skills. Use facilities at
a range of sites including the Hermitage Recreational Ground.<br />
On behalf of the Football Club and those who attend and volunteer, we object to any plan which involves placing<br />
buildings on the Hermitage Recreational Grounds. Its roots are engrained in the local community and are looking<br />
for an agreement with the local council and the Hermitage to have the ground on a long term peppercorn rent<br />
basis so that it will serve the community for years to come.<br />
395 Mr C. Reed Question 3<br />
Villages that have been in existence for hundreds of years should not be re-named into non-descript areas such<br />
as <strong>North</strong>, South East or South <strong>West</strong> Coalville. It is vital all the surrounding villages must have clear ‘green’ land<br />
areas around their boundaries so they and their communities remain independently recognisable.<br />
Question 8<br />
Whilst there is plenty of information regarding housing there is little mention of future consideration of essential<br />
infrastructure. If there are proposals’ to double the size of Coalville there should be a corresponding infrastructure<br />
plan. It would be far better to consider many smaller developments throughout the District based around existing<br />
infrastructure which can adapt and expand over the development period to meet the expanding needs of the<br />
larger, but not ‘super size’ communities.<br />
It would appear that the all important criteria were to identify the maximum undeveloped areas of land,<br />
irrespective of their current use so that the vast majority of homes required by central government could be built.<br />
In line with current planning practices consideration must also be given to access, drainage, flooding, subsidence,<br />
power lines and agricultural covenants before consent is granted to any parcel of land.<br />
396 Mrs<br />
Gwyneth<br />
Tseng<br />
Question 2<br />
The favoured objectives are broadly supported, but with the following provisos<br />
SO1 – There aren’t any sustainable locations outside of Coalville, Ashby and possibly Castle Donington.<br />
Kegworth is a case in point, the services and facilities are extremely limited in quantity and the hourly bus service<br />
does not meet the criterion for a Rural Town. Strongly suggested that a further objective be added which seeks to<br />
develop and improve infrastructure in line with population growth. Without this the ‘sustainable’ label cannot be<br />
used.<br />
SO6 – The National Forest should not have a special mention in respect of requiring high quality design in new<br />
developments. High quality design should be a given and applied even-handedly across the District. The Council<br />
may wish to consider developing Design Guidance to promote better housing design.<br />
SO8 – As well as affordable housing the ‘accommodation suitable for the elderly and disabled’ should be in the<br />
specified range of housing types to be brought in line with the Favoured Housing <strong>Strategy</strong>.
Question 12<br />
In the interests of clarity and transparency specific sites should be identified.<br />
Question 27<br />
The Station Road/Long Lane site is not supported as it is on a flood plain and has high amenity value. There are<br />
also Highways issues not only on the local roads but also on the main roads which are already dangerous and<br />
congested at peak times.<br />
The Cott Factory site is not supported because of the disadvantages identified in Appendix 4, especially the<br />
significant Highways issues.<br />
The site adjacent to the Computer Centre is favoured. However, as identified there is a noise problem so a high<br />
noise bund should be specified as part of the M1 widening scheme.<br />
Question 38<br />
Not qualified to comment on the number of dwellings needed. Strongly supports the aspiration to bring more<br />
vacant properties back into use. The Council will only know how much new housing will be needed once it is<br />
known how much existing stock can be brought back into use.<br />
Questions 51 & 52<br />
No definition of Town/Local Centre is provided; therefore the response is based upon an assumption of its<br />
significance. Regarding Kegworth, the majority of the buildings within the existing Local Centre Boundary are of<br />
considerable architectural and historic merit and worthy of consideration of some special conservation status. It is<br />
suggested that the boundaries be retained but that in Kegworth the Town Centre boundary should be extended to<br />
include the Parish Church, the former Vicarage on Nottingham Road, and the cottages on the south side of the<br />
Dragwell. A plan indicating the proposed new boundary is provided.<br />
Question 58<br />
As Kegworth does not have good population statistics the proposed open space standards will be difficult to<br />
enforce. The mandatory provision of open space in all new housing developments of (say more than 20<br />
dwellings) is supported. Not aware of alternative standards that could be applied but the National Playing Fields<br />
Association does issue guidelines. Management contracts need to be agreed with developers to ensure on-going<br />
maintenance provided.<br />
Appendix 14 / Question 40<br />
There is a relatively new cycle track within the perimeter of the site identified. This should be protected if<br />
development goes ahead.
