1) They admit the foul sewer may not have enough spare capacity
This is one of the biggest red flags in the whole submission.
Where to find it
- Utilities Assessment – page 7
- Utilities Assessment – page 22
- Planning Statement – page 39
- Flood Risk Assessment – pages 31–32
What it says
- The nearest foul sewer is the 225mm foul gravity sewer in Frolesworth Road.
- Severn Trent says there is “little spare capacity”.
- The reports say further sewer modelling is required.
- They propose foul discharge via MH3501 in Frolesworth Road at 8.58 l/s.
Key wording
- Utilities Assessment, p.7: STW have advised there is “little spare capacity” to accept foul flows from the development and sewer modelling is required.
- Utilities Assessment, p.22: the 550 dwellings would create flows of about 8.58 l/s, and due to surcharge levels and expected extra downstream flows, additional investigation/modelling will be required.
- Planning Statement, p.39: foul water will go to MH3501 at 8.58 l/s, and STW says further modelling would have to be undertaken to ensure there are no downstream issues.
- Flood Risk Assessment, p.31–32 repeats the same point.
Why this matters
They are asking HDC to approve 550 homes before proving the sewer network can actually cope.
2) The site already drains into the Broughton Astley Brook / STW system
That matters because this ties the site into the same local drainage and sewer stress residents have been raising.
Where to find it
- Flood Risk Assessment – page 10
- Flood Risk Assessment – page 13
What it says
- Investigations show most of the site drains to the Broughton Astley Brook via sewer networks.
- A smaller part drains towards the River Soar via ditch network.
- The 225mm and 600mm surface water sewers in Frolesworth Road ultimately outfall into the Broughton Astley Brook.
- The report also says the STW system eventually outfalls into the brook.
Key wording
- FRA, p.10: the majority of the site drains to Broughton Astley Brook via sewer networks.
- FRA, p.13: the 225mm and 600mm surface water sewers in Frolesworth Road outfall into the Broughton Astley Brook.
Why this matters
This is not some isolated site. It is linked into the same receiving system the community has been worried about.
3) They acknowledge sewer surcharge concerns on Frolesworth Road
That is especially important given what residents have reported already.
Where to find it
- Flood Risk Assessment – page 18
What it says
- During intense rainfall events, residents have raised concerns about sewer surcharging and flooding along Frolesworth Road.
Why this matters
The applicant cannot pretend these are abstract concerns. Their own FRA records them.
4) Their drainage case relies on “betterment”, but that does not prove downstream safety
They say the site will discharge at a lower rate than certain existing benchmarks — but that is not the same as proving the downstream system is fine.
Where to find it
- Flood Risk Assessment – page 4
- Flood Risk Assessment – page 24
- Planning Statement – page 39
What it says
- Surface water flows are proposed to discharge at the 1 in 1 year rate.
- That rate is given as 40.9 l/s.
- They say this is an 11% betterment than QBAR.
- They also say a storage volume of about 10,304 m³ is required in attenuation features.
Why this matters
A paper “betterment” on discharge rate is not the same thing as proving the downstream ditches, culverts, sewers and brook can cope in the real world.
5) They are effectively relying on future work and future approvals
This is another major weakness.
Where to find it
- Utilities Assessment – page 24
- Flood Risk Assessment – page 31
- Planning Statement – page 39
What it says
- Further modelling still needs to be done.
- Sewer connections will still need future approvals.
- Applications under Section 106 of the Water Industry Act will be needed for the sewer connections.
Why this matters
Key infrastructure questions are still being kicked down the road.
6) Their own odour report says there could be a “slight adverse” impact from the anaerobic digester
This is a strong amenity point.
Where to find it
- Odour Assessment – page 3
- Odour Assessment – page 15
- Planning Statement – page 46
What it says
- The anaerobic digestor is proposed about 775m from the site.
- The assessment says there is potential for a “Slight Adverse” odour effect.
- It only reduces if mitigation at the digester works as hoped.
Key wording
- Odour Assessment, p.3: potential “slight adverse odour impacts” at the site.
- Odour Assessment, p.15: with low odour risk and high receptor sensitivity, there is potential for a “Slight Adverse” odour effect.
- Planning Statement, p.46 also summarises that there is potential for slight adverse odour impacts from the proposed anaerobic digestor.
Why this matters
They are proposing a large housing estate where their own report says residents may be affected by odour from a nearby industrial/agricultural facility.
7) Ecology is still not finished
This is important because ecology was already one of the biggest concerns around this site.
Where to find it
- Ecological Appraisal – page 14
- Ecological Appraisal – page 9
- Planning Statement – page 41
What it says
- Great crested newt eDNA sampling was undertaken.
