CORE STRATEGY by dfsiopmhy6

VIEWS: 32 PAGES: 25

									LOUGHBOROUGH SCIENCE PARK

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RELATING TO: SECTION 6 ~ LOUGHBOROUGH SCIENCE PARK – WEST OF LOUGHBOROUGH SOUTH OF
A512

QUESTION 20: To what extent do you agree or disagree with our preferred location - West of Loughborough South of A512 – for the Loughborough Science Park?

    Respondents                                                             Summary of Comments
RN03                    Science park plan is a Greenfield site and would impact on the local area in terms of increased traffic and pollution.
J Agar
RN13                    Neutral/Not Sure
D Ayres                 South of A512, west of Loughborough is unsuitable being a greenfeld/wedge site with harm to National Forest and picturesque
                        landscape on approach to Loughborough with increased traffic flow and associated pollution. Long term need for second Science
                        park not justified given poor uptake of first site.
RN35                    Disagree Strongly
A Evans                 The proposed Science park location:

                        •   Within the National Forest, a green wedge and Charnwood Forest all acknowledged to be of high value and should be
                            protected from all further intrusion.
                        • The whole area around Snells Nook Lane is beautiful, a piece of undulating countryside guiding the eye up to the higher ground
                            to the south. It is a part of the very fabric of Charnwood Forest, and a vital part of what makes Loughborough attractive. Snells
                            Nook Lane likely to need widening. This would spoil lovely approach route to the Forest.
                        • Development will add to traffic congestion in the Forest.
                        • Presence of urban influences in this area is no justification for more development. Using past mistakes to validate future ones is
                            wrong.
                        • No more monstrosities like the British Gas building. Architecture needs to show high sensitivity to the environment.
                        • The proposals encroach too close to and threaten Nanpantan’s separate identity. The rural access via Snells Nook lane is vital
                            to the character of the village and the whole aspect of west Loughborough and should be retained.
                        • The current proposals are too big. Development should be alongside the A512 and not extend up Snells Nook Lane.
                        • Burleigh and Holywell Woods must be safeguarded with several fields width of open space all round to safeguard wildlife
                            corridors for flora and fauna in woods and fields (thrushes, meadow pipits, yellowhammers, rabbits, fieldmice and badgers).
                            Other existing tree copses should be left as they are.
                        • Having said all this would rather see some proposed development south of the A512 for a genuinely landscaped ecologically
                            good practice Science Park now rather than see area left untouched and threatened by heinous housing development 15 years
                            hence. There must be no housing in the area proposed for the Science park south of the A512.
RN41                    Disagree Strongly
J Sutton                Not used sufficiently already. Large enough area not to impact on the environment.
RN46                    Agree as this is the best location for operational Police support.
Leicestershire
Constabulary –
Architectural Liaison
Officer
RN70                    Object to development of Science Park 2:
                                                                                     1
    Respondents                                                        Summary of Comments
B Blood
                   • Development of a Greenfield sire. Lost enough countryside already;
                   • Destroy valuable wildlife habitats, the flora and fauna;
                   • Impact on roads will be horrendous. There are queues every day into Loughborough and this would exacerbate the problem;
                   • It will not be the case that people will walk or use public transport;
                   • Pollution would increase from the obvious traffic jams and M1 widening the 4 lanes;
                   • Carry out in depth surveys into brownfield sites and empty housing.
RN86               Object to development of Science Park 2 on the south side of A512 at Snells Nook. There is no credence for the argument to build
J Tassell          a science park between British Gas building and Snells Nook Lane. It does not need to be near the University. Oxford and
                   Cambridge science parks are no where near the universities but they still work.
RN87               Object to development of Science Park 2 on the south side of A512 at Snells Nook. There would be little opposition to a science
C W Tassell        park if it was kept within the present brownfield site rather than expanding into the historic area up to Snells Nook Lane
RN88               Object to development of the Science Park 2 on a Greenfield site at A512/Snells Nook. These proposals:
J Crowther
                   •   Allow Green Wedge/Greenfield sites to become a planning tool to create urban sprawl
                   •   Displace wildlife, by destroying natural habitats of animals and birds;
                   •   Cull through a historic landscape;
                   •   Loughborough already experiences heavy traffic problems on the A512 with its connection to M1. Development and the new
