27/05/2008

I have concerns that the project would so concentrate resources on the building of the eco-town that it would starve Leicester of its own plans for regeneration.

There would be such an expansion in population that there would be insufficient hospital and schooling available leading to a need for further building of these to cope. This again would inevitably lead to diversion of resources away from services in central Leicester.

Also there is a risk of there being an over saturation of the local workforce with unemployment on an enormous scale.

22/06/2008

If the Pennbury Ecotown is to go ahead, it should only be on the basis that a new link road is constructed from the A6 at Stretton to connect up with the M1 south of Countesthorpe. The Ring Road is already at full capacity and could not accommodate

the extra 5,000 cars per day that would travel from the Ecotown to the principal work opportunities at Grove Park, Meridian Park, Carlton Park, retail facilities at Fosse Park and junction 21 for connections to elsewhere.

24/06/2008

 

The village downstream of the development (Great Glen) and the fields at Wistow are already prone to flooding during prolonged periods of heavy rainfall. Any further development in the proposed area would exacerbate the flooding problem for homes and other commercial properties.

 

 

 

 

Impossible Location - The proposed eco town is located in an area served by small, winding country lanes with no rail link or tram service.

The nearest railway line to Pennbury is over 3 miles away at the former Great Glen railway station, which was closed to passengers in 1951.  There is no facility for trains to stop at a newly built station, as there is limited track capacity with single track each way.  Travelling to Leicester or Market Harborough would only add to congestion.

 

There has been talk of reintroducing a Tram Network to Leicester for many years but this has never been progressed, as the roads in Leicester are too small to facilitate Trams. The construction cost of £500 million makes it prohibitive.

 

The Leicestershire Golf Course and existing housing prevents an easy link from the eco town to the city centre.  The only ways of linking Pennbury to Leicester would be to build a link road from the eco town to the existing A6 at Glen Rise or build a link road from the eco town to the A47.  I understand that the CO-OP has already dropped this proposal, which enabled the application to progress through to this stage.

 

Inevitably there will be a heavy reliance on car usage as without state of the art transport and links Pennbury will not be any different to the failed ‘Proto eco town’ of Cambourne in Cambridgeshire.   

 

 

There are many new and existing properties in Leicester and Leicestershire that are empty and unsold.  This is because there is no shortage of housing in the area.  A building project in nearby Kibworth has been abandoned and the land has been put up for sale, as the developers, Barrett Housing, cannot find any buyers for the homes they have already built.  In the current economic climate it is unlikely that there will be 15,000 potential homebuyers for Pennbury.  Financing the building of the infrastructure is solely reliant on the CO-OP selling all of the houses to fund schools and hospitals etc.  It is a massive risk to build on such a large scale.  The County Council estimate that £1 Billion per annum would be required for services to support the eco town.  Council Tax alone would be insufficient to cover this cost.

 

There are deprived areas in Glasgow, Manchester and Liverpool who do need affordable and sustainable housing, enhanced skills and job creation, improved health and educational facilities.  I notice that none of the short listed sites are in deprived areas.  Southeast Leicestershire does not have a high unemployment rate. There are sufficient schools and hospitals.

 

A key indicator in deciding whether the eco town will be a success or not is if the local population give their backing and support.  The idea of an eco town is very popular in Bordon-Whitehill, Hampshire.  However, this is not the case for Pennbury. 

25/06/2008

This is clearly nightmare proposition for Leicester. With no current transport infrastructure and the prospect of losing valuable greenfield land, how can this be called an "eco" town.  Clearly it’s being proposed here only because the Co-op sees this land as convertible to more profitable uses.  I've read all the arguments and I remain strongly against this proposal.

02/07/2008

The main thrust of the Eco-towns policy was, commendably to: -

(a)provide additional housing and

(b)be a pathfinder for sustainable development.

It now seems that Eco-towns will count towards existing housing allocations (so will not result in any more being built) and will not have to be constructed to anything beyond the present legal minimum eco-standard (code 3). In that event, they will not serve the purpose for which they were intended. Given the risk to the regeneration of Leicester - critical in terms both of quality of life and employment prospects - Eco-towns generally, and Pennbury in particular, should be scrapped.

28/07/2008

Comments on tests

 

Test 1 I agree that we should be looking at housing but how does this help the City's housing when it is outside of the city boundary?

 

Test 2 I think this is the key point and feel that any eco town should be situated on a railway line.  Any buses, would only add to road usage, although I appreciate this is better than car use.