397 Mr S. &<br />
Mrs C. J.<br />
Palmer<br />
Question 1<br />
The number of homes proposed (12,200) seems way too many, especially as the average family size has<br />
dropped over the last thirty years, and it is considered that this will continue to drop in the future. If development<br />
was to take place the population increases would be at previously unheard of levels, more than doubling the<br />
current size of the town. Unsure where the additional population will come from, surely the town will continue to<br />
expand at roughly its historic rate. Historically the Council has been poor at attracting new businesses to the town<br />
and consequently the vast majority travel outside of the District to work. Therefore, it would be better to build new<br />
homes nearer people’s places of work to reduce car congestion and emissions. The current recession will reduce<br />
the expansion of jobs to support new residents. It would be advantageous to see a plan of the proposed<br />
employment sites. The document refers to employment at the Airport, why not build housing near the Airport and<br />
the other major site referred to.<br />
The Coalville bypass has improved traffic flow; however the proposed development to the north of the A511<br />
would increase congestion and hinder pedestrian flows.<br />
The National Forest should not be factored into future plans as it is not permanent.<br />
Question 2<br />
The favoured objectives are not supported. The proposed development at Donington le Heath would be contrary<br />
to SO1 as the site is Greenfield; there are no local services, no facilities and no public transport. The local road<br />
infrastructure is not adequate. The proposed development would destroy the small village feel and character and<br />
have an adverse impact on the Manor House. The proposed development would not be in keeping with the<br />
village and development stuck on the edge of the village would not be inclusive.<br />
SO2 promote the development of the National Forest, the National Forest, other than a few small areas bought<br />
by the Forestry Commission is not a permanent feature.<br />
SO4 The proposed development at Donington le Heath would be contrary to SO4. The proposed development<br />
would damage the environment of the Manor House, traffic would be increased and as Donington le Heath is in<br />
the Doomsday Book an expansion on this scale would almost be criminal.<br />
SO13 (create healthy and strong communities and enhance provision of Green Infrastructure) The building of 550<br />
houses would not enhance the community of Donington le Heath but will cause division and conflict. The<br />
proposed site is too close to the wildlife reserve at the west of the village around the River Sense.<br />
SO14 (enhance and promote access to services and facilities by alternative modes of transport) There are no<br />
services in Donington le Heath and no public transport. Locating development there would cause a huge increase<br />
in the use of the car and traffic congestion.<br />
Question 3<br />
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<br />
therefore not suitable even for infill development.<br />
Question 4<br />
The expansion seems to be wholly on Greenfield sites. Questions whether a list of Brownfield sites has been<br />
identified, if so it should be published for local review. The building of some new villages with shops, schools and<br />
other facilities would prevent the urban sprawl currently promoted. Areas suggested for development are:<br />
• <strong>North</strong> of Ashby Road opposite the Discovery Park<br />
• Grieves Needle site<br />
• Co-op bakery site<br />
• The area previously taken by Palitoy<br />
• Pegson’s<br />
• Former Marcroft Wagons site<br />
• The area between Ashby Road and the railway (off Linden Road)<br />
Perhaps consider more housing in Ashby as it has better access to main roads and congestion would not be as<br />
bad as in Coalville.<br />
Question 5<br />
The consideration of 9,600 dwellings seems an awful lot, questions whether it is certain that current growth needs<br />
that many.<br />
Question 6<br />
The <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong> should not address potential growth beyond the plan as this current proposal is causing<br />
significant stress and things can change significantly in the intervening years.<br />
Question 10<br />
When planning for the future the use of Greenfield land should be resisted and should be saved for future<br />
generations.<br />
Question 14<br />
Option 3 is supported mainly as it seems it would have less impact on the town and does not include any houses<br />
in Donington le Heath. None of the plans add enough housing in Ashby, as a percentage of its current size it gets<br />
of very lightly.<br />
Question 15
The land to the north of Standard Hill is not supported as the local road network would require huge changes to<br />
accommodate increases in traffic. The land to the north of Stephenson Way is not supported as this would cause<br />
huge issues with passing traffic and would bring the bypass to a halt; it would also bring the town into disrepute<br />
making it a black spot.<br />