                       link road to this already busy road will exacerbate the problem;
                   • Carry out a survey on brownfield sites, empty homes and evaluate future traffic implications.
RN94               Disagree Strongly
L A Briers         The only place is next to the University.
RN104              Oppose Science park 2 at Snells Nook/A512:
J C Langham
                   • Another Greenfield site;
                   • Impact on National Forest and surrounding landscape
                   • Increase traffic and pollution;
                   • Better located on a brownfield site.
RN135              Site west of existing Science Park to south of A512 around Snells Nook Lane is the best option:
Grace Dieu and
Garendon Estates   • Build on activities at the present Holywell Park
                   • Take advantage of the high quality accessibility of this location;
Agent: Savills     • Landscape is suitable to provide a setting for a prestige development;
                   • Most suitable, viable and available option.
RN154              Disagree Strongly
J R Cowell         More evidence required of need for Science park.
RN179              Agree
S Bradwell         Has to be linked to University but restricted to land east of Snells Nook Lane. Otherwise unrelated development might happen to
                   utilize locational advantages.
RN242              Object to Science Park 2 as no belief that it is needed.
P Lovett           Should be making use of brown field sites.
                                                                              2
     Respondents                                                            Summary of Comments
RN335                    Neutral/Not Sure
P J Thorpe               Demand for Science park is questioned.
RN342                    • Strong questions raised about developing science park on land which is within the National Forest, forms part of the green
P Breakwell                 wedge, contains two significant areas of woodland and which has a number of sites of ecological interest.
                         • The whole area around Snells Nook Lane is part of the fabric of Charnwood Forest and vital part of what makes Loughborough
                            attractive.
                         • Would prefer to see some of the area south of A512 used for genuinely landscaped science park.
                         • Science park area is too big
                         • Science park encroaches too closely on Nanpantan
                         • Burleigh and Holywell woods should in now way be interfered with and open fields provide wildlife corridors
                         • Design of buildings must show a high degree of sensitivity.
                         • Need confirmation whether there is any intention to build houses south of A512
RN355                    Agree Strongly
J Booth                  Support for Loughborough Science Park as Shepshed is already a dormitory town.
RN374                    Disagree
J Wilson                 Loughborough Science Park will add to congestion problem, where roads are already at saturation level.
RN539                    Object to Science Park 2 proposal on a Greenfield site next to A512 and Snells Nook.
E Pentecost
RN608                    Agree
J M Neal                 Seems logical to develop Science park in location proposed because facilities already developed encouraging closer relationships
                         with new development sharing common aims.
RN621                    Disagree Strongly
Mr & Mrs T Malone        • No houses and Science Park should be built in vicinity of Nanpantan and Snells Nook Lane. Science Park should only be built
                              near Advantica site. Burleigh Wood should be extended up to properties in Nanpantan and Snells Nook Lane. Development
                              would add unacceptably to noise (from M1) in a beautiful area
                         • If development takes place west of Loughborough all existing properties should be protected by rows of trees.
RN713                    • Regional Assembly is broadly supportive of the concept of this Science Park especially given need for such developments
East Midlands Regional      identified in RSS8 para 4.2.11
Assembly                 • RSS8 regional core objectives need to be applied in balance, notably 1.6 and 1.7 to achieve effective protection of the
                            environment and increase the level of the region’s biodiversity (that there should no net loss of priority habitats and species)
                         • RSS8 Policy15 places emphasis on regeneration of deprived city centres and sub regional centres. The development proposed is
                            essentially a Greenfield site but the sequential approach is led by reuse of land. Policy 22 sets out regional priorities for
                            employment land and recognises the need to bring forward good quality sites to meet specific requirements of potential
                            investors.
                         • RSS8 Policy 27 recognises sustainable development should ensure protection, appropriate management and enhancement of the
                            region’s natural and cultural assets and their settings. Policy 28 sets priorities to enhance biodiversity. CS Para 3.8 refers to ‘ a
                            number ‘ of areas of ecological interest but does not identify locations, indicate the interest or give any indication of
                            interdependency between habitats on the site and the adjoining area.