However I maintain my point that this is the wrong location due to not being on a railway line.

 

Test 4 Any jobs created should ideally be near the Eco-town to cut down the need for transport to jobs within the city.

 

Test 5 This is also key as there is no point building what would be effectively a large "estate" if no facilities are built- schools, doctors, community buildings and shops will be needed to make it truly "eco".

30/07/2008

I am appalled that the City Council has not included a test on the impact on the City's children, i.e. education in its tests. To have left this out shows gross incompetence, and betrays the importance certain senior politicians put on real investment future generations.

01/08/2008

I feel so strongly against the proposed Pennbury eco town I hardly know where to begin.  My main concern is that the town would further eat into the English countryside and serve death sentences on our already dwindling local wildlife.

The town would inevitably grow far beyond the enormous area it is already proposed to cover. It would add a further burden to the road network as residents who are seeking work will travel into Leicester and surrounding areas.

05/08/2008

At a time when the housing market is shutting down it is a prime example of how remarkably out of touch Central Government is that it treats housing like some sort of Stalinist 5 year plan tractor production figure.

Only in this way would such a large concentration of building be proposed. This shouldn't be called Pennbury, but Flintograd.

18/08/2008

Test 1.

The Co-op's proposals are far off the mark of addressing the housing shortage in the city and general area.  To address this ecologically it makes more sense to invest in regeneration of all the empty housing and buildings already on brown field sites with infrastructure in existence. This would place people within easy reach of jobs, bus and train services and shopping.

 

Test 2.

The Co-op's proposals in no way will address the transport problems in the A6/A47 corridor.  If the tram system were ever to go ahead (a crazy idea anyway - just take a look at it's proposed route) what will happen in the intervening years. Total misery and not ecological at all.

 

Test 3.

Yes it should, but how can it be. How many years will it take to claw back the ecological damage that the building of this vast town will cause. Think of the lorries and heavy machinery, the vast expanse of concrete, the damage to the environment, the increased risk of flooding, the noise, the pollution. All this for category C!!!

 

Test 4.

Pennbury will not complement the ongoing regeneration of Leicester. How can it when all resources will be focused out of town. The Co-op are in it for financial gain only, to sell off their farmland and have absolutely no interest in regeneration. If that was their agenda and they were so bothered by being eco then all their resources would be towards the regeneration of existing brownfield sites that we have in abundance in Leicester.

 

Test 5.

Regarding social and community infrastructure - which will come first? Will all the houses be built before the social and community infrastructure? If so where do 30,000++ people go in the intervening years?

 

Leicester City Council you have to think beyond the boundaries in this instance.  The idea of Pennbury is an ideological one.  It all sounds wonderful but the impact it will have on Leicester itself is beyond imagination. Leicester will end up as the hole in the doughnut. Regeneration of the City will stop as all resources will have to be fed into this new town.  I am sure that the Co-op, once they have their money, will not provide the ongoing services (refuse collection, road maintance etc etc etc) that a new town will need. Whose budget will all that come out of? Yours and mine!

 

I am strongly against Pennbury.  It is not needed or wanted on this site.

19/08/2008

I need to be convinced that we really need to eat into our precious countryside to build a so-called ecotown.  Even building it will add to our carbon footprint.  There are so many brown land sites in the city already where factories have been demolished and are just wasteland.  There are two already in my area. Couldn't eco properties build on such sites?  Just a few reasons why I think this project should not go ahead: Building into the countryside will endanger our wildlife; potentially cause flooding by increasing hard surface thus not allowing water to drain;   more people will be driving around for jobs/schools etc. 

So much better to build in already built up areas where jobs and other housing already exists.  I really hope Leicester/Harborough don't buy into this foolish project. 

19/08/2008

One thing is clear from the Co-operative Group's eco-town website, particularly from the preferred 31 July Assessment Spatial Option: Compact 50   (ie. housing density of 50 per hectare), a lot of new roads will be needed to service the "eco-town." This inevitably will mean more traffic congestion in Leicester. The air quality is already very poor in the city - that is why the hospitals run an asthma research unit.  The "eco-town" will only make things worse. So, all-in-all, the Pennbury "eco-town" represents an immense risk for both Leicester and Leicestershire.  It is absurd to concrete over an attractive and productive area of the County, which provides immediate access to open countryside for tens of thousands of people in East Leicester, and neglect the vast swathes of the City that urgently need regeneration - including, of course, its housing.