- A full breeding bird survey is still to be carried out in Spring 2026 during determination.
- The Planning Statement says the full assemblage of breeding bird species cannot yet be determined.
Key wording
- Ecological Appraisal, p.14: eDNA sampling was undertaken for great crested newt.
- Ecological Appraisal, p.9: a full breeding bird survey is scheduled to begin in Spring 2026 during determination.
- Planning Statement, p.41: the full breeding bird assemblage cannot be determined yet because further survey work is still to be done.
Why this matters
HDC is being asked to determine the application while part of the ecology picture is still incomplete.
8) The ecological report itself recognises a pathway to Narborough Bog SSSI via the River Soar
That is a very important point for your wider campaign.
Where to find it
- Ecological Appraisal – page 43
What it says
- The report acknowledges a potential indirect pathway to Narborough Bog SSSI via surface water quality or quantity entering the River Soar.
Why this matters
Even though the report tries to downplay the effect, it confirms the hydrological pathway is there.
9) They admit GP practices are mostly over capacity
This is a very useful community-facing point.
Where to find it
- Health Impact Assessment – page 29
- Health Impact Assessment – page 33
What it says
- The HIA compares local GP provision against benchmark ratios.
- It concludes local GP practices are mostly over capacity.
- It says patient-to-GP ratios are above recommended levels.
Key wording
- HIA, p.33: local GP practices are “mostly over capacity” with patient-to-GP ratios exceeding recommended levels.
Why this matters
The applicant’s own health report accepts existing healthcare pressure.
10) They are proposing up to 550 homes and 40% affordable housing
This is not a small scheme.
Where to find it
- Planning Statement – page 10
- EIA Non-Technical Summary – page 10
What it says
- Up to 550 dwellings
- Around 40% affordable housing
- Land for school expansion, recreation ground expansion, cemetery expansion and community facility
Why this matters
The scale of the proposal is huge, so the infrastructure questions are not minor.
11) The site includes Best and Most Versatile agricultural land
This is another solid objection point.
Where to find it
- Agricultural Land Classification & Circumstances – page 4
- Agricultural Land Classification & Circumstances – page 6
What it says
- The site contains 15.2 ha (35%) Subgrade 3a
- 25.6 ha (59%) Subgrade 3b
- The report states the site therefore contains a minority of best and most versatile (BMV) land
Why this matters
The applicant is asking to permanently develop land that includes BMV agricultural land, even if they try to soften it by calling it a minority.
12) The geo-environmental report says soakaways are unlikely to work across most of the site
This ties in with your wider concerns about local ground conditions.
Where to find it
- Geo-Environmental Desk Study – page 15
- Geo-Environmental Desk Study – page 10
What it says
- Soakaways may only be suitable in a limited north-west corner.
- Across most of the site, due to cohesive deposits / clay-type conditions, soakaways are generally unlikely to provide a feasible drainage solution.
- The site is associated with Bosworth Clay Member and cohesive deposits in places.
Why this matters
That weakens any over-simplified suggestion that water will just soak away naturally.
13) The landscape report records a “Moderate Adverse” effect
This is useful against any claim that the scheme is visually harmless.
Where to find it
- Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment – page 26
What it says
- The change to the site/fields would produce a Moderate Adverse effect at year 1.
- The report says that remains Moderate Adverse by year 15 for the fields as a receptor.
Why this matters
Even the applicant’s own LVIA accepts real landscape harm.
14) The transport report admits some junctions are already over capacity
Very useful for objections.
Where to find it
- Transport Assessment – pages 44–45
- Transport Assessment – page 25
- Transport Assessment – page 29
What it says
- Some assessed junctions already operate over capacity in the base scenario.
- The scheme relies on a new 3-arm roundabout off Frolesworth Road as the main access.
- The report also records fatal and serious collisions at parts of the wider assessed network.
Why this matters
The starting point is not a nice empty network with loads of spare headroom.
Strongest objection points in one list
- Foul sewer capacity not proven
- Further downstream modelling still outstanding
- Site drains into the Broughton Astley Brook / STW-linked system
- Existing sewer surcharge concerns on Frolesworth Road acknowledged
- Odour report admits potential “slight adverse” effect from AD plant
- Ecology not complete at determination stage
- Local GP practices mostly over capacity
- Loss of Subgrade 3a / BMV land
- Soakaways unlikely across most of the site
- Landscape harm admitted as Moderate Adverse
- Transport network already under strain
Portal objection draft with source references built in
Objection to application 26/00480/OUT – Land off Frolesworth Road, Broughton Astley
I object to this application for the following reasons:
First, the application does not prove that the foul sewer network can safely accommodate the development. The applicant’s own Utilities Assessment states that Severn Trent’s nearest sewer is the 225mm foul gravity sewer in Frolesworth Road and that there is “little spare capacity” to accept flows from the development, with sewer modelling required (Utilities Assessment, p.7). The same report states that the 550 dwellings would create flows of around 8.58 l/s, and that due to surcharge levels and expected additional downstream flows, additional investigation/modelling will be required (Utilities Assessment, p.22). This is repeated in the Planning Statement, p.39 and Flood Risk Assessment, pp.31–32.