                         EMRA’s considers an ecological assessment is needed to record habitat types and species and address the following:


                                                                                      3
    Respondents                                                                Summary of Comments
                             -   if particular species assemblages are sensitive to development, and if so, to what degree
                             -   if ecology/biodiversity studies/ surveys of the whole site and adjoining areas have been carried out (there may be
                                 interdependency with the golf course)
                             -   species interdependency between woodland and other parts of the site eg some fauna may roost in woodland but feed off
                                 grassland. Woodland edge habitat is likely to be very sensitive.
                             -   the long term robustness of site ecology with /without the proposed development and the ability of development to secure
                                 this robustness by eg facilitating long term management
                             -   landscaping to maintain and enhance the site’s biodiversity even if this is different from traditional practices.

                         EMRA would look to guidance from English Nature and also Leics & Rutland Wildlife Trust and Biodiversity Partnership. Studies/
                         evidence are needed to demonstrate diversity can be increased if development takes place.

                         • RSS8 Policy 29 seeks to increase the Region’s woodland cover; and the National Forest is a priority area to create and maintain
                           woodland. It is presumed ancient and other existing woodland will be safeguarded as the baseline from which to increase
                           woodland cover.
                         • RSS8 Policy 30 sets priorities for management and enhancement of the region’s landscape. Charnwood Forest, with only two
                           other areas, is highlighted as an area for initiatives to protect and enhance natural and heritage landscape assets.
                         • EMRA identifies clear tensions between the desire for development, the sequential approach and objectives to maintain and
                           enhance the region’s biodiversity. These issues need to be resolved on the basis of best information. Detailed ecological
                           assessments of the site plus appropriate consultations are pre-requisites to a firm opinion on conformity.
RN716                    • Current Science Park not fully utilised
Mr & Mrs B Needham       • Preferred option of 50ha of prime agricultural land encroaching on National Forest and destroying wildlife habitats
                         • The car will always be the first choice of transport – there are no bus stops on the M1
RN728                    Not sure.
R Youngs
RN729                    •    Strong objection to development encroaching into the green wedge between Loughborough, Shepshed and Hathern and to the
Protection of Wildlife        Science Park on a greenfield site.
in Charnwood             • Both proposals would greatly increase traffic on M1, A512, A6 & J23 and related pollution
                         • Both proposals would displace wildlife, destroy habitats and landscape steeped in history.
RN809                    Disagree Strongly
R Seager                 I have several fundamental objections to the scheme as proposed:
                         • Knowledge based start-ups do not generally have a large impact on unemployment locally. They bring skilled workers in, with
                              further unskilled workers attached.
                         • This will be over costly. RELPS finds that Science Parks tend to deter private sector involvement in development. I do not see
                              the benefits as being worth paying for out of our local taxes.
                         • From my information, the University is not desperate for a large number of "incubator units”.
RN811                    Disagree Strongly
C Watson                 Unconvinced that Loughborough needs a science park of this size.
RN812                    Disagree Strongly
A Millie                 Loughborough University already has ample room for growth within the university's existing 'footprint' with the acquisition of the
                         gas research site already developing as a Science Park.

                                                                                   4
   Respondents                                                              Summary of Comments
                      A huge Science Park in the Snells Nook Lane area is out of keeping with the Charnwood/ National Forest designation. The existing
                      road is already congested. Alleviating this by widening or blocking off will have a negative impact on the area. The Snells Nook area
                      could be designated green wedge and used for amenity linking to wider Forest.
RN824                 Agree
National Trust        DCP20 – strongly supported.
RN893                 Agree Strongly
F W Howgate           Endorse locating the Science Park next to the University so it can prosper.

                      Wymeswold airfield option is clearly unsustainable from many aspects. Traffic problems in the Wolds villages. Continuing need to
                      address the issue from an overall east/west traffic flow perspective.
RN902                 Agree
J & L Blyth           If there is a need for a science park, it would be best situated by the motorway to keep the town clear of extra traffic.
RN913                 • Support for the Science Park forming part of the proposed western expansion of Loughborough.
William Davis         • Support the location south of the A512
                      • Support for the physical extent of the Science Park
                      • Reservations about efficient use of land in its prescription for not more than 20% built coverage, and its target for 50%
                           landscape and ecology, which will impact on the schemes viability.
                      • The inefficient use of land in Science Park would be contrary to Draft Core Policy 6 of the Core Strategy Preferred Options
RN917                 Support the idea of a Science Park near to the university.
Mr & Mrs Westwood
RN1297                A Science Park should be based near Loughborough University.
Juliette Ridewood
RN1347                Support the development of a new Science Park to attract new high tech industries that have a firm future and good working
Charnwood Liberal     conditions for local people. Support the preferred location but wish to ensure that the development is as environmentally friendly as
Democrat Councillor   possible.
Group
RN1350                Agree that using the land highlighted in Green on page 8 of the pamphlet is the best of the alternatives for a Science Park:
J Key
                      •   Being close to the M1 requires little new road infrastructure to the new coach and car parking and therefore have little impact
                          on the existing road systems from North / South and West. Those travelling from further East of the country would, I assume,
                          be directed onto the M1 North or South of Loughborough.
                      •   Originally British Gas purchased the whole farm but only built on about a third of the land. Transferral of ownership to the
                          University will make the land acquisition negotiations easier.
                      •   The wood and an area of farmland should be kept for scientific knowledge. Maintenance of this whole area could then continue
                          from the existing farm.
                      •   Take the small square area West, up to the motorway adjoining the road. This area could be used for parking and would leave
                          more space for future science park expansion in due course.
RN01 M Wortley,
RN04 D Dennis,        Object to development on Green Wedge between Shepshed, Hathern and Loughborough and to the Science Park 2 on a Greenfield
RN05 G Lee, RN62      site at A512/Snells Nook. These proposals:
Mrs Marion I Hull,    • Has little regard for the environment

