Now is the time to add your objections to the application for 180 houses, land south of London road, Great Glen.
Objections deadline is Dec 31st for neighbours and Jan 1st for general public.
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. This references our full objections document.
🚩OPTION ONE
TO COMMENT USE HARBOROUGH PLANNING PORTAL
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,
I object to application 25/01564/OUT and support the full StopTheNewTown.org (STNT) objection, including the STNT and Willoughby Waterleys Residents’ Association (WWRA) Reg 19 representations. This submission summarises the determinative grounds.
0. Unsound Strategic Context, Prematurity & Failure to Consider Reasonable Alternatives
0.1 Obsolete Strategic Context
STNT’s Reg 19 submission (section 3.2) notes HDC’s (Harborough District Council) spatial strategy remains rooted in the Strategic Growth Plan (SGP2018) and the assumed delivery of the A46 Expressway, despite:
STNT concludes “the rationale for focusing large-scale growth in this corridor collapses entirely… continued reliance on the obsolete SGP reflects a failure to update strategic thinking.”
0.2 Prematurity
STNT’s Reg 19 submission quotes LCC’s (Leicestershire County Council) formal position that HDC’s Local Plan:
In March 2025, LCC described the Local Plan as “premature” and “unsound”. Granting permission now would prejudge the Local Plan Examination, contrary to NPPF 2024 para. 11–12 and 36.
0.3 Failure to Consider Reasonable Alternatives
As set out in STNT’s Reg 19 submission:
1. Conflict with the 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 the defined Settlement Boundary (Policy GG2) and is not allocated. The proposal directly conflicts with GG2, Settlement Boundary; GG13, Ridge and Furrow; GG17, Historic Landscape Character Area; GG19, Important Views and Skylines.
NPPF 2024 confirms Para 11: decisions must follow the development plan unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise; Para 12: the presumption does not displace the primacy of the development plan; Para 14: neighbourhood plan protection applies. Under section 38(6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, this conflict carries determinative weight.
2. Highways, Transport & Car-Dependent Location
The developer’s Transport Assessment (Oct.’25) concludes that the proposed 180 dwellings would not result in unacceptable highway impacts. However, the TA confirms that it assesses the scheme in isolation and that no cumulative assessment has been undertaken with the adjacent and contemporaneous proposal for up to 450 dwellings north of London Road, despite acknowledging that scheme is being promoted. Under NPPF 2024 para. 116, decision-makers must consider whether residual cumulative impacts would be severe. In the absence of any cumulative modelling or worst-case testing, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that impacts on the London Road/A6 corridor would not be severe.
The tilted balance cannot lawfully justify approval where a fundamental impact, here cumulative highway capacity, has not been properly assessed. Even under para. 11(d), the absence of cumulative transport evidence means the impacts cannot lawfully be found acceptable.
3. Flood Risk & Drainage
Great Glen has experienced repeated flooding in recent years.
The submitted Flood Risk Assessment (MEC, Nov ‘25) confirms the site contains areas of medium–high surface water flood risk along London Road associated with the ditch network, and states expressly that “no developments should be built in areas at medium–high risk”. Yet, the scheme relies on discharge to that same constrained ditch network, with no demonstrated downstream capacity assessment and no evidence of third-party consent.
Infiltration is assumed to be unfeasible due to impermeable geology, without testing, contrary to the SuDS hierarchy. The strategy depends entirely on attenuation basins and controlled discharge, yet provides no evidence that flood risk would not be increased elsewhere, as required by NPPF para 181. The FRA also acknowledges insufficient foul sewer capacity, with reliance on future Severn Trent upgrades outside the applicant’s control.
4. PRoW, Active Travel England & Car-Dependence
The Transport Assessment relies on existing Public Rights of Way (PRoWs) and assumed walking/cycling routes to demonstrate sustainable access to Great Glen. However, the TA does not demonstrate that these routes are safe, inclusive or usable year-round, nor does it confirm they meet modern accessibility or active travel standards. No fully costed, secured or conditioned PRoW upgrades are identified.
While active travel benefits are asserted, they are not evidenced through deliverable infrastructure, safe crossings or all-weather surfacing.
