Leicestershire Parish Councils

DRAFT EAST MIDLANDS REGIONAL PLAN
STATEMENT IN ADVANCE OF THE EXAMINATION IN PUBLIC
BRAUNSTONE TOWN COUNCIL

1. Should the spatial Diagram show broad locations of major areas of proposed new development? If so, how should they be shown?

1.1 Braunstone Town Council wishes to object in the strongest possible terms to the following wording contained in the THREE CITIES SRS POLICY 3 (Paragraph 5.10). “The best opportunities to meet the bulk of the additional provision for the PUA lie west of Leicester in Blaby (between the A47 and the M69).”

1.2 We would contend that this policy statement is inconsistent with Part 2 of Policy 2 as it would prioritise the development of Greenfield land on the edges of Leicester before Brownfield sites within Leicester and other settlements in Blaby District.

1.3 Part 2 of Policy 2 also suggests that in assessing the suitability of sites for development the capacity of existing or planned infrastructure, including the highway network, public transport, utilities, social and environmental infrastructure, to absorb further development should be considered.

1.4 Braunstone Town is the largest civic parish in the District of Blaby, with 21 Councillors representing a population of 15,122.

The A46 Leicester – Coventry road passes through the parish, and at the southern end there is the M1 Junction 21 and M69 (Leicester to Coventry motorway) intersection which, together with the new Western Distributor Road provide excellent transport links. The area of land referred to in the THREE CITIES SRS POLICY 3 (Paragraph 5.10) lies to the west of the parish of Braunstone on the other side of the M1 Motorway.

1.5 Due to its location and good transport links, Braunstone Town and the Junction 21 area has, over the last 10 years or so, attracted a number of large scale developments viz.

• Motorways Retail Area – Fosse Park/Asda/Grove Park Triangle and Fosse Park South are undoubtedly of a scale and nature of strategic significance, with a total floor space of some 65,550 square metres (705,500 sq ft) (gross).

• Meridian Business Park – Land adjacent to the East of the M1 – existing and proposed employment development – 75 acres.

• Meridian Leisure – Vue Multi-screen cinema, Hollywood Bowl, David Lloyd Centre and a variety of restaurants and fast food outlets.

• Grove Park, Enderby – High quality employment site currently being developed – 28.4 acres.

• Thorpe Astley Residential Development – granted planning consent in 1994 – development still in progress – latest estimate 1700 dwellings when complete. Over 1500 new dwellings have been completed. There are however no community facilities provided to date.

The Town Council has expressed considerable concern about these developments and has pressed for adequate research to assess the traffic and pollution impact of all outstanding planning applications, including those developments that have received planning consent but have yet to be completed.

1.6 Whilst these developments have benefited the local economy and provided increased employment opportunities, increased traffic had undoubtedly resulted in a deterioration of local air quality.

In September 2000 Blaby District Council declared parts of Braunstone Town as Air Quality Management Areas.

1.7 The existing open countryside between the A47 and the M69 functions as “green lungs” for Braunstone Town. The prevailing wind is predominantly from the south west and this open countryside is therefore crucial in channelling fresh air into the urban area and absorbing air pollution.

1.8 The Policy is not compatible with Part 2 Policy 2 in that a robust and credible evidence base has not been put forward to support new development between the A47 and M69. There is no evidence produced to suggest that the existing or planned infrastructure is capable of accommodating the level of development proposed. There is no evidence to suggest that other alternative sites/options have been considered.

1.9 Public Consultation
Braunstone Town Council has, over the last four weeks, conducted an ‘on-line poll’ on its website (www.braunstonetowncouncil.org.uk). Local residents’ comments in connection with the THREE CITIES SRS POLICY 3 are annexed to this Statement.

1.10 Conclusion
Braunstone Town Council therefore recommends that i) this level of specific detail is a matter that should be addressed in Local Development Framework and ii) site specific wording should be omitted from the Regional Plan.

2. Is there a need to review the Green Belt/Wedges in Leicestershire?

2.1 The Braunstone Town Parish Plan, published in November 2003, aims to secure the adoption as Supplementary Planning Guidance, measures identified by the community to improve and endorse the quality of the built environment.

2.2 86% of the respondents to the Parish Plan survey thought that the open countryside to the west of the M1 should be preserved and designated as Green Wedge (a copy of the Parish Plan has been forwarded to the Panel Assistant for inclusion in the core documents library).

2.3 The absence of a countryside protection policy will fail to help maintain the separation of settlements and protect important landscapes.

2.4 Leicester Forest East Parish Council also recognises the need for a ‘Green Wedge’ between the parishes of Leicester Forest East and Braunstone Town.

2.5 Conclusion
That a policy be inserted that affords protection to the important area of open countryside to the west of the M1 (between the A47 and M69).

3. Has the urban capacity of Leicester been adequately addressed? Is there a need for further urban extension to this city?

3.1 Braunstone Town Council supports Blaby District Council’s representations in connection with Draft Policy 14 and queries whether the level of housing requirement is necessary. 340 houses per year in Blaby District is almost 50% higher than that required to meet the current structure plan requirements.

