Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Neighbourhood Plan Natural General The changes to the pre-submission Noted. Natural ’s No change England draft do not materially affect the previous representations are advice provided in our response to also considered below. your consultation on the first draft of the Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Consultation back in February/March 2015 which is attached for ease of reference. Environment General Thank you for consulting us on the Noted No change Agency amendments to the Asfordby Parish NHP. We have no comments to make in respect of the amendments as they lie outside of the remit of this Agency. We are pleased to see that some amendments have also been made to the plan in line with the comments we made to yourselves in February 2015. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Natural General Where Neighbourhood Plans could A SEA Screening Statement No change England have significant environmental has been prepared in relation effects, they may require a Strategic to the Asfordby Parish Environmental Assessment (SEA) Neighbourhood Plan. under the Environment Assessment of Plans and Programs Regulations 2004. Further guidance on deciding whether the proposals are likely to have significant environmental effects and the requirements for consulting Natural England on SEA are set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance Melton Paragraph This states that “…a large amount of The New Homes Bonus (NHB) No change Borough 2.25 New Homes Bonus as a result of was introduced by the Council growth in Asfordby parish and it’s only Coalition Government with fair that our villages enjoy the the aim of encouraging local benefits”. We would suggest this be authorities to grant planning deleted or altered, as in reality this is permissions for the building of not how the New Homes Bonus works. new houses in return for It is not like CIL, wherein a certain additional revenue. In the proportion is guaranteed to be spent 'New Homes Bonus: final in the Parish where the New Homes scheme design' the are built. The New Homes Bonus is an Government states 'The important revenue stream the council Government expects local uses to help the provision of Council councillors to work closely Services to new residents and more with their communities – and generally used to provide essential in particular the services across the Borough. In high neighbourhoods most growth areas such as Asfordby, this affected by housing growth – money is essential in ensuring services to understand their priorities can be provided to new residents for investment and to without diminishing services to existing communicate how the residents. The government even goes money will be spent and the as far as to state that “Councils can benefits it will bring.' It also decide how to spend the New states 'We want the Homes Bonus.” Moreover the whole economic benefits of housing system of the New Homes Bonus is growth to be more visible to currently in a state of upheaval and the local community'. A very as such it is difficult to include in a large amount of New Homes plan to 2036. Bonus has been received by Melton Borough Council as a result of development in Asfordby parish but the Borough Council has not made it clear how the community has benefitted. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Natural Green Natural England generally welcomes Noted No change England Spaces the Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan and considers that it provides a useful framework for the future of the community. We consider that our interest in the natural environment is well covered within the Plan and we particularly support the sections on Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity. Natural Green Natural England, together with the Our plan has taken into No change England Spaces Environment Agency, English account the Melton Borough Heritage and Forestry Commission Biodiversity and Geodiversity has published joint advice on Study. neighbourhood planning which sets out sources of environmental information and ideas on incorporating the environment into plans. Local environmental record centres hold a range of information on the natural environment. The Coal A2 It is noted that Policy A2: Countryside Noted No change Authority no longer refers to mineral extraction and waste as we requested. We welcome this change as it removes any possibility of the Plan failing to meet the basic conditions. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A2 Whilst we have no problem of the The list of uses that are No change Borough initial wording of the paragraph, the potentially acceptable in the Council extensive list that follows is potentially countryside is qualified in the too large and includes uses not policy. All development in the appropriate for use in the countryside ‘requires a rural Countryside, for example Community location' and 'should be of a Services and Facilities. scale and environmental impact that is compatible with the character of its rural location and respects landscape character'. Melton A5 We would suggest using alternate Local Green Space No change Borough terminology. Local Green Spaces has designation is for use in Local Council very specific NPPF connotation and Plans or Neighbourhood our own evidence produced for the Plans. Local Green Spaces Local Plan has stated specifically and may be designated where with explanation that none of the those spaces are open green spaces in Asfordby Parish demonstrably special to the can be designated as this with the local community. There has NPPF definition. It is the Councils view been no community input however that Neighbourhood Plans in into the Borough Council's the Borough can introduce their own evidence report “Areas of terminology for the protection of Separation, Settlement Fringe Open Spaces using a different title, so Sensitivity and Local Green long as this is evidenced to explain Space Study” and therefore it the importance to the community in is fundamentally flawed. The terms of use, functionality and access proposed Local Green and how the open space contributes Spaces in the Draft Asfordby Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan to the character of the area. We Neighbourhood Plan have would direct you to our evidence been individually assessed report “Areas of Separation, and meet the criteria set out Settlement Fringe Sensitivity and in paragraph 77 of the Local Green Space Study” and its National Planning Policy Annexe for more information. Should Framework. Once the the Neighbourhood Plan choose to Asfordby Neighbourhood continue to use the term Open Green Plan has been made, Melton Space, this needs to be evidenced Borough Council should take as to how it meets the NPPF criteria. the designated Local Green Spaces into account when preparing the Local Plan and avoid duplicating them.

Natural A7 You should consider whether your A SEA Screening Statement No change England plan has any impacts on legally has been prepared in relation protected species. to the Asfordby Parish Neighbourhood Plan. Our plan has also taken into account the Melton Borough Biodiversity and Geodiversity Study. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Natural A7 Neighbourhood plans may provide Neighbourhood Plan Policies No change England opportunities to enhance the A12, A16 and A27 provide for character and local distinctiveness of improvements in biodiversity. the surrounding natural and built environment; use natural resources more sustainably and bring benefits for the local community, for example through green space provision and access to and contact with nature. Opportunities to incorporate features into new build or retro fitted buildings which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats or the installation of bird nest boxes should also be considered as part of any new development proposal. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A8 Whilst this policy in essence can be Almost all of the buildings No change Borough supported, it needs to be clearly and structures of local Council backed up with the relevant heritage importance evidence to support their identified in Policy A8 are conservation and enhancement. This drawn from Melton Borough is particularly relevant for heritage Council's Conservation Area assets not listed and thus given this Management Plan or protection through the listing process. Appraisal. The principal exception is Asfordby Gun Range. In July 1918 the Midland Railway were asked to modify the "North Sidings" near Asfordby to accommodate a Government Gun Proof Range as requested by the Ministry of Munitions. The range was built adjacent to these sidings and became known as Asfordby Gun Range, servicing heavy- calibre guns. Used up until the 1960's to test naval shells, the noise became a major source of annoyance to Asfordby residents and some even claimed cracks were Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan appearing in their houses from the vibrations. It is possible it fell into disuse for a while, because in 1965, local residents protested at plans by the MOD to reopen it, and a noise muffling tunnel was installed in 1968. When it did close in March 1971, some 70 employees were made redundant. The last gun was fired at Asfordby Gun Range in October 1971 in a short ceremony to mark its closure. Whilst not listed by the Secretary of State, we feel the Gun Range is an important part of Asfordby’s heritage due primarily to its historic significance. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A9 Whilst the inclusion of pictures in the In 2013 Design Council CABE No change Borough Appendix is useful in setting some helped us set out basic Council context, without appropriate wording design principles that should this policy doesn’t actually set any be followed by all new clear design principles. We suggest development. The full development of this policy/appendix document is too lengthy to to more clearly demonstrate the be incorporated into the positive design features you wish for Neighbourhood Plan but an and how this policy can then be used extract of that work is set out by Development Management. at Appendix 1. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A10 Whilst we appreciate the The Asfordby Neighbourhood No change Borough Neighbourhood Plan Group has Plan will not be tested against Council worked to fulfil its duty to work in the policies in the emerging conformity with the MLP Draft, it is Local Plan although the worth making a note that the figures reasoning and evidence given to the Parish are currently in informing the Local Plan draft and subject to consultation and process may be relevant to examination may change. the consideration of the Furthermore, like the MLP, a trigger for basic conditions against review may be necessary to ease which a neighbourhood plan examination and to future-proof the is tested. We have used the Neighbourhood Plan. We are still evidence available to Melton awaiting the result of our updated Borough Council so that OAN through the wide every effort is made to meet HEDNA (Housing Economic identified local need through Development Needs Assessment). the neighbourhood planning The results of this may affect our OAN process. Nevertheless, as set which may increase the demand for out in paragraphs 1.9, 6.3 & housing land in the Borough. 6.4 and 9.3 it is recognised Moreover, through this work we may that we may need to review arrive at a situation wherein our OAN our Neighbourhood Plan to doesn’t change, but it does in ensure that it conforms to the City, which could lead to new proposals and them having a shortfall in Housing requirements once the Land to meet their updated Melton Local Plan is adopted. requirement. This could mean that other districts in the Housing Market Area (HMA), including potentially Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton, having an increased Housing Requirement to make up this shortfall. An example of this can be seen in wherein City couldn’t meet its housing requirements and as such other districts in its HMA ( and ) had to take the resulting overspill.

