Submissions for application 25/01467/OUT 450 houses north of London Road, Great Glen

Now is the time to add your objections to the application for 450 houses between Great Glen and Leicester Grammar School. 

You can still add comments through the Harborough planning portal.

STNT has undertaken extensive research and prepared a rigorous, evidence-based objection backed by planning policy and legal points. 

We have prepared a short version objection which fits in the portal (<10,000 characters) and which you can copy and paste directly into the Harborough planning portal, or email to the planning officer. You will find both these at the bottom of this email. 

You are welcome to copy and paste our wording directly, or if you wish, edit or amend it so it’s in your own voice.

🚩TO COMMENT USE HARBOROUGH PLANNING PORTAL 

• 1) Register on the Harborough Planning Portal HERE.
• 2) Open the application HERE.
• 3) Login 
• 4) Select the 'comments' tab.
• 5) Copy and paste our objection into the comments box
  You may send it exactly as written or adapt it to reflect your own views
  6) ADD YOUR NAME at the bottom.
  7) Then click Submit
  
  

Whichever route you choose, your objection adds weight to our fully evidenced case against this proposal.

Every adult in your household is able to make an objection.

Thank you for taking a few minutes to act.

Best wishes,

Stop the New Town (STNT)

StopTheNewTown.org

Below is STNT's short submission which you can use in the Harborough planning portal, or email to the planning officer.

Dear Mr Patterson,

Re: 25/01467/OUT – Land to the North of London Road, Great Glen – Formal Objection

I object to application 25/01467/OUT (up to 450 dwellings, local centre and associated works). If any provision of the following is later found invalid or unenforceable, the remainder shall continue to apply.

I confirm full support for, and adoption of, the comprehensive StopTheNewTown.org (STNT) objection submitted separately, including the STNT Regulation 19 representation (April 2025) and the Willoughby Waterleys Residents’ Association (WWRA) evidence.

This shorter submission summarises the determinative grounds.

0. Unsound Strategic Context, Prematurity and Failure to Consider Reasonable Alternatives

0.1 A46 Expressway Cancelled – Obsolete Strategic Context

STNT’s Reg 19 submission shows Harborough District Council’s (HDC) spatial strategy is still based on the now-defunct Strategic Growth Plan (SGP, 2018) and its assumed A46 Expressway. As set out in section 3.2 of STNT’s Reg 19 submisssion:

• the A46 was central to the SGP strategy;
• Midlands Connect abandoned the Expressway in 2020;
• HDC still distributes growth into this unserved corridor with no replacement strategic transport solution.

STNT concludes: “the rationale for focusing large-scale growth… collapses entirely… continued reliance on the obsolete SGP reflects a failure to update strategic thinking.” Schemes like 25/01467/OUT repeat the same flawed logic in piecemeal form, without infrastructure.

Under NPPF 2024 para 36(b)–(c), Local Plans must be “justified” and “effective”. STNT demonstrates HDC’s approach is neither. Approving 450 dwellings ahead of strategic correction would compound this unsoundness.

0.2 Prematurity (NPPF 2024 paras 11–12, 36)

STNT quotes LCC’s March 2025 response and South Leicestershire JTE Stage 1. LCC found the Plan:

• “fails to provide a coherent policy basis” for necessary transport interventions;
• depends on Strategic Road Network improvements the LTA has “no confidence” will occur;
• has no coherent or lawful mechanism for required contributions.

At Cabinet on 18 March 2025, LCC described HDC’s proposed Local Plan as “premature” and “unsound.”No adopted, robust spatial strategy exists to justify major growth at Great Glen.

Granting 25/01467/OUT now would prejudge the Local Plan Examination, contrary to NPPF 2024 paras 11–12 and 36.  

0.3 Failure to Consider Alternatives

As set out in STNT Reg 19 sections 3.1–3.2:

• WWRA’s “west of Leicester” alternative was not properly examined despite better alignment with transport corridors.
• HDC applied a 16% housing buffer with no policy justification despite ~150% delivery over three years (STNT Reg 19 section 2.1), pushing growth toward unjustified, infrastructure-poor locations such as Great Glen.

Under NPPF 2024 para 36(b)–(d), the Local Plan fails the soundness tests. Approving 25/01467/OUT now would entrench an unsustainable pattern before the Inspector concludes the Examination.

Refusal on grounds of prematurity, unjustified location and unsound context is fully consistent with NPPF 2024 paras 11–12, 36.

1. Conflict with the Development Plan – Great Glen Neighbourhood Plan (GGNP)

The GGNP Review (2020) defines a settlement boundary (GG2) and protects ridge-and-furrow, landscape setting, important views and separation (GG13, GG17, GG18, GG19). The site lies outside this boundary and is not allocated. This is a direct conflict.

NPPF 2024 confirms:

• Para 11: decisions must follow the development plan unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.
• Para 12: presumption does not change the primacy of the development plan; permission should not usually be granted for proposals conflicting with an up-to-date plan.
• Para 14: identifies NP protection tests.

The Planning Statement acknowledges conflict with GGNP and the settlement boundary and relies on housing land supply arguments instead of plan-led allocation.

Under s.38(6) PCPA 2004, conflict with GGNP carries determinative weight.

2. Highways, Transport and Car-Dependent Location

The Transport Assessment (TA) confirms:

• PRTM/VISSIM traffic modelling not yet provided;
• queues at Leicester Grammar School and on the A6 are severe;
• no funded mitigation for the London Road/A6 corridor or Bridgewater Drive;
• Public Right of Way (PRoW) C20/C103 lack all-weather surfacing and safe crossings.

