DOCSLIB.ORG

Core Strategy Further Consultation October 2008

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Core Strategy Further Consultation October 2008 APPENDIX C - SUMMARY OF REPRESENTATIONS Core Strategy Further Consultation October 2008 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 12 respondents: 12 comment, 0 support, 0 object A number of respondents made general comments about the consultation document as a whole. These comments are summarised below: Whilst climate change issues are implicit throughout the Plan, the approach to climate change needs to be spelt out more explicitly early on in the document, showing how the strategic aims are going to be delivered. It is important to provide a checklist of measures so that the effectiveness of the plan can be monitored and evaluated. The decline in fossil fuels will require us to build up local sources of energy, local food production, and a resilient localised element to the economy. The approach set out in the Sustainable Community Strategy, that we must create local initiatives to "develop resilience to the challenges of high fuel and food costs", should be in the Core Strategy. Leicestershire Food Links Ltd manages several farmers markets in Leicestershire, including the original pilot in Charnwood. References to the increased provision of local food should be considered for inclusion. There are three main benefits in encouraging local food production and retail within the Borough over the coming decade: its beneficial impact on climate change and food security, its ability to build healthier communities, and its ability to improve local economic growth. In the Charnwood Sustainable Community Strategy some consideration of local food issues has been included but as yet a target has not been set in Local Area Agreement 2. The lack of reference to peak oil is a serious omission. Reference to places of worship is missing from the consultation document. Faith and faith-led activities are recognised as important ingredients in a cohesive society, and essential to the physical, social, and moral well being of a community. Reference is made to the current deficiencies in facilities. We would like paragraph 4.136 to describe “social and community facilities including places of worship”. The website is difficult to use, and I was frustrated in my attempt to make more detailed representations. The documents are not clear or easily accessible. The document has insufficient detail to allow communities to assess the impact of the strategy properly. It is considered the Core Strategy would not pass the test of soundness in Planning Policy Statement 12 as alternatives have not been adequately covered, the strategy is not proven to be deliverable or sufficiently flexible and monitoring arrangements are not set out. This is a proposal and not a consultation. The claim that the preferred sites are dictated by the Regional Plan is suspect as they are in conflict with national policy on using brownfield sites and the stated opposition of the highway authority. Data is very limited and either not available or being withheld. The plan fails to recognise developments beyond the Borough boundary and that some of these will have a growing influence on the economy and wellbeing of Loughborough and adjoining settlements. The Core Strategy should refer explicitly to employment creation at the airport, and aim to deliver commensurate highway and public transport infrastructure in the appropriate Sustainable Urban Extensions. 1 Core Strategy Further Consultation October 2008: Summary Of Representations The proposals for a development west of Loughborough are opposed (see Question 4.10 for detailed comments). The public meeting held at Hathern did not have sufficient detail or substance to allow residents to comment from an informed position. The council has been led by government policy and has not taken account of local people’s concerns or the views of local interest groups such as the Chamber of Commerce. Development should not be approved until the supporting district strategy is corrected and enhanced. The ideal option is to redevelop the inner areas of Loughborough and Leicester rather than plan growth on green field sites. The proposals for growth will result in madness and traffic everywhere. The whole of Charnwood will become one large housing estate and will be polluted. 2 Core Strategy Further Consultation October 2008: Summary Of Representations CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 16 respondents: 5 comment, 3 support, 8 object There was overall support for the need for a Core Strategy to be produced for Charnwood. A summary of comments made on the Introductory Chapter to the document are set out below: The ongoing discussions with the promoters of the sustainable urban extensions is generally supported and seen as an essential part of the emerging process. The evidence based studies do not include the previous work undertaken by Leicestershire County Council on the transport implications of various Sustainable Urban Extension’s. It is considered that this is a critical failing of the Further Consultation Paper and has serious implications for the soundness of the Core Strategy. It is considered that much of this work is still relevant and should be included in the document list. The Council needs to work with the County Council to agree a sustainable transport strategy to support the further growth of Loughborough. The Barkby Thorpe Road area residents stated that they were not invited to official meetings. Some felt that a meeting should have been held in Barkby and Barkby Thorpe because of the potential location of the Sustainable Urban Extension. There is some concern that the process so far has not been thorough enough and that the shortness of the consultation period is not acceptable. There is some positive feedback about the meetings but it was suggested that more warning should be given of the meetings in the future. It is considered that people without online access would not be able to make their views known and it was suggested that the Council is trying to limit