Should these scenarios come to fruition, we in our Local Plan Review may need to allocate additional land in the Parish if the option of review is not included in the Neighbourhood Plan. We obviously hope this is ultimately not necessary but it is important that the group is aware and prepared for such possibilities and the option of internal review would mean the people of Asfordby remain in a position to make the decisions. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A10 There is a slight misprint in this policy in The reference to '2031' in Policy A10 be Borough that it refers to a Period up to 2031. Policy A10 should be amended by Council Moreover from the inset maps it is amended as the plan period replacing '2031' noted that the Village Envelope does is to '2036' as set out in with '2036'. not go around the suggested Housing paragraph 2.1. Policy A2 be Allocations. Since these allocations amended by The Parish Council is would become part of the village including concerned that the inclusion when developed, it makes sense that another of the whole of an allocated the envelope reflects this and category 'land site within Limits to includes them within the village allocated for Development might give the envelope. development in impression that the full site is this acceptable for Neighbourhood development. For example, Plan by Policies the indicative layout for the A11, A12, A15, Jelson site shows large areas A16, A25, A26 of open space within the site and A27. boundary. If the full site were included within the Limits to Development, it might encourage the development of the proposed open spaces. It is not possible to identify these open spaces as Local Green Spaces as they do not fulfil the criteria and, because the layout is indicative only, their position might change anyway. As a Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan consequence, we propose to amend the Limits to Development once the development is complete. Nevertheless, we do recognise that there is currently a conflict with Policy A2. Bilfinger GVA A10 The Draft Plan recognises that the Noted No change on behalf of housing need identified for the Jelson Ltd villages must be in conformity with the need identified by the strategic policies in the development plan. As the housing policies in the 1999 Melton Plan are out-of-date, the Draft Plan considers the housing need figures that are presented in the Emerging Option Melton Local Plan instead. We support the approach of using the Emerging Local Plan figures which suggest that Asfordby requires 300 dwellings and Asfordby Hill requires 50 dwellings. These are the most robust figures available at present and are the figures most likely to stand up to scrutiny when the Neighbourhood Plan is independently examined. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Bilfinger GVA A10 Policy A10 (Housing Provision) seeks Noted No change on behalf of the delivery of at least 148 dwellings Jelson Ltd over the period until 2031 to be allocated on the sites identified in the Plan. The figure of 148 has been derived by deducting those sites already committed since 2011 from the 350 minimum target, i.e. 350 minus: • 80 at Jelson’s Hawthorns scheme; • 100 at Jelson’s Station Lane scheme; • 15 at Glebe Road, Asfordby Hill; and • 7 other dwellings. We generally support the figure used, although we have concerns about the delivery of all 148 dwellings having regard to the proposed allocations (see detailed comments below). We support the policy wording which confirms that the figure is a minimum target (“at least”) as this is what is required by the strategic policies in the development plan. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Bilfinger GVA Paragraphs The Draft Plan provides a Noted No change on behalf of 6.10 to 6.12 development strategy for the three Jelson Ltd individual settlements of Asfordby, Asfordby Hill and Asfordby Valley for the period until 2031. Asfordby is one of the most sustainable settlements within the . It has an excellent range of facilities / services including a primary school, GPs, public houses and a frequent bus service. Asfordby Hill has some services and facilities, but is not a sustainable location for large-scale development. Asfordby Valley has no facilities other than a children’s play area and it is generally an unsustainable location for new housing. Melton Paragraph It is our opinion that this paragraph This paragraph is not No change Borough 6.11 contradicts the allocation of up to contradictory as the last Council 100 homes in Asfordby Valley. We sentence makes clear that appreciate that the proposed unless there is some allocation comes with additional improvement in services and facilities, but it should be highlighted facilities, Asfordby Hill is not a more clearly in the wording or sustainable location for large- deleted. scale housing development. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A11 It would be helpful if this Policy was to It is accepted that more Policy A11 be Borough list the size and residential capacity of clarity can be given by amended so Council each of these sites within the Policy. indicating the number of that A-D refer to Moreover, we feel the allocation of dwellings proposed for each the potential housing at Holwell should be better site. development explained and certainly warrants capacity for Holwell Business Park is a being included as a housing each site. mixed use development, but allocation. At present it is easy to miss will be mainly for for those only looking at the housing employment uses. We have section. Finally, the policy and accepted that some housing subsequent wording is light on provision will be needed to explanation of the expected delivery enable the redevelopment of of these sites. Certainly sites such as the site for business uses to go Whitlock garages needs better ahead. As a consequence, it investigation and explanation, in is appropriate for the relevant particular reference to deliverability, policy to be located in the expected timescales and signs that 'Jobs' section of the plan. the landowner has an interest in the Notwithstanding the housing site being developed. provision is referred to in Policy A11. We have evidence to suggest that all of our allocated housing sites (with the exception of the Asfordby Storage and Haulage Depot) are suitable, available and achievable. We are surprised, by the comments regarding the Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Whitlock Garage site as the Borough Council is principal landowner and has expressed the view that it is keen for the site to be developed.