Under NPPF 2024 paras 115–116:

• safe and suitable access must be demonstrated;
• development should be refused where cumulative impacts are severe.

STNT’s Reg 19 evidence shows A6 corridor stress and the “haloing effect”. LCC states the Plan is unsound on transport. TA trip rates rely on TRICS averages rather than higher local car ownership typical of Great Glen. Without validated PRTM/VISSIM, residual impacts cannot be confirmed as non-severe. Refusal is consistent with NPPF 115–116.

3. Flood Risk and Drainage

The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) proposes attenuation and discharge to sewers and an ordinary watercourse. Key NPPF requirements:

• Para 181 – flood risk must not be increased elsewhere.
• Para 182 – major schemes must provide SuDS appropriate to topography and geology, with lifetime maintenance.

The FRA has no infiltration proof, does not yet demonstrate greenfield rates/volumes, and proposes discharges that may increase downstream risk. Great Glen suffered major flooding in 2023–2025.

Loss of ridge-and-furrow removes micro-attenuation. HDC’s SFRA Appendix E reinforces cumulative risk concerns. Without full infiltration testing, exceedance routing and maintenance, the scheme fails NPPF 181–182.

4. PRoW, Active Travel England and Car-Dependence

LCC requires PRoWs C20, C103, C104 to be upgraded to all-weather standard. Active Travel England identifies serious issues.

Under NPPF 115(a)–(b), safe and suitable access must be shown. No fully costed or secured PRoW upgrades exist; gradients, unsurfaced routes and unsafe road interfaces remain. This creates a car-dependent estate contrary to Chapter 9.

5. Biodiversity Net Gain and Ridge-and-Furrow Loss

The EIA and BNG Assessment confirm:

• medieval ridge-and-furrow across the site;
• net loss of on-site habitat units and reliance on off-site credits.

The HIA recognises ridge-and-furrow as a non-designated heritage asset under NPPF 2024 para 208. Loss conflicts with GG13 and breaches the mitigation hierarchy.

5.1 Omission of Historic England from Statutory Consultation

Historic England flagged archaeological sensitivity at EIA Scoping, yet was not consulted for 25/01467/OUT despite confirmed ridge-and-furrow. This omission leaves the NPPF 207/216 heritage assessment incomplete and weighs against permission.

6. Heritage and Landscape

The HIA accepts harm to historic landscape and views. GGNP (GG18, GG19) identifies this ridgeline as sensitive. Under NPPF 2024 para 216, any harm to heritage assets weighs materially against permission.

7. Healthcare and Infrastructure

The ICB:

• calculates 1,089 residents, ~37 hours clinic time;
• seeks £435,600 S106;
• directs funding mainly to Oadby/Fleckney, not Great Glen, increasing car-based trips.

HDC also identifies significant waste, education and open-space burdens with no integrated Infrastructure Delivery Plan. This mirrors Reg 19 findings of an ineffective strategy.

8. Davidsons Public Exhibition and Consultation Quality

The 1 July 2025 exhibition was promotional, omitted key harms and alternatives, and failed NPPF 134’s test of effective community engagement. Very limited weight can be given to the SCI and full weight remain with GG NP and substantive evidence of harm.

9. NPPF 2024, Tilted Balance and Weight to GGNP

Relevant NPPF 2024 paragraphs:

• 11(d): presumption tests;
• 12: primacy of the development plan;
• 14: NP protection test;
• 232: older NP policies are not automatically out-of-date; weight depends on consistency with the Framework.

The GGNP Review (2020) is consistent with NPPF 2024. Even if presumption applied, para 11(d)(ii) requires refusal where adverse impacts “significantly and demonstrably outweigh” benefits.

Those harms include:

• conflict with GG2, GG13, GG18, GG19;
• potentially severe cumulative highway impacts (NPPF 115–116);
• flood-risk failure (NPPF 181–182);
• loss of ridge-and-furrow (NPPF Chapter 16);
• off-site BNG reliance;
• a location shaped by an obsolete, premature and unsound strategy (NPPF 36–37).

Omitting Historic England despite clear archaeological interest leaves the heritage evidence incomplete and prevents lawful use of the tilted balance.

The July 2025 exhibition was selective and promotional, failing NPPF 134’s test of effective engagement; the SCI carries very limited weight.

10. Conclusion

For the reasons above, and in full support of the detailed STNT objection, I request refusal of 25/01467/OUT because it:

• Conflicts with the GGNP (GG2, GG13, GG18, GG19) and relevant Local Plan policies (NPPF 11–12, 232).
• Would cause severe residual cumulative highway impacts (NPPF 115–116).
• Fails to demonstrate downstream flood risk will not increase (NPPF 181–182).
• Causes unjustified heritage and landscape harm, including loss of ridge-and-furrow (NPPF Chapter 16).
• Fails to provide a robust strategy for BNG and wider infrastructure.
• Arises from, and would entrench, an unsound, obsolete and incomplete spatial strategy (NPPF 36–37).
• Heritage evidence is incomplete because Historic England was not consulted at application stage, preventing lawful application of the tilted balance.
• The SCI lacks weight: the July 2025 exhibition failed NPPF 134's test of effective community engagement and did not reflect GGNP aspirations.

Permission should therefore be REFUSED in accordance with s.38(6) PCPA 2004 and NPPF 2024.

Yours sincerely,

[YOUR Name]

[YOUR email address]

[YOUR full postal address]

For your information, you can read STNT's full submission HERE.