The site north of Grange Road is supported, unfortunately it is green land and precious but it has least impact on<br />
town or village life.<br />
Question 36<br />
The favoured approach is not supported.<br />
398 Kegworth<br />
Parish Plan<br />
In early 2008 a Parish Plan Questionnaire was delivered to every household in Kegworth and the response<br />
received was very good with responses received from 617 households. A copy of the report has been submitted<br />
and request made that these views are taken into account when making decisions on the <strong>Core</strong> <strong>Strategy</strong>.<br />
In view of the traffic that will be generated by proposed developments in and around the village those questions<br />
relating to people’s traffic concerns are of particular relevance. Concerns raised relate to highway safety,<br />
congestion, pollution, parking, HGV on roads and amount of traffic and use of ‘rat runs’.<br />
Other concerns of particular relevance relate to the loss of historic and natural character of the village, and the<br />
desire to protect these features.<br />
There was also support for retaining the existing limits to development and small housing estates (
land that should not go ahead.<br />
405 Susan Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Buckley<br />
406 John Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Green<br />
407 Alison Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Green<br />
408 G Tribe Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
409 G Tribe Object Question 40<br />
The proposal will result in an unacceptable increase in air pollution, in addition to the adverse impacts<br />
experienced as a consequence of the airport. Unacceptable noise levels. Loss of countryside and public<br />
footpaths and bridle paths. There is existing land available at the old power station with a rail link. Loss of value<br />
to local homes and compensation should be provided. Roads will become congested with traffic jams and<br />
delays. Question whether there is actually a need for new housing n the area with services already at capacity.<br />
410 Miss G<br />
Tribe<br />
411 Mrs S<br />
Stevenson<br />
412 Mr J H<br />
Stevenson<br />
413 Mrs S M<br />
Taylor<br />
414 Ms Kath<br />
Foulds<br />
Object Question 40<br />
Do not support the favoured approach for the potential strategic distribution centre to be located to the west of<br />
Junction 24 of the M1 motorway.<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
415 S Tribe Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
416 G Thraves Object Refer to Representation 410
417 Mrs N<br />
Cunningha<br />
m<br />
418 Mrs Val<br />
Rood<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
419 Mr G Rood Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
420 A<br />
Meadows<br />
421 Mrs D<br />
Shaw<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
422 P Rose Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
423 Mrs M<br />
Harris<br />
424 Ruth<br />
Mitcheson<br />
425 Mandy<br />
Burnside<br />
426 Susan<br />
Furman<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
427 Anita Lee Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
428 Janet Tribe Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
429 Philippa<br />
Khan<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410
430 Carol<br />
Glaister<br />
431 Justin<br />
Moss<br />
432 Mr D<br />
Cherry<br />
433 Mrs Jackie<br />
Green<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 410<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington . Presently it is a rural village but with the increasing<br />
amount of industry it will become a town without the added benefits. There is an inadequate road system but no<br />
fire station or leisure facilities. Supports progress and moving with the times but good foundations are needed<br />
before expansion.<br />
434 Mr Paul W.<br />
Taylor<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Kegworth and surrounding villages should not have to endure any further noise, light and air pollution, congestion<br />
or industrial development. The breakdown of rural barriers and the use of prime agricultural land must not<br />
happen. Totally against any development of this nature taking place. The area already suffers pollution from local<br />
issues. The proposed widening of the A453, M1 and airport operations - it is time the Council stopped spoiling the<br />
quality of life and proposing development that is not wanted.<br />
435 Mr A Smith Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
436 Mrs J<br />
Smith<br />
437 Mrs<br />
Caroline<br />
Jones<br />
438 Mr Michael<br />
Phillip<br />
Jones<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 24<br />
Strongly objects to the proposed development site at Pretoria Road. It would ruin the countryside amenity and<br />
views across fields. To build on this site would take away a lot of what the area has to offer and cause extra<br />
noise, pollution, traffic and people.<br />
Object Question 24<br />
Strongly objects to the proposed development site at Pretoria Road. It would ruin the countryside amenity and<br />
views across fields. To build on this site would take away a lot of what the area has to offer and cause extra<br />
noise, pollution, traffic and people.