Leicestershire A12 In order for the CHA to be able to Criterion B of Policy A12 states No change County condition speed reducing measures that vehicular access to the Council outside the school, the reasons would site is to be from Saxelby need to be evidence based e.g. by Road. Criterion C requires speed survey results. measures to be in place to o Access would not be permitted off reduce the speed of traffic the A6006 in line with policy IN5 of the using Saxelby Road in 6Cs Design Guide. response to concerns from local residents and the primary school. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Bilfinger GVA A12 Policy A12 (Land Between Regency The proposal is supported by No change on behalf of Road, Asfordby and the Bypass) an indicative layout, access Jelson Ltd proposes to allocate land (identified design and noise assessment on the Policies Map) for around 55 which has been prepared on dwellings. We acknowledge that the behalf of the landowner. The site is well related to the primary layout suggest that the site is school and that the development of capable of being developed this land has received some support for the number of dwellings from local people. However, we proposed. The landowner has have reservations about whether the expressed an intention to sell site can deliver the amount of the site for development. development suggested. The site is There is a reasonable physically constrained by the bypass prospect that the housing site which will have impacts in respect of will be developed within the noise / disturbance that need to be plan period and a planning mitigated, i.e. by including an application is imminent. appropriate separation distance. Appropriate distances will also need to be left between existing dwellings to ensure that the amenity of existing and new residents is not compromised. We would suggest that the figure might be an optimistic estimate of what is deliverable on site and would recommend that some preliminary technical investigations (into access, noise, ecology, trees, drainage etc.) Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan are undertaken and an indicative masterplan prepared to test the feasibility of a scheme. It is not clear from the Draft Plan who owns the site and what interest there has been in developing it. It would be useful to understand whether the land is in single or multiple ownerships, whether access can be achieved and whether a house builder has expressed an interest in acquiring the land. In the absence of such information, there must be considerable doubt as to if and when the site will be delivered. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Leicestershire A13 The site does not appear to have A neighbourhood plan can Criterion B of County been considered as an allocation by allocate sites for Policy A13 be Council Melton Borough Council. The CHA development. Where a amended to would have concerns with removal of neighbourhood plan has read 'a single existing off street parking facilities if been made, the local vehicular they were removed and not planning authority should access to the replaced or would increase on-street take it into account when site to be from parking elsewhere. Any reduction in preparing the Local Plan either Whitlock replacement parking spaces strategy and policies, and Way or compared to the number of existing avoid duplicating the policies Charnwood spaces/garages would need to be that are in the Avenue'. justified and provided in accordance neighbourhood plan. Most of with the 6C’s Design Guide. the garages are used for o While 1 access point is sufficient for storage, but nevertheless a development of this size, the criterion D of Policy A13 existing access off Whitlock Way requires any impact arising appears to be narrow, and is unlikely from the loss of garages shall to comply with the requirements be mitigated by the provision within the 6C’s Design Guide. This of new off-street car parking. would mean the new road serving the development would not be adopted in the future. It is more likely a design compliant access road could be created off Charnwood Avenue. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Leicestershire A14 The site does not appear to have A neighbourhood plan can No change County been considered as an allocation by allocate sites for Council Melton Borough Council. development. Where a o Note any future application for the neighbourhood plan has site which the CHA is asked to been made, the local comment on would have to be planning authority should assessed on its own merits. It would take it into account when not be possible for the CHA to advise preparing the Local Plan refusal to the LPA on the grounds that strategy and policies, and the site is preferred for housing. avoid duplicating the policies that are in the neighbourhood plan. Bilfinger GVA A14 Policy A14 (Asfordby Storage and The Draft Neighbourhood No change on behalf of Haulage Depot, Main Street, Plan does not rely on the Jelson Ltd Asfordby) proposes to allocate this development of the Asfordby depot site for 67 dwellings. We note Storage and Haulage Depot that the Parish has prepared a to meet housing needs development brief for the site, but that the owner has not been willing to participate in the process. In the absence of confirmation from the owner that the site is available for development, the Draft Plan cannot rely on the development of this site in order to meet housing needs. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A14 Whilst we appreciate the difficulties The owner has not been No change Borough with this site and the desire of the willing to participate in the Council community to see it positively preparation of the brief nor redeveloped, it does need to be the Neighbourhood Plan so better stated that this is a longer term we cannot be sure that there option, potentially not until the end of is a realistic prospect of the Plan period. Furthermore, we housing development. This appreciate that because of the does not mean that it could difficulties suggested this site has not not come forward in the been put towards the housing short-term. numbers. S Eades & D A15 The proposal as exhibited on 2 March Noted No change Rose we have no objections to. The mix of housing and layout shown seemed reasonable. We support the covenant to protect the green space as highlighted at the exhibition and see this as an important part of accepting the proposal. Mrs S Hudson A15 It would be lovely to see the back of Noted No change the old park and the scruffy woodland nearby removed for new, nice, bright houses. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Mr & Mrs Brown A15 Having houses where the park is, or Noted No change the woodland at the back of, would be more pleasurable and useful for the community than looking at the overgrown land that lies there now. It would have easy access for traffic and safer than half-way up Asfordby Hill, it would be better for children, it would be safer for them to play. It would also take the impact of water from Asfordby Valley as there are a lot of natural soakaways there. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A15 Certainly in the text and the policy The access arrangements No change Borough there seems to be a number of have been the subject of Council question marks regarding the access. considerable discussion Statements such as “access to the between the Parish Council, site is not ideal” immediately brings landowner and the Highway questions with it questions of the sites Authority. On 2 June 2015 the inherent deliverability. More work on Highway Authority advised the access then an update to this 'Whilst the site is far from policy would certainly ease being ideal for the reasons examination of the Plan. given above, it may be that the Local Highway Authority would not be able to demonstrate severe harm, providing the issues of the bus stop relocation, pedestrian crossing and access location can be overcome'. Stuart Sterling A15 Due to the 100+ houses being built on The access arrangements No change the Welby Road site is there any real have been the subject of requirement to build behind considerable discussion Crompton Road causing certain between the Parish Council, unnecessary disruptions and the landowner and the Highway introduction of a new hazard. Access Authority. On 2 June 2015 the to the proposed site onto Melton Highway Authority advised Road, adjacent to the school 'Whilst the site is far from crossing would create a very real being ideal for the reasons hazard for the primary school children given above, it may be that trying to cross an already busy main the Local Highway Authority Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan road. The reason for developing the would not be able to site is to tidy-up the site. Having demonstrate severe harm, spoken to other affected residents providing the issues of the bus we are happy to clear and tidy the stop relocation, pedestrian wooded area. Therefore, providing a crossing and access location safe and stimulating play area for can be overcome'. Although children. At present Asfordby Hill is the offer to tidy-up the site virtually crime free. With the from local residents is very introduction of housing association welcome, the condition of residents, the likelihood of 'problem the site is largely outside the families' being sent to the area is control of local people as it is greatly increased. owned by the Leicester Diocesan Board of Finance. The site will comprise of mainly market housing- predominantly 2 and 3 bed dwellings with a couple of 4 bed units. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Miss R Patel A15 No- has flooding been considered, if We have consulted the No change built Asfordby Valley will be Environment Agency on the vulnerable to flooding again. The Neighbourhood Plan. The Valley and the Hill should be kept Agency provides advice on separate as it always has been. improving resilience and Access is terrible where this is going to adaptation to the effects of be. climate change, with particular regard on flood risk, water resources, water quality (Including groundwater) and aquatic biodiversity. The Agency has advised that the site is situated within Flood Zone 1 and are therefore an appropriate location for residential development in respect of flood risk grounds. The access arrangements have been the subject of considerable discussion between the Parish Council, landowner and the Highway Authority. On 2 June 2015 the Highway Authority advised 'Whilst the site is far from being ideal for the reasons given above, it may be that Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan the Local Highway Authority would not be able to demonstrate severe harm, providing the issues of the bus stop relocation, pedestrian crossing and access location can be overcome'. The settlement of Asfordby Hill is distinctly separate from Asfordby Valley and is surrounded by open countryside. Policy A1 aims to protect this important Area of Separation but the Crompton Road site does not lie in it. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Leicestershire A15 The CHA may have concerns with an The access arrangements No change County access off Melton Road. The access have been the subject of Council would be close to an existing considerable discussion pedestrian crossing, require between the Parish Council, relocation of a bus stop and also be landowner and the Highway relatively close to the Crompton Authority. On 2 June 2015 the Road junction, which could affect Highway Authority advised visibility splays at both junctions with 'Whilst the site is far from Melton Road. These issues would being ideal for the reasons need to be resolved. If an access in given above, it may be that accordance with the 6Cs Design the Local Highway Authority Guide could be achieved off would not be able to Crompton Road, this would be demonstrate severe harm, preferable to the CHA. providing the issues of the bus stop relocation, pedestrian crossing and access location can be overcome'. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Miss Lorraine J A15 I have concerns with the proposed The access arrangements No change Marriott plan for 14 houses to be built on the have been the subject of land, especially with the further plan considerable discussion for 100 homes on the other side of the between the Parish Council, road on the Holwell Works site. landowner and the Highway As stated in the Asfordby Parish Authority. On 2 June 2015 the Neighbourhood Plan "Access to this Highway Authority advised site is not ideal". My main concern is 'Whilst the site is far from that this will be directly opposite the being ideal for the reasons primary school that is at the top of a given above, it may be that hill and during certain times of the the Local Highway Authority day this is a very busy road. I question would not be able to if this really a safe place for further demonstrate severe harm, traffic to join the road from a new providing the issues of the bus housing development? stop relocation, pedestrian I can appreciate that further houses crossing and access location are needed, however, I feel that the can be overcome'. The Crompton Road Play Area could be condition of the site is largely developed in a different way to keep outside the control of the an environmentally responsible and Parish Council as it is owned natural area on Asfordby Hill for all by the Leicester Diocesan residents to enjoy. Board of Finance. The Parish In the past this area was allotment Council consider that the gardens. These have been redevelopment of the site overgrown for many years (I have provides an opportunity to lived in my home for around 15 years tidy-up the area and improve and have seen the trees grow and local play facilities. nature levels increase in this time). Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan This has resulted in a wild natural habitat for wildlife, trees and foliage. If this was developed, home to birds, insects and animals such as squirrels, foxes, bats, mice, shrews and hedgehogs will be lost forever. Would the site not be better positioned to enlarge and better equip the play area and create either some allotments again, a natural picnic area or nature trail perhaps? A large part of this could be left in its current natural state to keep nature and wildlife on Asfordby Hill. I believe that this would be a much more valuable use of the space than the small number of houses that could be fitted onto a non-ideal site. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Bilfinger GVA A16 Policy A16 (Land West of Station The requirement for 12% of on behalf of Lane, Asfordby) defines the site as a dwellings to be bungalows is Jelson Ltd housing commitment for up to 100 not arbitrary. The Station Lane dwellings. The site is owned by Jelson. site and the site between The supporting text correctly notes Regency Road and the that the Council has resolved to grant bypass will together provide planning permission subject to some 155 new homes and completing a Section 106 account for most of the Agreement. We are expecting the planned development in the legal agreement to be finalised and village. At a rate of 8%, they the Decision Notice issued should provide for 12 imminently. The reserved matters bungalows in total. application will be prepared shortly However, the site between afterwards. Regency Road and the The policy is generally supported, with bypass is unsuitable for the exception of three points. Bullet A bungalows because of the requires that around 12% of the new restricted depth of the site. homes should be bungalows. Whilst Furthermore, given the Jelson is prepared to consider proximity of the primary providing bungalows within the school our Plan envisages the scheme the exact number and site being developed mainly location of properties has not yet for family housing. been determined. This will need to be The Station Lane site is larger subject to further discussions with the and less restricted and is Parish Council and the District better placed to Councils’ Housing Officers and will accommodate the 12 need to take into account evidence bungalows that are needed. of local need, market demand and The bungalows can also be Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan viability. The 12% requirement seems used as a means of limiting somewhat arbitrary and is overly the impact of the new prescriptive at this stage. It is also not development on the in conformity with the Emerging Local amenities of existing residents Plan which does not provide specific on Klondyke Way. requirements for bungalows. We Criteria E of Policy A14 relates request that the 12% figure is to the land south of the site. removed and replaced by a Although the land to the west requirement for a “proportion of the of the site has been identified dwellings to be bungalows in by Jelson as open space its accordance with evidence of local value is diminished because need, market demand and viability”. of the overhead high-voltage Any requirement to consider power lines. This is due to bungalows should apply equally to all health concerns- real or other proposed allocations. perceived, limitations on Bullet E advises that the land to the recreation activities and south of the development should be visual impact. The land south laid out and made available for of the site, on the other hand, informal recreation. This land is within is of limited development Jelson’s ownership, but outside of the value due to flood risk, but application site boundary. It is unlikely informal recreation use will be to be developed given its location in consistent with Green a flood zone, a location that also Infrastructure Strategies. The makes the land generally unsuitable site is controlled by Jelson. for laying out for formal recreational use. There may be an opportunity to facilitate access via informal paths; however, no detailed discussions have yet been had with the Parish Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Council in this regard. Bullet E should therefore be amended to read “The potential to provide informal access to the land south of the development, bounded by Station Land and the River Wreake, shall be investigated between the developer and the Parish Council.” Finally we note at paragraph 7.21 of the Draft Plan that the preference is for new development to contribute to the enhancement and improvement of existing play areas, rather than providing new ones. We agree with this strategy as it improves overall quality but minimises ongoing maintenance costs for public authorities. The Station Road site is located immediately adjacent to the established Glendon Close play area and it is considered that improvements to that facility are preferable to the provision of a new LAP on site. Policy A16 should make reference to this approach. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan James A16 The lower half of this site below where On 16 July 2015, Melton No change Wakefield the initial access is flood plain land. Borough Council decided to When Jelson starts building they will grant outline planning remove topsoil from the upper side of permission (subject to the the site and spread it on the lower completion of a Section 106 land. This will raise the ground level, Agreement) to Jelson for which in turn means that when the residential development (up river floods (as it has done recently) to 100 dwellings) and the water instead of qualling itself out associated infrastructure at either side of the river it will be Station Lane, Asfordby. There pushed higher on the opposite side, has not been a fully worked this in turn will affect the commercial up designed Sustainable buildings on the other side, and worst Urban Drainage (SuDs) case scenario will cause flooding on scheme submitted for the railway line and further down approval although within in even in Rearsby. the supported documentation the developers have indicated that there will be SuDs incorporated within the layout to manage the surface water. This is likely to be in the form of swales and retention basins (ponds). Following the introduction of the Surface Water Management Act 2010 developments of this size are Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan required to manage surface water „on top‟ as opposed to using an underground piped system, so as not to cause flood risk on the site or elsewhere. A two stage treatment approach would be required to ensure no contamination from the roads and parking areas is discharged into any water courses. As this site is a greenfield site the surface water run off rate can be no greater than it currently is and the SuDs system will have to be designed to accommodate all of the surface water from the development.