Under NPPF 2024 para. 115(a)–(b), safe and suitable access for all users must be demonstrated. In the absence of secured PRoW improvements and verified active travel provision, the development would remaincar-dependent in practice, contrary to Chapter 9 of the Framework.
5. Biodiversity Net Gain & Ridge-and-Furrow Loss
The site contains well-preserved medieval and post-medieval ridge-and-furrow earthworks, confirmed by LiDAR, geophysical survey and archaeological evaluation (‘16–‘17; reiterated in the 2025 Historic Environment Desk-Based Assessment). These features are protected by GGNP policies GG13, GG17 and GG19. A materially similar scheme was refused in 2017 (16/02081/OUT) for irreversible heritage harm. The current proposal again accepts permanent loss, relying on landscaping and off-site BNG which cannot mitigate or outweigh that harm under NPPF ‘24 para 216.
5.1 Determinative Weight of Refusal 16/02081/OUT
Planning permission for development on this same site was refused on 3 August 2017 (application 16/02081/OUT). The Council found “irreversible damage and less than substantial harm to heritage assets through loss of ridge and furrow field… The public benefits… do not outweigh this harm.” That refusal applied the statutory heritage balance now contained in NPPF ‘24 para. 208–216. No material change in circumstances has been demonstrated. The same harm therefore remains determinative. No consultation response from Historic England has been provided, despite the site’s heritage sensitivity previously found determinative in the 2017 refusal.
6. Heritage & Landscape
The applicant’s own heritage and LiDAR evidence confirms well-preserved ridge-and-furrow forming part of the historic setting of St Cuthbert’s Church.
7. Healthcare & Infrastructure
The NHS Integrated Care Board confirms the development would generate c.436 additional patients, requiring around 14 hours of GP clinic time per week, and that existing practices would be impacted. Mitigation relies solely on a £174,240 S106 contribution, with no on-site provision and no certainty of timely local delivery. The ICB confirms it receives no additional NHS capital funding and that without S106 mitigation it has “no way of funding” the required infrastructure. In the absence of a secured, deliverable healthcare solution, the proposal fails to demonstrate that essential infrastructure would be in place to support the development, contrary to NPPF ‘24 Chapter 8 and weighs materially against permission.
8. David Wilson Homes Public Exhibition & Consultation Quality
The public exhibition was promotional and did not constitute effective engagement. Under NPPF ‘24 para. 134, “early and meaningful engagement”, very limited weight can be given to the SCI.
9. NPPF 2024, Tilted Balance & Weight to GGNP
Even if HDC cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and seeks to rely on NPPF ‘24 para 11(d), the statutory duty under s.38(6) PCPA 2004 remains. Para 12 confirms the presumption does not disapply the development plan, and para 14 affords protection to up-to-date neighbourhood plans.
The GGNP Review (2020) is consistent with NPPF ‘24 and attracts full weight (para 232). The proposal conflicts with GG2, GG13, GG17 and GG19. The identified harms, heritage and ridge-and-furrow loss already found unacceptable in 2017, unresolved cumulative transport impacts (including 25/01467/OUT), reliance on an obsolete and unsound spatial strategy, flood-risk uncertainty and car-dependent form, significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, engaging para 11(d)(ii) and requiring refusal.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, planning permission for application 25/01564/OUT should be refused. The proposal conflicts with the GGNP (GG2, GG13, GG17, GG19), causes irreversible heritage harm previously found unacceptable on this same site, fails to assess cumulative transport impacts, relies on an unsafe and incomplete flood and drainage strategy, and does not demonstrate that essential healthcare and infrastructure can be delivered. These harms arise within an obsolete and unsound strategic context and would be entrenched by premature permission. Even if the tilted balance were engaged, the adverse impacts significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits.
REFUSAL is therefore required in accordance with section 38(6) PCPA 2004 and the NPPF 2024.
Regards,
[YOUR Name]
[YOUR email address]
[YOUR address]
STNT's full objection will be posted here shortly.
©Stop The New Town, All Rights Reserved.
We are not affiliated with any political party.
Privacy Policy