responses. The consultation document is felt to be too lengthy. The need to ensure alignment with other emerging statutory planning documents in the Principal Urban Area of Leicester is highlighted. Concern is raised that decisions will be made irrespective of the views of consultees, no matter how opposed they are. 3 Core Strategy Further Consultation October 2008: Summary Of Representations CHAPTER 2: CONTEXT Section: Spatial Portrait for Charnwood 8 respondents: 6 comment, 1 support, 1 object Respondents highlighted a range of issues that they felt should have been included in the spatial portrait of the borough. A summary of the respondents is set out below: Leicestershire Promotions consider that the spatial portrait should promote Loughborough University’s further development as a sporting cluster. The serious economic and social challenges currently faced by Shepshed do not come through strongly enough, there is a need for a Regeneration Strategy and Action Plan. Little is made of the important routeway that exists along the original Great Central Railway corridor from north of Leicester to the south of Nottingham. It should be clearly recognised that many rural towns and villages have lost their traditional manufacturing bases replaced by housing creating dormitory towns with the challenges for future survival of employment, services and community activities. The spatial portrait should use ward names for places in Loughborough. There is confusion over whether the areas referred to are geographical locations or forum areas. The latter are not well known and have a number of anomalies (e.g. south Loughborough is in the east forum and parts are often regarded as west Loughborough). Strictly speaking, only part of Charnwood Forest forms part of the National Forest. There are discrepancies between the numbers of designated historic assets and the Heritage Counts East Midlands data report for 2008, which lists that there are 776 listed buildings (by entry) in the Borough. This could include a greater number of individual buildings, and should therefore be clarified. The County Historic Landscape Characterisation should be utilised to provide an overview of the survival of historic landscapes. There are four historic parks and gardens, including part of Whatton House. Leicestershire Constabulary suggest that the portrait should include basic details on crime and fear of crime statistics for the area, as recommended in ‘Policies for Spatial Plans’ (POS, 2005). This is an important opportunity to refer to both positive and negative aspects of crime and fear of crime. A very helpful indicator would be the number of developments achieving the Secured By Design award. Where the portrait reveals specific ‘issues’ it is important to identify ‘drivers of change’ to redress issues. The National Forest Company is pleased that the National Forest features in the portrait but its national significance should be more strongly reflected. It affects a significant part of the Borough and is a major delivery mechanism to achieve expansion and management of woodland cover; habitat connectivity; new recreation, access and tourism; rural economic development; renewable energy; creation of green infrastructure; new Forest ‘gateways’ to Charnwood and Loughborough’s Science Park and Garendon Park proposals and the Council’s interest in a Visitor Centre. The sum of all these parts needs to be reflected more strongly in one statement in the document, and then reflected in specific policy areas to more fully reflect the Regional Plan. Lafarge Aggregates Ltd operate Mountsorrel Quarry, which has been operating commercially since the 1800s and is the largest granite quarry in Europe, generating approximately 5 million tonnes of construction aggregate per year. Aggregate and asphalt from Mountsorrel is used in both national and local projects. Whilst the portrait 4 Core Strategy Further Consultation October 2008: Summary Of Representations is not disputed, it is considered that reference should be made to the contribution and importance of the minerals industry to the area, for mineral supply and employment. The identification of pockets of deprivation in Charnwood, particularly to the east of Loughborough is supported.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Railfuture Response to National Infrastructure
    RAILFUTURE RESPONSE TO NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE COMMISSION RAIL NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE MIDLANDS AND THE NORTH – CALL FOR EVIDENCE FOLLOWING INTERIM REPORT Contribution from Railfuture East Midlands Branch – August 2020 National Infrastructure Commission | Rail Needs Assessment for the Midlands and the North - Interim report https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/RNA-Interim-Report-Final.pdf Introduction: The Railfuture response dated 29th May 2020 to the first round of this consultation https://www.railfuture.org.uk/display2324 placed considerable emphasis on freight. In contributing to the August call for evidence, we in East Midlands Branch: Re-submit our May 2020 Rf EM Branch submission for previous NIC RNA call for evidence. This is on pp6-15 below in red text with a few subsequent additions in blue. Attempt to answer the NIC’s broad questions Q1 to Q4 below. References are to the pages and tables in the NIC’s Interim Report (see header.) Prepared by: Steve Jones, Branch Secretary, Railfuture East Midlands Branch [email protected] including contributions from members of EM Branch. Question 1: Please provide specific sources for evidence that the Commission could use in estimating costs and the impact of proposals on journey time and capacity. For schemes already proposed other than by Railfuture, such as those listed on p36, much information is already available from Network Rail, SNTBs (TfN, Midlands Connect), local and combined authorities, TOCs, DfT. Campaign organisations. For additional schemes put forward by Railfuture, further work would need to be done, though campaign groups such as SENRUG, SELRAP, MEMRAP and CRIL may have initial estimates for specific lines or areas.