Melton A16 Policy dependant on result of current The Station Lane site and the No change Borough application ref 14/00980/OUT. site between Regency Road Council Notwithstanding this, there are further and the bypass will together comments on this Policy. A) points to provide some 155 new homes 12% of the homes needing to be and account for most of the bungalows, a statement planned development in the contradicted on the next page at village. At a rate of 8%, they 6.27 where a requirement of 8% is should provide for 12 Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan listed. There is a caveat to this at 6.28 bungalows in total. which states that these figures may However, the site between need to be adjusted, but there is no Regency Road and the commentary as to the evidence of bypass is unsuitable for the need to uplift this figure to 12% bungalows because of the mentioned at A16. E) comments on restricted depth of the site. the land south of the development Furthermore, given the area, however this is beyond the proximity of the primary remit of the developer as it is land not school our Plan envisages the included in the proposal. Whilst this site being developed mainly may be a community aim, it cannot for family housing. be included in this policy as a The Station Lane site is larger requirement for this development. and less restricted and is better placed to accommodate the 12 bungalows that are needed. The bungalows can also be used as a means of limiting the impact of the new development on the amenities of existing residents on Klondyke Way. Criteria E of Policy A14 relates to the land south of the site. Although the land to the west of the site has been identified by Jelson as open space its value is diminished because Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan of the overhead high-voltage power lines. This is due to health concerns- real or perceived, limitations on recreation activities and visual impact. The land south of the site, on the other hand, is of limited development value due to flood risk, but informal recreation use will be consistent with Green Infrastructure Strategies. The site is controlled by Jelson. Leicestershire A16 Part C: We would support sustainable Noted No change County measures where necessary for Council development. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Miss R Patel A16 Fine as long as it looks like local Asfordby parish has been No change architecture not just a normal new subjected to standard, build site. ‘identikit’ homes that typify new developments built by some volume house builders. Some of our housing looks exactly the same as developments elsewhere and could be anywhere in the country. Too often new developments are dominated by the same, identikit designs that bear no resemblance to local character. We now expect all development to contribute positively to the creation of well-designed buildings and spaces in accordance with Neighbourhood Plan Policy A9. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton Paragraph This makes reference to an The 1999 Melton Local Plan No change Borough 6.32 Affordable Housing Study completed policy H7 makes provision for Council in 2008. This is far too dated to rely on the development of for your evidence. In the 6 years since affordable dwellings on 2008 there have been a number of housing sites but does not set factors that make this data a target. The Council's inappropriate for use, for example proposed target is from Table the recession and subsequent 47 of the 2014 Leicester and recovery, change of government Leicestershire Strategic with subsequent changes in policy, Market Housing Assessment including the change of the planning (SHMA) which indicates that, system through the NPPF and NPPG. as a percentage of the Moreover, the maths in the overall demographic-led Paragraph above (6.31) does not housing need, the align with the 30% suggested in 6.32. requirement is 37% for Melton The 138 required against the target of (the percentage ranges by 350 equals 39%. This is higher than the local authority from 22% in most recent SHMA (2014) and our Charnwood to 104% in draft plan which both indicate 37%, Blaby). The report emphasises the current Local Plan (1999) that this only informs indicates 40%. Even though there is a affordable housing policy shortfall, you should still be seeking decisions and that any 37% unless more up to date evidence requirement will be decided can show otherwise. Moreover, care by local affordable housing should be taken as to what effect the policy or on a development current Planning and Housing Bill will by development basis. have on this, with issues such as Further, the 37% requirement Starter Homes likely to have an has not been subject to Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan impact on the delivery of more viability assessment. While conventional affordable housing. Melton Borough Council's Affordable Housing Viability Study is a little dated, it is still on the Council's website under its Local Plan evidence base. The Study concluded: 'By way of policy review, it is important to state that the Preferred Option for the Core Strategy requires developments of 6 dwellings or more to make a 40% on- site contribution.... However, we feel that a 40% target applied to many of the urban sites, and particularly those in lower value areas, will be too high. Therefore, in Melton and Asfordby, we feel that the target should be set around 30%, reflecting the difference in sub market situations.' The maths does align. On 16 July 2015, Melton Borough Council decided to grant outline planning permission (subject to the completion of Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan a Section 106 Agreement) to Jelson for residential development (up to 100 dwellings) and associated infrastructure at Station Lane, Asfordby. A condition of permission was the provision of 40% affordable housing. Changes to national planning policy including amendments to the national definition of affordable housing are recognised in paragraph 9.2 of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton Paragraph The wording could use a slight Agreed. The first Borough 6.34 adjustment in the first sentence. sentence of Council Certainly the word “provision” paragraph 6.34 suggests more of an allocation type be amended to approach and if it could be deleted read: 'Our Plan or altered it would better serve the will therefore sentiment and rationale as per the allow planning rest of the paragraph. permission to be granted for Affordable housing on ‘Rural Exception Sites’, i.e. sites within or adjoining Asfordby Hill or Asfordby Valley that would not normally be released for private market housing (Asfordby Village is too big to be considered as a rural community).' Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton Policy A18 This policy may be affected by an On 11 May 2016, the Court of the second Borough awaited court case decision which Appeal in London today sentence of Council will give an indication of what the backed government plans to Policy A18 be threshold of affordable housing exempt small development amended to should be, this may well mean the sites from the need to have read: 'On threshold will rule out most windfall affordable housing included windfall housing sites likely to come forward in the on them. developments Parish. of more than ten dwellings the minimum Affordable housing provision is 30%.' Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Bilfinger GVA Having regard to the policies in the The sites allocated for No change on behalf of Draft Plan and to our analysis above housing development are Jelson Ltd we conclude that there is significant suitable, available and doubt as to whether the sites achievable with the possible identified in Neighbourhood Plan will exception of the Asfordby deliver the minimum residual Storage and Haulage Depot requirement for 148 dwellings. on Main Street, Asfordby. The We acknowledge that some Asfordby Storage and additional dwellings may come Haulage Depot may not be forward as ‘windfalls’. However, the available as the owner has number generated by this means is not expressed an intention to likely to be negligible. Moreover, sell. However, the small windfall sites are unlikely to Neighbourhood Plan does make any significant contribution to not rely on the the infrastructure requirements in the redevelopment of this site to village. meet local housing needs. Accordingly the Draft Plan does not Instead this site, along demonstrate that the housing needs windfall opportunities, of the village can be met and it fails provides the Plan with flexible to meet the basic conditions of the in the unlikely event that the Localism Act in this regard. other allocated housing sites do not deliver. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Bilfinger GVA Jelson owns a parcel of land Despite having numerous No change on behalf of between Station Lane and Hoby opportunities during the Jelson Ltd Road, directly to the west of the land consultation process, this site that is already committed for 100 has not previously been dwellings (see enclosed Site Plan). proposed by Jelson. Neither This land is not currently identified in has the site been submitted the Draft Plan. However, it is available as part of the 2015 Melton and suitable for development. Strategic Land Availability The site extends to approximately 3 Assessment. hectares and comprises open land Notwithstanding, its location used for arable farming. is very similar to Site A2 which Development of the site would was also located off Hoby provide a logical extension to the Road, Asfordby and which approved scheme and the village. has been the subject of site Approximately 80 dwellings could be appraisal. Like Site A2, the provided allowing for a density of 30 proposed new Jelson site is dwellings per hectare and the poorly related to the built-up inclusion of open space, drainage area of Asfordby village and and other infrastructure. a long distance from most The site is not in an area of separation services and facilities. The and its development would not result Highway Authority advised in coalescence of the settlements; that Hoby Road has a 60 one of the overriding ambitions of the mph speed limit which will Draft Plan. We consider that, given make achieving a suitable the constraints of the settlement (the access difficult. It is also not bypass and areas of flood risk) the of a suitable standard for site offers the only realistic prospect further development. The for an additional allocation. Melton Strategic Flood Risk Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Flood risk work undertaken recently in Assessment identifies a large respect of the approved scheme part of the proposed Jelson demonstrates that development in site to be in Flood Zone 2. this location will not have an adverse impact. Nor would development of the land have adverse impacts in respect of heritage assets, sensitive landscapes, Local Wildlife Sites or the amenity of existing residents. Development beneath the overhead power line would be avoided. Access could be taken from Station Lane (through the recently consented scheme) or from Hoby Road. Unlike proposals for small sites (of less than 10 dwellings) development of this site would make significant contributions to affordable housing and the other infrastructure requirements set out at Policy A23. Notably, the site is controlled by a house builder and there are no constraints to the site being brought forward for development. It is the only site available in Asfordby where there are no question marks over its deliverability. We conclude that the site would provide a very valuable contribution Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan to the housing need for Asfordby, particularly in the light of the constraints posed by the alternative sites in the village and the significant doubts as to how and when these might be delivered. In the absence of an additional residential allocation the Plan does not allow for sufficient land to accommodate the identified housing need. It is unlikely to satisfy the basic conditions of the Localism Act in this regard. We would therefore encourage the Parish Council to additionally allocate the land shown on the attached plan for residential development. This will add much needed flexibility to the Plan should the other sites identified prove undeliverable. We can prepare an illustrative masterplan and provide a more accurate capacity figure in due course. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Leicestershire General I welcome the consideration of Assets of Community Value No change County community facilities in the are designated under Council Neighbourhood Plan. It is a positive separate legislation. All the feature of the Plan that community policies of the facilities are recognised and valued Neighbourhood Plan should and that the Plan seeks to protect be read together when and retain existing facilities. considering planning Community facilities provide a venue applications. for social, recreational and educational activity and a place where people can meet and access local services. Perhaps support for the independent development of new facilities could be considered along with a policy relating to the protection of Assets of Community Value to support any existing or future designations. Also, in relation to shops, suggest that the statement that Planning applications that ensure that the Local Centre continues to provide a diverse range of Local Centre Uses which appeal to a wide range of age and social groups will be permitted is qualified to clarify that this is subject to acceptability in relation to other planning considerations. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A19 This cannot be used as a way of The National Planning Policy The first Borough protecting services and facilities for Framework (paragraph 28) sentence of Council no other reason than for protections promotes the retention and Policy A19 be sake. Need to justify “unnecessary development of local amended to loss” and how this policy will work in services and community read: practice. What if services and facilities in villages, such as 'Development facilities are unviable? Moreover, the local shops, meeting places, that fails to policy is a bit broad, will all proposals sports venues, cultural protect existing for the modernisation of facilities be buildings, public houses and facilities encouraged and supported? How places of worship. further providing for will the plan do this and how will clarification might be helpful. people’s day- these effect decisions made by to-day needs Officers/Planning Committee? will not be supported unless: A) the facility is replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or B) there is evidence that the facility is no longer required Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan by the community, is duplicated elsewhere within the settlement, or is no longer viable. When considering viability, evidence of reasonable attempts to sell or let the facility as a going concern will be material.

Leicestershire A23 The CHA would liaise with the To encourage the use of No change County developer to provide travel packs sustainable transport, the Council and bus passes where it considers Parish Council want all new these are necessary. houses (over 10 dwellings) to be provided with a Travel Pack containing information about the local area, advice on local transport bus services, cycle routes, taxi information, walking maps and journey planning assistance. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Leicestershire A24 It is not clear what measures would The Neighbourhood Plan is No change County be proposed to address parking not prescriptive on the Council problems outside the school, measures that might address however note that resolving parking local traffic congestion and issues in one area can have a knock parking problems associated on effect at another. with the Primary School. However, they could include additional parking provision, 'drop-off' points, parking restrictions, road narrowing etc. East A24 We have reviewed the consultation Policy A24 includes provision No change Leicestershire plan regarding the developments for Section 106 developer and within Asfordby in particular the contributions to the Clinical housing development which would improvement, remodelling or Commissioning include 100 dwellings. enhancement of Asfordby Group Surgery. Currently Latham House Medical Practice through their branch site provides Primary Medical Care to the population. Patients within this area use both the Main site which is located at Sage Cross Street and their Asfordby Branch Site.

When reviewing the impact of the proposed development this would result in an increase to the surgery of Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan 240 patients. After discussing this with the Practice and to provide service to the increase of patients we would be looking to develop an application of S106 Funds.