439 Mr & Mrs<br />
Evans<br />
440 S.A & W.J.<br />
Ethelston<br />
441 Mrs F<br />
Lorraine<br />
442 Andrew<br />
Tye<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposal would mean the loss of green land which<br />
would have a great amenity and ecological effect as well as affect the wildlife of the area. The area has already<br />
lost a large proportion of green land to development and will further with the Airport runway extension and Race<br />
Track developments. The development would cause an increase in many types of traffic in the area as well as an<br />
increase in noise and light pollution. The proposed site would have a devastating effect on the quality of life for<br />
those living in the area that already suffer from noise and light pollution from existing developments. There would<br />
also be adverse impacts on people’s lives and property values.<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Question 3<br />
With the Government’s agenda consistently talking of choice, it is unfortunate that the local planning policy<br />
options do not allow the choice for villages to remain villages. People who have chosen to live in a village should<br />
be able to rather than see a close knit community become a soulless dormitory (Keyworth in Rushcliffe is given<br />
as an example).<br />
Question 26<br />
Whilst it is recognised that some additional housing is required, Kegworth as all communities should, accept<br />
some fair increase. Options 3 and 4 because of their size would intrinsically change the nature of the village.<br />
Sustainability should allow for sensible organic growth rather than allowing communities to be swamped by huge<br />
new developments. Kegworth, with its current environmental problems is bearing a large share of the Council’s<br />
building requirements. In a democracy it would seem fair that every community bears some of the housing need.<br />
Often it seems the word sustainability refers to developer’s profit (with more profit made of Greenfield sites<br />
compared to Brownfield) rather than the voice of local communities. Kegworth already suffers from poor air<br />
quality, noise (airport and road network) and light pollution. The building of additional 400-800 homes under<br />
options 3 and 4 would increase all of these factors, thus downgrading the living environment for all. The building<br />
of homes adjacent the A453 seems an inappropriate choice considering noise and pollution and their effects on<br />
stress and health. The building of so many new homes along Long Lane would remove a popular green space<br />
which is well used by many people. This area is already under threat from sand and gravel extraction. After some<br />
of the recent developments in Kegworth (Derby Road is given as an example) there is very little confidence that<br />
large developments will be anything other than an eyesore. Where developers use existing green, open spaces
443 J. A.<br />
Powditch<br />
444 Mrs J.<br />
Bagguley<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
as an excuse not to include new ones in their developments, what guarantees are there that new developments<br />
are sustainable in terms of new green spaces.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as the proposed site will increase the amount of noise,<br />
air and light pollution that Kegworth and other surrounding villages already suffer. It could be seen as self<br />
defeating in terms of securing improved health and environmental benefits. It would seem that the proximity to the<br />
Airport of Kegworth and other villages close by is used as an excuse to destroy their character and environment.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. This area has already had more than its fair share of<br />
industry and commerce. There are far more suitable sites in and around the County which are existing industrials<br />
parks.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington as it will have a tremendous effect on air and road traffic.<br />
Kegworth will be used as a ‘rat run’ - the residents of Kegworth have too much disruption already.<br />
445 J A Taylor Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
446 Mrs A Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Cumley<br />
447 Mr A Arrow Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
448 Mr & Mrs Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Fairbrother<br />
449 J Rayns Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
450 D<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Fairbrother<br />
451 J Tucker Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
452 Emmanuel<br />
Cami<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104
453 Christina Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Pojnar<br />
454 R Hudson Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
455 Mr S Terry Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
456 Peta Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Warrington<br />
457 J A Middip Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
458 Silvia Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Cavalier<br />
459 D Lane Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
460 Mr and Mrs<br />
J Ward<br />
Object<br />
Question 24<br />
Object to housing development on Pretoria Road, Ibstock. This is Green Belt land and do not wish fields to be<br />
turned into houses. Do not want to lose loss of views of countryside.<br />