3.2 If the same methodology has been used in calculating housing provision of 1,180 dwellings per annum within Leicester it brings into doubt the need for any further urban extension to this city within the plan period.

3.3 Conclusion
Braunstone Town Council would support an amendment to Policy 2 (I) a) to read “suitable sites within urban areas and other sustainable settlments to be idenditified by Local Planning Authorities’ references to specific urban extensions”, in Paragraph 5.10 of the THREE CITIES SRS POLICY 3, should be deleted.

ANNEX

Representations received from Braunstone Town residents:-

* I object to the new proposed site/area for yet more houses. This area is heavily polluted already and more and more children/adults getting asthma. Leicester is the worst place for asthmatics. Here in Braunstone we have the M1 our door steps further traffic not needed - there is more adequate sites on the east of Leicestershire to plan this new development. This is the only green belt in this area to get away from traffic - if you take this away then there will be no quiet walking areas and no mother nature to show our children/grandchildren. Praying that this build does not go ahead. (Jennie Caswell)

* We need to keep that particular green space - it is a tranquil farming area. (Dan Gurr)

* I back on to Lubbesthorpe Brook, it is already full after steady rainfall; that is being shed more rapidly from current housing and industrial estates. (G Burton)

* Where are these people going to work and are you trying to kill our children with pollution (Carolyn Golightly)

* I object to the housing area. The Highways proposals appear to have received little more than a cursory glance by the Highways department. Presumably all of their effort and money has gone into producing the M1 "improvement proposals".

Link 1 would appear to be the route expected to carry the bulk of the traffic. If it is assumed that 8500 homes would involve a minimum of 17000 cars (Check Thorpe Astley and see how many homes dont have 2 cars) and that 1 car from each house and 60% of the second cars will be used to commute to work (Check Thorpe Astley during the day), that will add 13600 cars during the morning and evening commutes.

If link 1 carries only 60% of that traffic then 8160 cars will use the junction onto a road which is currently very noisy, runs behind two schools who will be the first recipients of the pollution and which in one direction is limited to a single carriageway. The knock on impacts as the traffic tries to join the motorway or Everard Island are too horrible to contemplate. Assuming that Links 3 and 2 respectively carry 25% and 15% of the cars, Link 2 will deposit 2040 cars per commute into the heart of another residential area effectively isolating the local shops from half of their catchment area and bringing noise and pollution to the heart of a residential area.

Link 3 seems to have been designed ease traffic pressure on the busy B582 / A47 Desford Crossroads junction and seeks to deposit an additional 3400 cars twice a day onto the A47. If the congestion currently occuring at Desford Crossroads is supplemented by an additional 3400 cars at peak times it is difficult to see how this is doing more than fiddling at the edges and relocating and exacerbating a problem.

In summary it seems that this scheme has been imposed by an indirectly elected body the majority of whose members have no connection with the area.

A plan which involves us accommodating our fair share of any new housing and which has been carefully thought out and has the support of the local infrastructure should and would be be supported, this is not NIMBYism but a call for the infrastructure to be put in place first. Schools, Health Care and other local amenities are all required by such a development and the track record demonstrated by Thorpe Astley will not allow us to trust that these facilities will be provided in the future there is too much pain in providing infrastructure after the event. Fund it and build it first, plan for a phased occupation to match the build program and then build the housing. Radical, but much more likely to attract support than the usual "Jam Tomorrow" approach. (Martin King)

* Thorpe Astley is very badly organised over Doctors, School, community centre - don't want any more to add to the problem. (Deane Walker)

* I object to the housing area. Does this mean we can call ourselves townies now? Power and money dictates the environment! (Peter Summers)

* I feel that new housing should not be built on high quality countryside which will be lost forever (Mr N Varnam)

* 1. Too much development for the already over developed area, 2. Loss of green wedge, 3. Increased traffic and pollution, 4. Loss of greenfield area in an area which has already seen a massive loss of green land (David Norman)

* I object to the housing area - before you start building more houses maybe you should build some services for the houses you are building now (Thorpe Astley). It would also be nice to have a little bit of countryside left to enjoy. (Dale Horton)

* I object on grounds of loss of open space, countryside and farmland (Mrs A Godfrey)

* I object to the propose scheme for a number of reasons.
1. The area around junction 21 is already over developed. More development will mean an increase in cars, noise and pollution.
2. This in turn will result in a reduction in the quality of life for the residents of Braunstone, L. F.E and Thorpe Astley.
3. More houses will mean more cars wanting to use Fosse Park, Junction 21 and the Narborough Road South causing more congestion around that area.
4. The area is already earmarked for disruption for the M1/69 link. More disruption would mean more dust, dirt, lorries etc. over a long period of time.
5. Any uprading of Beggars Lane would be strongly opposed by local residents as speeding traffic is already a problem.
6. the A47 would not support any increase in traffic flow especially at peak times.
(Mrs D Norman)