Latham House A24 An increase in the housing Policy A24 includes provision No change Medical infrastructure of 100 dwellings is likely for Section 106 developer Practice to increase the patients registered at contributions to the Latham House Medical Practice by improvement, remodelling or 500 patients. enhancement of Asfordby Patients are seen at our branch Surgery. surgery in Asfordby and at our main site in . This increase will add additional pressures on our service provision, and we will have to expand both sites to accommodate these pressures (subject to obtaining suitable planning permission). It is also likely that the practice will have to recruit additional clinical and administrative staff to support the increased population as-well. The Practice is willing to work with the council and NHS England to secure additional funds to help support any expansion required. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Leicestershire A24 The County Council recognises that Policy A24 and paragraph No change County residents may have concerns about 7.25 have regard to the legal Council traffic conditions in their local area, requirements regarding which may be exacerbated by developer contributions. increased traffic due to population, economic and development growth. The County Council’s budgets are under severe pressure. It must therefore prioritise where it focuses its limited funds, so that measures deliver the greatest benefit to Leicestershire’s residents and road users. Given this, it is likely that any highway measures would need to be funded from third party funding, such as Section 106 (s106) developer contributions. To be eligible for s106 contributions proposals must fulfil various legal criteria. Measures must also directly mitigate the impact of the development e.g. they should ensure that the development does not make the existing highway conditions any worse. They should not be used to address existing problems. Where potential s106 measures would require future maintenance, which Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan would be paid for from the County Council’s funds, the measures would also need to be assessed against the County Council’s other priorities. With regard to public transport, securing s106 contributions for public transport services will normally focus on larger developments, where there is a more realistic prospect of services being commercially viable once the contributions have stopped i.e. they would be able to operate without being supported from public funding. Those undertaking Neighbourhood Plans should be aware that the current ‘conventional’ supported bus network is likely to reduce, given the pressures on the County Council’s budgets. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Leicestershire A24 There is no specific policy on Policy A24 concerns No change County developer contributions within the infrastructure and developer Council draft Asfordby NP. Whilst there is a contributions. reference to infrastructure on page 36 Policy A23. If new development was to come forward there might be a requirement for developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of new development, particularly on local services and infrastructure. A policy therefore might be prudent to be included within the (draft) Asfordby NP made along similar lines to those examples shown in the Draft North Kilworth NP and the draft Great Glen NP albeit adapted to the circumstances at Asfordby. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A24 There needs to be some re- Paragraph 7.25 already The first Borough examination of this policy so that it states that 'developments sentence of the Council complies with the latest CIL identified in the Plan should final paragraph Regulations, especially CIL not be subject to such a of Policy A24 be Regulations 1.22 and 1.23. When scale of obligations and deleted. discussing developer contributions, burdens that their viable the tests set out by 1.22 of the CIL implementation is regulations are especially important. threatened. Contributions are governed by the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010'. Similarly, Policy A24 states 'To ensure the viability of housing development, the costs of the Plan’s requirements will be applied flexibly where it is demonstrated that they are likely to make the development undeliverable.' Leicestershire Employment The Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan’s Noted No change County comprehensive and positive Council assessment of local and more strategic employment opportunities with the plan area is welcomed. The plan appears to strike a good balance between recognising the opportunities of growth for local businesses and residents, while also Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan ensuring any potential localised negative impacts on the community are mitigated against.

The Coal A26 The Coal Authority supports the Noted No change Authority recognition in Policy A25: Holwell Works and Holwell Business Park of the need to consider ground stability and avoid built development over or within the influencing distance of the 2 mine entries in the business park. Leicestershire A26 We object to any development of A Local Wildlife Site has been No change and Rutland the Holwell Iron Works at Asfordby Hill designated at Asfordby Hill Wildlife Trust as it is a Local Wildlife Site. It is one of and has previously been the the best Local Wildlife Sites in the subject of consultation with whole of Leicestershire. It contains the Leicestershire Wildlife populations of rare invertebrates and Trust. The site is offered plants such as the Dingy and Grizzled special protection by Skippers, Deptford Pink and Yellow Neighbourhood Plan Policy Wort. A7. The need to protect its biodiversity importance is also recognised by criterion E of Policy A27. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Bilfinger GVA A27 Policy A26 (Holwell Business Park) The Parish Council has been on behalf of seeks the redevelopment of land to working with Pegasus Group, Jelson Ltd the south of Holwell Works for mixed on behalf of Rotherhill use development comprising B1, B2 Developments, to secure a and B8 uses along with no more than mixed-use development at 100 dwellings. The residential element the Holwell Business Park site. is considered to be enabling The Holwell Works site should development i.e. necessary to make be retained partly for a scheme viable. We note that the employment purposes, but site is contaminated and that should also include housing previous proposals for the site have and improved community failed to happen. We do have facilities as set out in a Draft significant concerns about both the Masterplan. This Masterplan principle of residential development has been developed in this location and the way that the following extensive Neighbourhood Plan seeks to control consultation with the Parish its delivery. In general terms Asfordby Council and the local Hill is not considered to be a community. We agree the sustainable location for significant provision of such a new residential development. The general store would be settlement has very limited services critical to sustainability and and facilities. The Neighbourhood this is a requirement of Plan acknowledges this and the draft criterion B of Policy A26. We policy seeks to improve the also agree that it is essential sustainability of the settlement by that any residential requiring provision of a general store, development is brought community meeting place and play forward only as a necessary space. part of a comprehensive Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Whilst that might be a laudable aim, scheme including we are concerned that the employment related requirement for such elements of development. This is the additional facilities might render any purpose of criterion C of residential scheme (and indeed any Policy A26. The landowner overall mixed use scheme) unviable. has expressed an intention to It is also unclear whether there is sell the site for development. market interest in the provision of a There is a reasonable general store in Asfordby Hill. As the prospect that the site will be provision of such a store would be developed within the plan critical to sustainability it is essential period. that the delivery of a store can be demonstrated before any permission is granted for residential dwellings. It is also essential that any residential development is brought forward only as a necessary part of a comprehensive scheme including employment related development. We note that Holwell Business Park is identified in the Draft Melton Local Plan Emerging Options as an existing employment site. Draft Local Plan Policy EC4 deals specifically with the site. It advises that proposals to change the use of the site to non- employment uses will not be permitted except where: • it can be demonstrated that the Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan site is no longer economically viable for employment purposes in the long term; • it would support the main use of the site for employment purposes; • the proposal is for wholesale redevelopment of the site for other uses where there are alternative employment facilities available in strategically advantageous locations. The Draft Local Plan therefore only allows re-use of employment land for residential use if specific tests can be met. The Neighbourhood Plan does not include these tests and accordingly Policy A26, as currently drafted, is not in conformity with the strategic policies of the Draft Local Plan and the basic conditions of the Localism Act have not been met in this regard. We would recommend that Policy A26 is reworded to incorporate the following pre-requisites to support residential development: • demonstration that the same tests included in draft Local Plan EC4 can be passed in respect of any non- employment development; Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan • clarification that residential development will only be supported where it forms part of a comprehensive development including 3.23 ha of Business, General Industrial and Storage and Distribution Uses; • evidence that a general store on the site is viable (including evidence of market demand); and • a phasing strategy that ensures that the general store and an element of employment uses will be delivered prior to the first housing occupations. In the light of the above, we have significant doubts about the suitability and deliverability of the Holwell site for residential development. Even if delivery could be achieved the Plan would need to incorporate significantly more safeguards to prevent the delivery solely of an isolated and unsustainable housing estate. Accordingly, the strategy in the Neighbourhood Plan should not rely on this site in order to meet the housing needs for Asfordby. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Mrs Cawthorne a27 I've lived up Asfordby Hill for 45 years We want the redevelopment No change and along main road between of the site for employment entrance to Holwell Works. Houses, uses to go ahead so that it bungalows for older people to view can provide job opportunities over Melton is so lovely. I had all that for local people. We until they built opposite me so I can’t recognise that new housing see Melton now. There is also plenty development may be of room. But a big thing is a bust stop required to enable this to is needed as older people cannot happen, but if there is to be a walk to Main Road. It really should be significant amount of new a lovely housing estate. Houses are housing development, needed- rental houses also, and view additional services and over the place where they test trains facilities are required to is just an eyesore. Other than that, enhance the sustainability of football pitch and Holwell Bowls Club Asfordby Hill. The Community is OK- leave them alone where it is. has identified, for special No parking on roadside on bingo protection, green spaces of nights and football home games. particular local significance. There will be a dreadful pile-up, yet Local Green Spaces play park is lovely where it is. This big identified include the green piece of land at the back of where I square that is surrounded by am- need to sop cars coming round houses on Welby Road, South as it is really a place for people to Street, West Side and St Johns hang washing, but younger ones Road. don’t do that so it would be lovely for kiddies up here and there are lots growing up- and it is safe. Kiddies across by the school are not safe at Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan all- children need play and it would be nice. Other than that places to employ people and to train people near the cement works. there were two houses there long ago, also a bungalow near the entrance. It is an eyesore, so I really so hope people will also say the same.