    [Show full text]
  • Leicester Area Strategic Advice 2020
    How can growth and partners’ aspirations be accommodated in the Leicester area over the coming decades? Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020 02 Contents 01: Foreword 03 02: Executive Summary 04 03: Continuous Modular Strategic Planning 07 04: Leicester Area Strategic Context 08 05: Delivering Additional Future Services 12 06: Leicester Area Capacity 16 07: Accommodating Future Services 22 08: Recommendations and Next Steps 27 Photo credits: Front cover - lower left: Jeff Chapman Front cover - lower right: Jamie Squibbs Leicester Area Strategic Advice July 2020 03 01 Foreword The Leicester Area Strategic Advice forms part of the The report was produced collaboratively with inputs railway industry’s Long-Term Planning Process covering from key, interested organisations and considers the the medium-term and long-term planning horizon. impact of planned major programmes such as High Investment in the railway is an aid to long-term Speed 2 (HS2), and the strategies and aspirations of sustainable growth for the Leicester area, supporting bodies such as Leicester City Council, the Department economic, social and environmental objectives. of Transport (DfT), Midlands Connect and the Train Network Rail has worked collaboratively with rail and Freight Operating Companies. industry stakeholders and partners to develop long- The recommendations from this report support term plans for a safe, reliable and efficient railway to Network Rail’s focus of putting passengers first by support economic growth across Britain. aiming to increase the number of direct services from This study has considered the impact of increased Leicester Station, supporting freight growth and demand for passenger services in the medium and improving performance and satisfaction with the rail long term, starting from a baseline of today’s railway, network.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail Map REOP7 15.9
    1 2 A2B Drumgelloch - Bathgate Thurso reopening in progress due Dec 2010 by the Scottish Parliament Georgemas Wick 3 GARL Glasgow Airport new rail link by the Scottish Parliament November 2002 due to open 2012 but cancelled 2009 Passenger rail Helmsdale 4 Unrecorded, refer to 63 Golspie 5 Edinburgh suburban line reopening Lairg 59 November 2002, cancelled 2009 Dornoch 6 Penicuik reopening proposal network diagram November 2002 Tain Garve 7 Borders reopening under planning Invergordon by the Scottish Parliament Dingwall 8 Blythe & Tyne and Leamside lines reopening proposal September 2002 and Feb 2008 Nairn Elgin Under construction Also Ashington & Blythe and Washington proposals by Keith ATOC Connecting Communities June 2009 Achnasheen Inverness Strathcarron Inverness Forres 9 Penrith - Keswick reopening proposal 64 Airport Huntly Plockton 10 Stanhope - Bishops Auckland Stromeferry reopening proposal or proposed November 2002 Kyle of Lochalsh Aviemore Inverurie 11 Pickering - Rillington reopening to enable through service over Yorkshire Moors railway Kingussie Dyce 12 Wensleydale Railway: Northallerton - Leaming Bar - SCOTRAIL Leyburn - Redmire Principal routes November 2002 Regional routes 13 Rippon reopening proposal Spean Aberdeen Local routes July 2004 Glenfinnan Bridge Mallaig Limited service 14 Grassington branch reopening proposal September 2002 Blair Atholl Fort William Stonehaven Under construction 15 Skipton - Colne reopening proposal Planned or proposed* September 2002 Pitlochry New station 16 York - Beverley reopening proposal
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020
    Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020 South Derbyshire Changing for the better Contents Foreword 3 Executive Summary 4 Introduction 6 Recent Events 8 Overview 11 Way Forward 15 Vision, Objectives and Ambitions 20 Acknowledgements The Economic Development team at South Derbyshire District Council would like to thank all those who have participated in the development of this Strategy. Further Information Economic Development, South Derbyshire District Council Civic Way, Swadlincote, Derbyshire, DE11 0AH, United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0) 1283 595755 Fax: +44 (0) 1283 595720 Email: [email protected] Web: www.south-derbys.gov.uk Photographs kindly supplied by featured businesses and Christopher Beech Photography, Louise Galdes Photography and Tony Summers 2 South Derbyshire Economic Development Strategy 2016 - 2020 Foreword South Derbyshire District Council’s Corporate Plan 2016-2021 sets out a Vision to make the District a better place to live, work and visit. ‘Progress’ is one of its four key themes and central to this is the continued support and development of the local economy. The South Derbyshire Economic Development Strategy will directly contribute to the achievement of the Progress objectives. These focus on economic development, inward investment, The National Forest, tourism and town centre growth. In order to further build on our significant achievements, the Council will continue to help grow and diversify our strong local economy to keep South Derbyshire well and truly open for business. This includes harnessing the potential of The National Forest. We will maximise opportunities for the future by encouraging the formation of new enterprises as well as the continued growth of existing businesses, helping to increase visitor spend, and attracting inward investment.