                                                                                  5
    Respondents                                                             Summary of Comments
RN73 J Crofts, RN77      •   Add pollutants from M1, A512 and A6
F G Ing, RN78 J S Ing,   •   Allow Green Wedge/Greenfield sites to become a planning tool to create urban sprawl
RN80 M A Jordan,         •   Increase traffic on M1 J23, A512 and A6 which are already the focus of heavy traffic
RN82 E A Wingfield,      •   Displace wildlife, destroy habitats
RN83 J M Spencer,        •   Rip through a historic landscape
RN84 A Spencer,
RN85 J B Collier,        Carry out a survey on brownfield sites, empty homes and evaluate future traffic implications.
RN90 M Bacon, RN92
D Jones, RN93 J
Morrow, RN102 T
Hudson, RN130 B
Burton, RN131 R
Johnson, RN132 J M
Cottam, RN133 M J
Cottam, RN134 T
Oakes, RN176 M
Barnwell, RN177 G M
Barnwell, RN188 V &
K Mason, RN192 H R
Porter, RN193 M F
Porter, RN194 G
Porter, RN195 A
Porter, RN196 M N
Porter, RN204 S
Lovett, RN205 S
Neilson-Fletcher,
RN235 E Neale,
RN236 G Neale,
RN287 N E Freestone,
RN288 R N E
Freestone, RN291 B
Cookson, RN292 H
Orton, RN295 P
Cartledge, RN364 Mr
& Mrs Berridge,
RN365 I Measures,
RN371 D Pearson,
RN383 D B Buckley,
RN498 B Wall, RN499
V Wall, RN500 H
Wall, RN657 J
Kershaw, RN658 M

                                                                                     6
    Respondents          Summary of Comments
Randle, RN663 M
Seims, RN664 S
Philpott, RN665 S
Flood, RN666 L Bailey,
RN667 L Hrynkow,
RN668 J Chalmers,
RN669 D Wortley,
RN670 S Soor, RN671
A J Breacker, RN672 P
Roberts, RN673 J
Walker, RN674 S
Holt, RN675 G R
Sutton, RN676 J
Lakhani, RN677 N
Paul, RN678 B Smits,
RN679 A Harriman,
RN680 C Goode,
RN681 S Harriman,
RN682 K Harriman,
RN683 C Harriman,
RN684 J Harriman,
RN685 J Goode,
RN686 M Goode,
RN687 S Lovett,
RN688 S Lovett,
RN689 L Lovett,
RN690 A Lovett,
RN691 A Healey,
RN692 G Fitchett,
RN693 A C Lodey,
RN694 K Fitchett,
RN695 D J Edwards,
RN696 T Preston,
RN697 E R Preston,
RN698 M A Hunt,
RN699 C P Edwards,
RN700 J Savage,
RN701 G Rowbotham,
RN702 B Macpherson,
RN703 R Shaw,
RN704 M Shaw,
RN705 M Shaw,

                             7
    Respondents        Summary of Comments
RN706 J Freeman,
RN707 M Kirk, RN708
T B Willson, RN709 D
Gray, RN710 A
Dexter, RN711 T
Bennison, RN718 R
Kershaw, RN745 S
Bryant, RN746 J
Thorpe, RN747 S
Thorpe, RN748 R C
Pinchbeck, RN749 D
A Kendall, RN750 P
Shaw, RN751 J Shaw,
RN752 C Scott,
RN753 P Harberd,
RN754 H Newton,
RN755 K Coulson,
RN756 J Whitaker,
RN757 D Miller,
RN758 P J Miller,
RN759 S Heyhoe,
RN760 J Bruce,
RN761 M P Pervin,
RN762 A D Pervin,
RN763 J K Marriott,
RN764 V Jobling,
RN765 S J Spiby,
RN766 J Couser,
RN767 N Clarke,
RN768 M Ford,
RN769 A Hubbard,
RN770 E Tzouliou,
RN771 S A Baxter,
RN772 W Flowers,
RN773 C Davie,
RN774 D Freeman,
RN775 R Campsall,
RN776 K Palmer,
RN777 R E Woolley,
RN778 J Grimley,
RN779 M Conway,
RN780 C Astrom,

                           8
    Respondents         Summary of Comments
RN781 P & D Kendall,
RN782 D Campsall,
RN783 P Hammond,
RN784 J A Anscombe,
RN785 C Woolley,
RN786 L Kendall,
RN787 V Peaty,
RN826 A Lakin,
RN827 J Blake, RN828
J R Gower, RN829 M
Green, RN830 H
Nassall, RN831 I
Forbes, RN832 L Kyle,
RN833 D E Andrews,
RN834 B Wortley,
RN835 J Godson,
RN836 B Gilliver,
RN837 S C Goult,
RN838 A H Kerry,
RN839 P Clark,
RN840 S Pams,
RN841 R Mccluskey,
RN842 M Dawson,
RN843 Y H Alanezi,
RN844 D Poyser,
RN845 C A Poyser,
RN846 J Monk,
RN847 S Cooke,
RN848 Mr & Mrs
Teague, RN849
Adams, RN850 B Day,
RN851 S Abell,
RN852 R Davie,
RN853 J Williamson,
RN854 C E Tivey,
RN855 S L Pearson,
RN856 J Lennie,
RN857 C Beale,
RN858 D Bates,
RN859 P Mould,
RN860 M Hillier,
RN861 J Morley,