461 J M Lane Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
462 A Barwell Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
463 Mr P Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Moore<br />
464 D Hodgkin Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
465 M<br />
Maddison<br />
466 M E<br />
Shacklefor<br />
d<br />
467 M H<br />
Beecham<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104
468 J E Coker Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
469 V A Hunter Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
470 K Wiggins Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
471 Claire Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Hunter<br />
472 M Hunter Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
473 L Garton Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
474 Richard Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Garton<br />
475 P Garton Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
476 Mr and Mrs<br />
Smith<br />
477 Betty<br />
Boyden<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Residents of Kegworth already have to contend with<br />
the traffic on the motorway and A roads, and noise from the airport. Impact on people’s lives and value of<br />
properties. Character of the villages is being lost.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Another industrial development in an area that is<br />
saturated by such sites. Would result in increased congestion, pollution and erosion of quality of life. Adverse<br />
impact on the character of the villages.<br />
478 Mr K Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Fairbrother<br />
479 Mrs L Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Fairbrother<br />
480 Mr D Lowe Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
481 Mr R Lowe Object Refer to Representation 104
482 Miss L<br />
Smith<br />
483 Mr S<br />
Fairbrother<br />
484 E A<br />
Holmes<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object<br />
Question 24<br />
Disappointed that housing development is to be built on land at Pretoria Road, Ibstock. This land is Green Belt<br />
with an underground mine which runs under this land. Loss of a beautiful and natural area which is enjoyed by<br />
the local and wider community. The land should be part of the National Forest and should be kept as countryside<br />
for the health of local people.<br />
485 Mr and Mrs<br />
J W Steven<br />
486 Andrew<br />
Martin<br />
Associates<br />
Object<br />
Question 24<br />
Were previously given assurances that land at Pretoria Road, Ibstock would not be built upon. There is a blind<br />
bend at the entrance of the road which is made worse by cars parked on the road, causing cars to drive on the<br />
wrong side of the road. If development were to go ahead the volume of traffic along the road would be greatly<br />
increased. The village car parks would not be able to cope nor would the dentist and the surgery.<br />
Response in respect of Donisthorpe Village<br />
Question 3<br />
Broadly support the favoured development strategy. Agree that Coalville should be the focus for development<br />
with development also within the lower order settlements. Agree that Donisthorpe should be identified a<br />
Sustainable Village since it has a primary school, a village hall (with post office) and hourly bus service. It also<br />
has good links with neighbouring Oakthorpe where further services and a leisure centre can be found.<br />
Agree that Sustainable Villages are suitable for infill development, in order to ensure the long term sustainability<br />
of such communities. Highly important that facilities are sustained and encourage to grow sustainably.<br />
Otherwise this could lead to their closure and reduce the sustainability of the location.<br />
Question 5<br />
Agree that 9600 dwellings should be considered a minimum level of provision since there is a need for flexibility<br />
in housing provision. The Regional Plan is to be reviewed in terms of its housing figures. In addition, the District<br />
has experience of allocated sites not being deliverable and not come forward for development as quickly as
expected.<br />
Also appropriate to build in a mechanism whereby the release is controlled.<br />
Question 8<br />
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<br />
dwellings on each infill site. The developer contribution threshold is 10 dwellings. As such none of the<br />
development in Sustainable Villages would be required to contribute towards services and facilities.<br />
Incrementally this could be quite significant and unfortunate that opportunities for investment in local facilities<br />
would not be capitalised upon.<br />
In Donisthorpe developer contributions could be used to improve facilities at the local school and invest in a GP<br />
outreach service. A larger development may also include potential for a mix of uses, adding to facilities in the<br />
village.<br />
Development in Sustainable Villages should contribute towards sustaining the village and therefore suggest that<br />
the size of infill sites is not limited. Judgement can be used in each case to determine what is a sustainable level<br />
of development for each village, taking into account the benefits of the development.<br />
Question 9<br />
There should be a rethink to the approach to infill development in Sustainable Villages. Question what the criteria<br />