S Eades & D A27 In terms of the proposal that was The concerns about the A new criterion Rose exhibited at the 'drop in session' on 2 impact of potential noise, be added to March we have no real objections pollution and disturbance are Policy A27 to but we do have a couple of noted. These are concerns for ensure that the concerns. existing residents and may development The development of a brownfield site impact on the new residents does not rather than development of more of the proposed mixed significantly green sites is a positive. development too. adversely affect The mix of industry & houses was the amenities of acceptable. The provision of a small existing and shop was a positive. new residents in However, as residents who are the area. located on the north side of Melton Road, our concerns are with the type of industries that will be allowed and the potential noise / air pollution and operating hours etc. that would result. We would also like to see a covenant in place that protects the area that Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan was shown designated as wildlife / green space so that future developments cannot take place on this area.

Mrs D A27 What you have suggested for Noted No change Summerland Asfordby Hill sounds good. As long as we get a play area on both sides of main road. And it would be nice to have a shop on the Hill again, because when I was little we had three shops on Welby road and now there are none. Miss R Patel A27 Fine- I think the site does need to be Noted No change utilised - looks ugly. Leicestershire A27 Note South Street is an un-adopted Noted No change County road Council Pegasus Group A27 The identification of the Holwell The Limits to Development will No change on behalf of Business Park site under policy A27 of be amended once Rotherhill the Pre-Submission Asfordby Parish development is completed. Developments Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission (January 2016) for mixed use development is supported. Holwell Works is a significant brownfield redevelopment opportunity for the Neighbourhood Plan area. Outline planning Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan permission was granted for the development of the site by the erection of 35,080 sq. metres of B1(c), B2 and B8 industrial, and warehouse units, on 30th June 2010. Planning permission to extend the time period for implementation was granted on 15th April 2013. The Holwell Works site should be retained partly for employment purposes, but should also include housing and improved community facilities as set out in the Draft Masterplan (dated 26th January 2016 Reference EMS.2390-001F) attached to this representation. This Masterplan has been developed following extensive consultation with the Parish Council and the local community, and will deliver the following mix of uses on the site: • Employment Development – Approximately 2.3 hectares of B1, B2 and B8 employment uses • New Retail Unit – Approximately 500 sq. metres to be located on the Welby Road frontage of the site • New Community Building located off Welby Road Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan • New Public Open Space to include equipped play provision • Up to 100 dwellings. The proposed areas of public open space relate well to the adjacent ecological area and will be accessible to local residents. These facilities will provide a natural extension to the sports field, bowling green and allotments. Surveillance over the play area and new community building will be provided by the new dwellings proposed on Parcel C. Vehicular access is proposed from Welby Road to serve both the public open space and the new community building. Pegasus attended a Consultation Event arranged by Asfordby Parish Council on 22 February 2016 to explain our proposals for the site and to discuss any concerns raised by local residents. The proposals outlined in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan for the Holwell Work site were well received, and we look forward to continuing to work positively with the local community to development our proposals for this site. It is suggested Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan that the Neighbourhood Plan should take the opportunity to amend the Limits to Development around Asfordby Hill to include the mixed use development defined by Policy A26 within the village envelope. In summary, it is considered that Holwell Works is a significant brownfield redevelopment opportunity for the Neighbourhood Plan area. The mix of uses proposed in Policy A26 provides a viable and deliverable development opportunity which will deliver the additional services and facilities which are required to enhance the sustainability of Asfordby Hill. For these reasons, Policy A27 is supported and the Holwell Works site should be allocated for a mixed use development as generally shown on the attached Master plan. Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan Melton A27 With the size and scale of this Holwell Business Park is a No change Borough proposal, reference should be made mixed use development, but Council earlier and more clearly in the will be mainly for document. At present it is rather employment uses. We have tucked away. Given it is the largest accepted that some housing single proposal in the plan it should provision will be needed to certainly be more evident and given enable the redevelopment of the appropriate discussion. At the the site for business uses to go very least the housing element should ahead. As a consequence, it be amplified in the Plans housing is appropriate for the relevant section. With regards to infrastructure policy to be located in the it should be highlighted that this 'Jobs' section of the plan. development is closer to a different Notwithstanding the housing school to that mentioned at A24. provision is referred to in Moreover, more reference to the Policy A11. In 2009, a strategic effect of the allocation on planning application road capacity and how this fits in to (09/00356/OUT) was the overall Transport Strategy may submitted by Rotherhill better alleviate an Inspectors (Asfordby) Syndicate for the concerns. development of 36,152m2 of industrial and warehouse units called Holwell Business Park. The proposed development was found to be acceptable in terms of highway and transportation. Planning permission was granted in 2010 and an Representor Policy/ Representation Response Proposed Paragraph Revisions to the etc. Asfordby Neighbourhood Plan extension of time was agreed in April 2013. Although permission has recently lapsed, the Highway authority have been consulted and have not objected to the proposal.

Leicestershire A29 Any future application for the site Noted No change County which the CHA is asked to comment Council on would have to be assessed on its own merits.