                            9
     Respondents        Summary of Comments
RN862 R Wright,
RN863 T Long & E
Long, RN864 J Parry,
RN865 G Spencer,
RN866 C Wortley,
RN867 D Chesterton,
RN868 F Draper,
RN869 R Pearson,
RN870 L Oliff, RN871
C Magee, RN872 D
Lowles, RN873 D M
Lowles, RN874 A
Grimley, RN875 J
Oxbrough, RN876 J
Oxbrough, RN877 S
Pears, RN878 Mrs
Ruddle, RN879 W
Stafford, RN880 G E
Harding, RN881 M L
Savage, RN882 C
Perkins, RN883 J M
Pears, RN884 L Pears,
RN885 E Jex, RN886
R A O'Brien, RN887
G Leslie, RN888 C
Ford, RN889 C
Ruddle, RN919 M
Froggatt, RN935,
RN936 J Stevens,
RN937 P R H Mauger,
RN938 E J Y Mauger,
RN939 M J West,
RN940 D P L Mauger,
RN941 K J Mauger,
RN942 A Fox, RN943
P Henshaw, RN944 S
Barnby, RN945 J A
Green, RN946 J
Whitaker, RN947 S
Dunsmore, RN948 G
Crook, RN949 C
Dunsmore, RN950 A

                            10
     Respondents       Summary of Comments
Moon, RN951 D
Lovley, RN952 S
Hickinbottom, RN953
M J Chaplin, RN954 M
J Chamberlain, RN955
S Elliott, RN956 D
Barber, RN957 S
Hughes, RN958 B
Kelham, RN959 M
Coe, RN960 A Coley,
RN961 S Stark,
RN962 D Farmer,
RN963 D Nassau,
RN964 E Thomson,
RN965 P A Noon,
RN966 A Eames,
RN967 T Needham,
RN968 D
Hollingsworth, RN969
M Hollingsworth,
RN970 E Barsby,
RN971 J Barsby,
RN972 N Watson,
RN973 J Cooke,
RN974 R Biddles,
RN975 G Biddles,
RN976 O M Snelson,
RN977 H Townsend,
RN978 L Monk,
RN979 V Wilson,
RN980 J Neill, RN981
V Swithenbank,
RN982 J Swithenbank,
RN983 J Watret,
RN984 N Watret,
RN985 M Witherbed,
RN986 M Ward,
RN987 W Oakes,
RN988 D Oakes,
RN989 N S Kirk,
RN990 R Owen,
RN991 S Hunter,

                           11
    Respondents        Summary of Comments
RN992 C Guess,
RN993 C Tyler,
RN994 C J Goodall,
RN995 A Foster,
RN996 A Bennison,
RN998 J Pitchers,
RN999 W D Lord,
RN1000 J Lord,
RN1001 S Bettoney,
RN1002 I Payne,
RN1003 H Furnival,
RN1004 J M Lamb,
RN1005 J Fines,
RN1006 S Martin,
RN1007 H Wood,
RN1008 J Phillips,
RN1009 A Hammond,
RN1010 D I Evans,
RN1011 N Roberts,
RN1012 H D Craige,
RN1013 O Morris,
RN1014 R Hoisley,
RN1015 M J Briggs,
RN1016 R A Ward,
RN1017 K Tillier,
RN1018 A Hamilton,
RN1019 B Smith,
RN1020 E M
Milodowski, RN1021
M Kelham, RN1022 W
McDonogh, RN1023 I
Gutteridge, RN1024 T
C Willson, RN1025 A
Purdom, RN1026 J
Graham, RN1027 S
Gray, RN1028 Harry
Dalzell, RN1029 J M
Baxter, RN1030 D
Baxter, RN1031 G R
Bonam, RN1032 P
Bonam, RN1033 J
Watret, RN1034 J

                           12
     Respondents         Summary of Comments
Stock, RN1035 M
Wortley, RN1036 J M
Wale, RN1037 R
Wortley, RN1038 A
Hyatt, RN1039 L
Williams, RN1040 L
Giorgio, RN1041 M
Lelapi, RN1042 J Neal,
RN1043 P Soar,
RN1044 J Persse,
RN1045 A Carnell,
RN1046 M Herbert,
RN1047 B Jones,
RN1048 T Hickling,
RN1049 S J Barnett,
RN1050 G Peberdy,
RN1051 J Peberdy,
RN1052 J Bowley,
RN1053 R Bowley,
RN1054 T N
Waldron, RN1055 S
Waldron, RN1056 I
King, RN1057 K A
Miller, RN1058 J M
Miller, RN1059 C
Brown, RN1060 T S
Maxwell, RN1061 Mr
Willmore, RN1062 L
Hughes, RN1063 T
Sharpe, RN1064 S
Walker, RN1065 D
Eagle, RN1066 D
Kingsmill-Stocker,
RN1067 P B Ennis,
RN1068 M A
Woolley, RN1069 R
Jones, RN1070 J
Walker, RN1071 A
Kirkby, RN1072 Mrs
Willmore, RN1073 J H
Brown, RN1074 K
Brown, RN1075 H