    [Show full text]
  • Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny
    13 ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORT OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 9 JUNE 2016 LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE Comments received from Dr. T. Eynon CC As Local Member for Coalville, I welcome the report by AECOM into the potential costs and benefits of reinstating passenger transport along the Leicester to Burton rail corridor. I especially welcome AECOM's statement that (7.4.3) "further work may be beneficial to robustly support decisions relating to the progress of the scheme. In particular, use of the updated LLITM model may generate additional demand and a detailed bottom-up costing exercise may reduce the capital costs". I am concerned at the conclusions being drawn by the County Council. Further work is needed It goes without saying that "costs would need to be met by central government through the submission of a robust business case demonstrating sound value for money in terms of transport economics and wider economic benefits." (Briefing notes #10). The Council is going beyond the evidence in the report when it attempts to persuade Members that "The study has identified that such a business case could not be produced." (Briefing notes #10). The evidence provided by AECOM does not support the County Council's advice lto members that "the County Council should undertake no further investigatory work on the proposal at this time." (Briefing notes #2b). Far from concluding that no further progress is possible, this Council should work regionally and strategically, using innovative technologies, to assess whether or not a satisfactory cost benefit ratio can be achieved. I urge members of the Environment and Transport Scrutiny Committee to examine the evidence provided by AECOM, noting the final conclusions, and draw their own conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Interim Coalville Transport Strategy (ICTS)
    Interim Coalville Transport Strategy (ICTS) September 2021 Contents 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………….. 3 1.1 What is the Coalville Transport Strategy (CTS) ? .................................................. 3 1.2 The CTS refresh ................................................................................................... 3 1.3 CTS structure ........................................................................................................ 4 1.4 COVID-19 statement ............................................................................................. 4 2. Scope of the CTS ……………………………………………………………………………. 5 2.1 The CTS geographical area .................................................................................. 5 2.2 Infrastructure scope .............................................................................................. 5 3. Challenges…………………………………………………………………………….…….. 6 3.1 Government focus on economic growth and housing ............................................ 6 3.2 Existing transport challenges ................................................................................ 6 3.3 Future growth challenges ...................................................................................... 7 3.4 Challenges associated with HS2 Phase Two ........................................................ 8 4. Previous work ……………………………………………………………………………… 9 4.1 Work done to date ................................................................................................. 9 4.2 Work to refresh
    [Show full text]
  • Comments by Max Hunt , Item 48. PDF 63 KB