Second, the submitted documents confirm the site is not isolated from the existing stressed local drainage system. The Flood Risk Assessment states that the majority of the site drains to Broughton Astley Brook via sewer networks (FRA, p.10) and that the surface water sewers in Frolesworth Road ultimately outfall into the Broughton Astley Brook (FRA, p.13). The FRA also records that residents have raised concerns about sewer surcharging and flooding along Frolesworth Road during intense rainfall events (FRA, p.18).
Third, the drainage case relies heavily on theoretical “betterment” figures rather than demonstrating real downstream safety. The Flood Risk Assessment states that the proposed discharge rate is 40.9 l/s, described as the 1 in 1 year rate, and says this is an 11% betterment than QBAR (FRA, p.24; see also Planning Statement, p.39). However, reducing discharge on paper does not prove that the downstream sewer, ditch, culvert and brook network can cope in reality, especially when the applicant also says further modelling is still required.
Fourth, the applicant’s own Odour Assessment identifies potential harm from the nearby anaerobic digester at Sutton Lodge Farm. It states that the digestor is proposed to be approximately 775m from the site and that there is the potential for a “Slight Adverse” odour effect at the proposed housing site (Odour Assessment, p.3 and p.15). The Planning Statement also acknowledges the potential for slight adverse odour impacts (Planning Statement, p.46). This is a serious residential amenity concern.
Fifth, the ecology position is incomplete. The Ecological Appraisal confirms great crested newt eDNA sampling has been undertaken (Ecological Appraisal, p.14) but also states that a full breeding bird survey is still due to be undertaken in Spring 2026 during determination (Ecological Appraisal, p.9). The Planning Statement similarly admits that the full breeding bird assemblage on site cannot yet be determined (Planning Statement, p.41). The application should not be determined before the ecology evidence base is complete.
Sixth, the Ecological Appraisal also identifies an indirect pathway to Narborough Bog SSSI via changes in surface water quality or quantity entering the River Soar (Ecological Appraisal, p.43). Given the existing public concern about sewage and catchment stress, this should be treated seriously.
Seventh, the applicant’s own Health Impact Assessment states that local GP practices are mostly over capacity, with patient-to-GP ratios exceeding recommended levels (HIA, p.33, see also p.29). That directly undermines any claim that local services can absorb this scale of growth without consequence.
Eighth, the applicant’s Agricultural Land Classification report confirms that the site contains 15.2 ha (35%) of Subgrade 3a land, which falls within best and most versatile agricultural land as defined by national policy (Agricultural Land Classification report, p.4 and p.6). This is a significant and permanent loss.
Ninth, the Geo-Environmental Desk Study states that while a limited north-west corner may have some soakaway potential, soakaway drainage is generally unlikely to provide a feasible drainage solution across the majority of the site because of the anticipated cohesive deposits (Geo-Environmental Desk Study, p.15). This reinforces concern about the realism of the drainage assumptions.
Tenth, the applicant’s own Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment accepts a Moderate Adverse effect on the site/fields as a receptor (LVIA, p.26), and the Transport Assessment accepts that some junctions are already over capacity in the base scenario (Transport Assessment, pp.44–45).
For all of these reasons, the application is premature, infrastructure-led evidence is incomplete, and
[2:58 PM, 4/17/2026] World Successes: Yes
[2:58 PM, 4/17/2026] John Durance: the proposal has not demonstrated that it is safe or sustainable. Planning permission should be refused.
Simple English version for the community
What the documents actually show
This is not just “550 houses on a field”.
The developer’s own reports show:
- The foul sewer may not have enough spare room
- Extra sewer modelling still has not been done
- Most of the site drains into the same Broughton Astley Brook / sewer-linked system people already worry about
- Their own report mentions sewer surcharging concerns on Frolesworth Road
- Their own odour report says future residents could face a “slight adverse” smell impact from the anaerobic digester
- Ecology is still not finished
- Breeding bird surveys are still to be done
- Their own health report says local GP surgeries are mostly over capacity
- They admit the site includes best and most versatile farmland
- Their own ground report says soakaways probably will not work across most of the site
That means one very simple thing:
They are asking for permission first, and trying to sort out the hard infrastructure questions later.