                             13
     Respondents         Summary of Comments
Johnson, RN1076 N l J
McHugh, RN1077 R
Hodges, RN1078 A
Blake-Hardy, RN1079
R C Peaty, RN1080 S
Wood, RN1081 L
Watret, RN1082 P M
Botham, RN1083 T
Wilford, RN1084 P
King, RN1085 A
Davies, RN1086 R
Rudin, RN1087 J Price,
RN1088 P A Davies,
RN1089 C Simms,
RN1090 I Gillard,
RN1091 W J C
Worth, RN1092 S
Fewkes, RN1093 M
Carrington, RN1094 P
A Austin, RN1095 P
Stock, RN1096 C
Gamble, RN1097 P
Gamble, RN1098 D
Harris, RN1099 J L
Harris, RN1100 S A
Bowley, RN1101 J
Bowley, RN1102 L
Savage, RN1103 J
Savage, RN1104 W D
Mott, RN1105 K Fox,
RN1106 G Fox,
RN1107 M Revill,
RN1108 T Revill,
RN1109 A Brown,
RN1110 Jo-Ann
Brown, RN1111 S L
Pell, RN1112 M B Pell,
RN1113 J M Williams,
RN1114 S Selby,
RN1115 S M Gibson,
RN1116 D Wood,
RN1117 P Wood,

                             14
    Respondents        Summary of Comments
RN1118 P M Simons,
RN1119 J M Farmer,
RN1120 N Bramley,
RN1121 A Bowley,
RN1122 A Bowley,
RN1123 M Rennocks,
RN1124 T Dakin,
RN1125 E Grimley,
RN1126 J Peck,
RN1127 R B Steeples,
RN1128 A Sharpe,
RN1129 G Stock,
RN1130 M P Stock,
RN1131 K J Liggins,
RN1132 L Kyle,
RN1133 J Griffin,
RN1134 M Smith,
RN1135 M Fantam,
RN1136 B Melbourne,
RN1137 P Bennett,
RN1138 A M
Bakewell, RN1139 A E
Bakewell, RN1140 R
Line, RN1141 E M
Sutherland, RN1142 J
M Burton, RN1143 V
Capell, RN1144 P
Gayson, RN1145 L
Grimley, RN1146 A
Bennett, RN1147 K M
Percy, RN1148 M
Rush, RN1149 P Rush,
RN1150 A Grimley,
RN1151 R Woolley,
RN1152 J L Rennocks,
RN1153 R M Lester,
RN1154 P A Lester,
RN1155 J A Lester,
RN1156 T Gartshore,
RN1157 M Gartshore,
RN1158 C W Hall,
RN1159 G Hall,

                           15
     Respondents       Summary of Comments
RN1160 P J Lester,
RN1161 J C Heal,
RN1162 A M Heal,
RN1163 K Needham,
RN1164 R Roberts,
RN1165 B Dakin,
RN1166 A Stock,
RN1167 A Hill,
RN1168 C M Bradley-
Stevenson, RN1169 C
Erasmus, RN1170 D
De Ville, RN1171 W
Saley, RN1172 J
Wortley, RN1173 S J
R Eaton, RN1174 J
Wallam, RN1175 G
Hannigan, RN1176 P
Hannigan, RN1177 M J
Schulz, RN1178 R
Schulz, RN1179 R
Law, RN1180 R
Murray, RN1181 B
Kavanagh, RN1182 G
D Woolley, RN1183 R
& W Fox, RN1184 C
Bonam, RN1185 W A
Parsons, RN1186 J
Ochalek, RN1187 F A
Gray, RN1188 R
Gorey, RN1189 J
Elliott, RN1190 A M
Adams, RN1191 G
Elliott, RN1192 R
Whitmore, RN1193 P
W Whitmore,
RN1194 D M Loole,
RN1195 M Morley,
RN1196 B Fox,
RN1197 M Fox,
RN1198 J Corbett,
RN1199 D Wright,
RN1200 P C Betts,