    PAPER F CABINET - 8 th SEPTEMBER 2009 LEICESTER TO BURTON RAILWAY LINE Ivanhoe Line Stage II: Scheme Re-Appraisal COMMENTS FROM MAX HUNT CC ON BEHALF OF THE LABOUR GROUP Our greatest concern with this report is that it seems to have ignored the new report “Connecting Communities” from the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC), possibly because the work overlapped. That Report identified the Leicester to Burton/National Forest Rail Line (NFL) as one of 14 disused rail lines where there is a positive business case for a new passenger service. Two conflicting studies ATOC vs LCC Whilst both reports agreed on capital costs, the ATOC report, published in June of this year, took account of planned growth in the County in terms of population, housing and industrial output. Their conclusion was that the key economic indicator for the NFL, known as the benefits to costs ratio ( BCR), was 1.3. This means, of course, that one gets more back than one puts in and contrasts markedly with an older report prepared by the County Council which was initially drafted in July 2008 which claimed the BCR was only 1 (15.4) Both cannot be right, but the Train Operator’s report is more up to date. It may also be argued that they know more about the economics of running a railway that County Councillors! However the case is further strengthened if one uses the formula based on Operating Costs (OPEX). ATOC also state that it is now more common to use a formulae based on operating costs only (OPEX), citing recent decisions to reopen the Ebbw Vale and Scottish Borders lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing the Public Transport Network Serving the East
    Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward December 2015 Report Sponsored by Leicestershire County Council and North West Leicestershire District Council Report Prepared by Integrated Transport Planning Ltd Stakeholders and Contributors: • Arriva Midlands North • Castle Donington Parish Council • Castle Donington Volunteer Centre • Derbyshire County Council • DHL • Donington Park • East Midlands Airport • Kinchbus • Leicestershire County Council • Marks and Spencer • Midlands Classic • North West Leicestershire District Council • Roxhill • South Derbyshire District Council • Trent Barton Developing the Public Transport Network serving the East Midlands Enterprise Gateway: The Way Forward Introduction This document provides a five-year framework for future development This framework document starts with an overview of current and of the public transport network serving the East Midlands Enterprise potential future employment opportunities in the EMEG, together Gateway (EMEG) area. It has been developed on behalf of the with other trends and developments that are likely to affect the future Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership (LLEP) East public transport network. It then presents issues and data associated Midlands Enterprise Gateway Access to Work Task and Finish (T&F) with the potential future workforce. Public transport links currently Group. The document has been developed building on consultation serving the EMEG are presented, along with various analyses that help with the T&F Group members and other key stakeholders (including to identify gaps in provision. Issues associated with filling those gaps local authorities and transport operators), as well as a review of are then discussed, including likely funding sources and constraints, current transport networks, local growth strategies, economic plans and current priorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2019
    South Derbyshire South Infrastructure Delivery Derbyshire District Plan Council Planning and Strategic Housing January 2020 Our Environment | Our People | Our Future Page Intentionally Blank South Derbyshire District Council Infrastructure Delivery Plan January 2020 Contents 1. Introduction 2. National Policy Context 3. A Spatial Portrait of South Derbyshire 4. Local Policy Context 5. Local Plan Strategic Objectives 6. Local Plan Spatial Strategy 7. Scope of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan 8. Methodology 9. Delivery Mechanism 10. Monitoring and Review Process 11. Development Strategy for South Derbyshire 12. Next Steps 13. Water and Flooding Infrastructure 14. Waste Infrastructure 15. Transport Infrastructure 16. Energy Infrastructure 17. Communications Infrastructure 18. Sport, Recreation, Open Space and Social Infrastructure 19. Health and Emergency Services Infrastructure 20. Education Infrastructure 21. Environmental Infrastructure 3 1 Introduction 1.1. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) sets out the infrastructure required to support the level of development proposed in South Derbyshire’s Adopted Local Plan (2011-2028). 1.2. Over the Plan Period (up to 2028) there will be significant levels of growth in terms of housing, retail and employment and it is essential for the Council and its partners to deliver the services necessary to achieve timely, sustainable and effective infrastructure to meet the needs of all residents in the future. 1.3. The information in this document has been produced in collaboration with various infrastructure providers operating in the District, as discussed in more detail in section 8. 1.4. The 2008 Planning Act1 and subsequent Regulations define infrastructure as including roads and other transport facilities; flood defences; schools and other educational facilities; medical facilities; sporting and recreational facilities; open spaces; and affordable housing.