for infill development achieves, i.e. in that it must not form part of a larger, continuous area of land. It is submitted<br />
that sites that are otherwise well located in relation to a village, or have particular benefits, would not meet the<br />
definition of infill and could not be developed. More appropriate to determination each application on its merits<br />
taking into account its relationship to the built up areas of the settlement.<br />
Reference to specific circumstances of the site is welcomed since it reflects a degree of flexibility. It would be<br />
helpful to refer to the circumstances in which the site size restriction may be applied flexibly i.e. where the<br />
scheme offers community benefits to the village and where there are good design reasons.<br />
Welcome the changes made to the criteria for the definition of Local Needs. It allows those who have left the<br />
family home to go to university to return to line near their family.<br />
Reiterate suggestion that the definition of local needs should consider the particular local characteristics of
487 Peter Hill<br />
488 Mr P Strike<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
Object<br />
settlements. There may be regeneration objectives which also from a good reason for providing housing in a<br />
settlement. Suggest adding a further criterion that includes for ‘significant needs particular to the wellbeing of the<br />
settlement and regeneration objectives’ being identified.<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to the proposed location for a strategic distribution centre to the north of the airport and to the south of the<br />
villages of Hemington and Lockington. The scale of the development will dwarf surrounding villages and<br />
irreversibly change their character and social structure. The villages will be amalgamated into the industrial<br />
complex. Road access to the villages will be restricted further with additional congestion at Junction 24 of the<br />
M1. The rail connection will cut Lockington off from the A50.<br />
Question ability to build the development given that the site has a cross fall of nearly 20 metres and would<br />
necessitate retaining walls and ramps over 100 metres high. Impact of such a civil engineering project on the<br />
natural geology would cause serious surface water problems. Use of balancing ponds would exacerbate the<br />
flooding problems already experienced by Hemington and Lockington.<br />
The development would destroy the historic quality of the villages of Hemington and Lockington. The natural<br />
wooded barriers along the Daleacre Ridge need to be protected and reinforced. The balance between natural<br />
space and buildings will be lost. Visual impact will be significant and prominent in the skyline. The character of<br />
the area will be changed from rural to urban with increase in artificial lighting, and road and rail traffic noise.<br />
To satisfy work force additional traffic movements would be necessary to bring the work force into the area<br />
causing further congestion. The District has areas of Brownfield land in areas of old industrial development and<br />
within easy reach of motorway links which offer stronger potential for development and job opportunities.<br />
Question 14<br />
Object to the bulk of housing being concentrated between Coalville and Ravenstone. Will result in the village of<br />
Ravenstone becoming part of Coalville. The identity of Ravenstone will be lost as will the community identity.<br />
Making Ravenstone a suburb of Coalville will dilute the quality of housing. There will be unacceptable high<br />
volume of traffic, traffic congestion and adverse impact on highway safety.<br />
A suitable alternative would be the creation of a new ECO town in the district.<br />
Question 35<br />
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<br />
490 G S Hird Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
491 G S Hird Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Sinope and any more would have an adverse impact on road safety and the environment. Services will be<br />
unable to cope and there is already a transit site available in the district. There is also a suitable vacant site near<br />
the A42 Ashby roundabout (UK Coal).<br />
492 Benjamin<br />
Hird<br />
493 Gerald<br />
Thraves<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
494 J<br />
Chambers<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington. Such a development would be out of keeping in terms<br />
of scale and location and result in the loss of further agricultural land which will increase further our reliance on<br />
imported food.<br />
Do not need any more warehousing or distribution space for imported goods. We should be concentrating on<br />
manufacturing industry. Question ability for rail connection given the height difference between the land and the<br />
existing rail network. Question feasibility of the scheme.<br />
495 Mrs V C<br />
Rood<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
496 K R Cole<br />
Object<br />
Question 40<br />
Object to proposal for a distribution centre in Lockington due to the destruction of natural surroundings and<br />
impact on the Conservation Area.<br />
497 Mr & Mrs K<br />
R Cole<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
498 R Carter Object Refer to Representation 104
499 J Turner Object Refer to Representation 104<br />
500 Mrs M<br />
Lindner<br />
Object Refer to Representation 104