                           16
    Respondents        Summary of Comments
RN1201 J Bennett,
RN1202 B Thompson,
RN1203 M Partridge,
RN1204 K Partridge,
RN1205 A G
Todhunter, RN1206 K
Matthews, RN1207 A
Coupe, RN1208 M
Fox, RN1209 C A Fox,
RN1210 S Bowler,
RN1211 R Manning,
RN1212 M White,
RN1213 L Allard,
RN1214 R Allard,
RN1215 C Ducker,
RN1216 I Ducker,
RN1217 T Taylor,
RN1218 A Stock,
RN1219 T Stock,
RN1220 M Stock,
RN1221 H Merchant,
RN1222 E P Ward,
RN1223 N Ducker,
RN1224 P M Danvers,
RN1225 P A Danvers,
RN1226 S Danvers,
RN1227 A Danvers,
RN1228 I Davie,
RN1229 E Davie,
RN1230 J Guest,
RN1231 C Heffer,
RN1232 D Heffer,
RN1233 D Boddy,
RN1234 D Stock,
RN1235 K Stock,
RN1236 D Peat,
RN1237 S Clarke,
RN1238 D J Clarke,
RN1239 A Danvers,
RN1240 M M Maxwell,
RN1241 R Watret,
RN1242 J Hamill,

                           17
     Respondents         Summary of Comments
RN1243 J A Moore,
RN1244 G Hewitt,
RN1245 J Hewitt,
RN1246 K
Hollingsworth,
RN1247 L Danvers,
RN1248 G Danvers,
RN1249 R Hewitt,
RN1250 J Cave,
RN1251 D Cave,
RN1252 C J Pilkington,
RN1253 G Roberts,
RN1254 J Rose,
RN1255 R Lee,
RN1256 T Ansingh,
RN1257 E Burton,
RN1258 H C Rossell,
RN1259 B Stormont,
RN1260 W Wortley,
RN1261 D Wortley,
RN1262 N Moore,
RN1263 G Murphy,
RN1264 S Murphy,
RN1265 R Burne,
RN1266 V Allard,
RN1267 L Sands,
RN1268 E Hannigan,
RN1269 D Fallon,
RN1270 E Evans,
RN1271 D J Cowley,
RN1272 S Glover,
RN1273 N Fortnam,
RN1274 M B Wright,
RN1275 S Tolley,
RN1276 M M
Harrington, RN1277
W Ochalek, RN1278
R Jolly, RN1279 J
Ready, RN1280 T
Jarran, RN1281 Y M
Dawson, RN1282 S
Holt, RN1283 J Blood,

                             18
    Respondents                  Summary of Comments
RN1284 T Austin,
RN1285 A Mumford,
RN1286 A Despard,
RN1287 Mr & Mrs T
Rose, RN1288 L
Padgett, RN1289 A
Beasley, RN1290 D
Edgington, RN1291 R
Greenwood, RN1292
B Foukes, RN1298 L
Saunders, RN1299 H
Wright, RN1300 A H
Butler, RN1303 T
Hazeldine, RN1341 R
V Higham, RN1342 C
Higham, RN1343 M
Higham
RN16 M Hall,RN30 C      Agree.
F A Sutton, RN45 B A
Fox, RN48 J Lambert,
Rearsby Parish
Council, RN50 C
Moon, RN52 P H Ball,
RN57 F E Norburn,
RN97 A Davis, RN106
C W Askham, RN129
R Bowman, RN147 J
Heath, Thrussington
Parish Council, RN171
P A Bland, RN197 R
W Hill, RN284 A C
Wood, RN293 B J
Butler, RN324 N
Richards, RN338 R
Singh, RN339 J Noon,
CPRE Charnwood,
RN345 A B Kidger,
RN346 J R Cheshire,
RN349 A Aucott,
RN350 D Aucott,
RN351 C Sweeney,
RN352 K W Davies,

                                     19
     Respondents        Summary of Comments
Burton on the Wolds,
Cotes & Preswold
Parish Council, RN353
S J Doyle & R K
Stephenson, RN360 C
M Spencer, RN409 L
Tillen, RN438 G H
Wilson, RN461 R
Hoyland, RN465 D
Baker, RN604 E H
Sinclair Goulden,
RN605 M Flatman,
RN609 S L Batson,
RN611 P Raja, RN612
C Humphreys, RN616
H D Robinson
Sharratt, RN620 M
Smallman, Del-Rosa
Developments Ltd,
RN744 S Mitchell,
RN791 R A
Gough,Gough Planning
Services on behalf of
Revelan Group,
RN793 L McGunnigle,
RN795 J Faulks,
Normanton on Soar
Parish Council, RN796
T Stott, RN805 D F
Bodicoat, RN806 A
Kay, RN808 D M
Evans, RN810 N
Morgan, RN817 T N
Birkinshaw, RN818 A
Radley, RN820 J E
Mutton,
Loughborough College
RN890 C A Clegg,
RN898 D C Toone,
RN900 Gill, RN901 K
Canner, RN904 A
Corner, RN910 G