    [Show full text]
  • (Public Pack)Agenda Document for Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee, 09/06/2016 14:00
    Meeting: Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee Date/Time: Thursday, 9 June 2016 at 2.00 pm Location: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield Contact: Mr. B. Holihead (Tel. 0116 3056339) Email: [email protected] Membership Mr. I. E. G. Bentley CC Mr. Max Hunt CC Mr. D. C. Bill MBE CC Mr. D. Jennings CC Mr. G. A. Boulter CC Mr. A. E. Pearson CC Mr. J. G. Coxon CC Mr. L. E. Yates CC Mr. S. J. Hampson CC Please note: this meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s web site at http://www.leics.gov.uk/webcast – Notices will be on display at the meeting explaining the arrangements. AGENDA Item Report by 1. Appointment of Chairman. To note that Mr. D. Jennings CC was nominated as Chairman elect to the Environment and Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee at the Annual Meeting of the County Council held on 18 May 2016. 2. Election of Deputy Chairman. 3. Minutes of the meeting held on 7 April 2016. (Pages 5 - 10) 4. Question Time. 5. Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). 6. To advise of any other items which the Chairman has decided to take as urgent elsewhere on the agenda. Democratic Services ◦ Chief Executive’s Department ◦ Leicestershire County Council ◦ County Hall Glenfield ◦ Leicestershire ◦ LE3 8RA ◦ Tel: 0116 232 3232 ◦ Email: [email protected] www.twitter.com/leicsdemocracy www.facebook.com/leicsdemocracy www.leics.gov.uk/local_democracy 7. Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • HIGH SPEED UK RAILFREIGHT STRATEGY the UK High Speed Rail Initiative Has Been Heralded As a Major Opportunity for Railfreight
    HIGH SPEED UK RAILFREIGHT STRATEGY The UK high speed rail initiative has been heralded as a major opportunity for railfreight. The accepted wisdom, advanced in support of the HS2 proposals, is that the transfer of express passenger flows from congested existing intercity routes to new high speed lines will free up capacity which can be exploited by freight traffic, as well as local passenger traffic. HS2 Railfreight Issues However, the potential gains for railfreight are hugely compromised by HS2’s incomplete coverage, its fundamental lack of capacity and its inefficient configuration. With HS2 configured as a London-focussed ‘Y’, it can do nothing to enhance transpennine route capacity or the restricted structure gauge that greatly hinders the passage of container traffic; and it should be noted that more local initiatives such as the Northern Hub will do very little to promote cross-Manchester freight flows, with all transpennine flows compelled to pass through either Victoria or Piccadilly stations. As for capacity, with HS2’s London-West Midlands ‘stem’ only comprising 2 tracks, it cannot provide the extra train paths necessary to access all the major cities (such as Coventry, Stoke, Leicester and Derby) which are currently integral to the UK intercity network. Although HS2 plans currently show the express services to these cities reduced in frequency, and regressing to ‘regional’ status with more stops added (thereby creating the capacity for more freight traffic), a more probable outcome is that local political pressure will result in the retention of many of these express services. The likely consequence for overall network capacity is a severe ‘double negative’; the express trains will be poorly-filled due to abstraction of much of the core passenger flows onto the high speed line, and their continued operation will prevent ‘paths’ being released for freight traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7: Transport & Traffic Management
    Chapter 7: Transport & Traffic Management CHAPTER 7: TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT Introduction 7.1 The existing transport network within the plan area relies on two major communication corridors along radial routes extending out from the Leicester urban area. The Soar Valley corridor including the A6, the London-Sheffield mainline railway, and the Grand Union Canal links Leicester and Loughborough. Along the Wreake Valley corridor run sections of the A607/A46 roads and that section of the Birmingham-Peterborough railway line between Leicester and Melton Mowbray. Elsewhere a network of minor roads connect smaller villages to the main road corridors, within and outside the Borough, and to the urban areas. The Great Central Railway between Birstall and Loughborough currently fulfils a recreational role only. 7.2 The land use policies and proposals of this Plan are closely related to future transportation requirements. Over the plan period there will continue to be a need for new roads and highway improvements, but increasingly an emphasis will be placed on providing for better public transport, safer cycling and pedestrian routes. The intention is to achieve an effective transport network providing choice in the means of transport for people and goods in the plan area with the aim of reducing reliance on private cars. This will only be achievable through the careful co-ordination of transport and land use planning. Government Guidance 7.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires all plans to include land-use policies relevant to the management of traffic and also empowers local planning authorities to keep under review matters which may be expected to affect the development of their area.
    [Show full text]