                            20
    Respondents                             Summary of Comments
Lees, Pegasus Planning
Group on behalf of
Leicestershire County
Council, RN911 N
Harris, Pegasus
Planning Group on
behalf of Mr J Barber,
RN912 A Kitchen,
Pegasus Planning
Group on behalf of
Radleigh Homes &
Messrs Clarke,
RN1296 J Folkes
RN06 D B Street,          Agree Strongly.
RN17 E Goodyer,
RN19 C Emmet,
RN24 J L Mitchell,
RN25 M P Parker,
RN26 D J Hourston,
RN27 A M Clarke,
RN31 G Brown, RN39
A Gardner, RN54 P J
Morrall JP, RN58 S
Myers, RN59 K R
Senior, RN128 C J
Keeling, RN142 E E
Jones, RN143 R Wym
Jones, RN146 Y W
Hannell, RN294 D
Ross, RN328 K
Appleby, RN348 S J
Tinning, RN354 C
Leafe, RN356 I
Harrison, Wanlip
Parish Meeting, RN408
E A Goodson, RN419
M Hall, RN421 A
Dalzell, RN467 L
Foster, Seagrave Parish
Council, RN474 J A
Carter, RN477 P
Moxon, RN478 C J

                                                21
     Respondents                       Summary of Comments
Blanchard, RN480 F L
Cooper, RN481 J
Thompson, RN516 Mt
West, RN542 G
Hobbs, RN543 S F
Hobbs, RN545 A
Wells, RN607 M Lear,
RN618 H Knight,
Birstall Parish Council,
RN720 J J
Sutherington, RN799
A H Olofsson, RN800
A M Ward, Mather
Jamie on behalf of
Hamilton Trustees,
RN801 F F Rawson,
Frank F Rawson on
behalf of FFR
Ultrasonics Ltd,
RN802 T Higgins,
RN815 R A Parsons,
RN823 D E Sykes,
RN896 D Patel,
RN897 D Mear,
RN905 R J N Brown,
RN908 M C Dimitrov,
RN918 T Bateman,
Pegasus Planning
Group on behalf of
Wilson Bowden &
David Wilson Homes,
RN1295 J A Shields,
RN1297 J Ridewood
RN08 N W King,             Disagree.
RN56 A W G
Ballentyne, RN521 S
James, Development
Land & Planning
Consultants Ltd on
behalf of Parkers of
Leicester & A J Paker,
RN603 R C Jones,

                                           22
    Respondents                              Summary of Comments
RN617 C D R
Sharratt, RN661 A C
Johnson, RN788 S
Bullman, RN792
Popley Family, RN794
N Browne, RN821 L
Emmitt, RN895 J C
Pearson, RN903 T H
Davies
RN14 D Liggins, RN23    Disagree Strongly.
A Rumsey, RN60 G &
P Allen, RN221 D
Howard, Friends of
Charnwood Forest,
RN337 N Porter,
RN347 M J Hagger,
RN420 A W Lacey,
RN469 J Green,
RN471 R G Guise,
RN549 P G Hipkin,
RN804 A Irving,
RN813 P Knott,
RN816 S Cuff,
Nanpantan Residents'
Network, RN894 D
Stott, RN906 R I
Porter
RN15 M Birkinshaw,      Neutral/Not Sure.
RN20 L Bates, RN28
M S Smith, RN36 M C
Dolby, RN37 N L
Sharpe, RN49 Lang,
RN166 F A E Reece,
RN275 P S Newman,
RN277 P Scott,
RN361 P A Higgins,
RN546 K Davies,
Fisher German on
behalf of Mr
Rutherford, RN547 K
Davies, Fisher German
on behalf of Mr C J

                                                 23
     Respondents         Summary of Comments
Wells, RN548 K
Davies, Fisher German
on behalf of Mr D
Johar, RN614 E
Harding, RN615 R E
Davies, St Michael of
All Angels, RN619 N
Jones, Anstey Parish
Council, RN712 C
Potts, Hepher Dixon
Ltd on behalf of
Loughborough Golf &
Hotel Development,
RN714 L Needham,
The Garendon Park
Countryside
Protection Group
Committee, RN726 W
Young, Fisher German
on behalf of Rearsby
Ltd, RN790 P
Froggatt, RN797 J
Thompson, RN798 M
Eagland, Peacock &
Smith on behalf of
Wm Morrison
Supermarkets plc,
RN803 J Wadcock,
Antony Aspbury
Associates Ltd on
behalf of GB Sanders,
GL Sanders, TD
Sanders & D Kettle,
RN814 N Booth,
RN822 F Hitchinson,
The Woodland Trust,
RN891 A Cooper & J
M Hornbuckle, RN892
A Cooper, M W
Hornbuckle & J M
Hornbuckle, RN899 F
Mitchell, Langham Park

                             24
     Respondents          Summary of Comments
Developments, RN907
R Hall, Andrew Martin
Associates on behalf of
Persimmon plc &
William Davis Ltd,
RN1293 J R Shephard,
J & J Design on behalf
of Loughborough
Gospel Hall Trust,
RN1294 R A Dickson,
Groby Parish Council




                              25

								
To top