Strategic planning consultations

You can view all available strategic planning consultations. To make a comment on a current consultation you must sign in to your account.

Representations on New Local Plan Options - Harborough's Settlement Hierarchy

Representation ID: 5012

SUPPORT Bloor Homes Ltd, Jelson Ltd and Davidsons Developments Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Guy Longley)

Summary:

The settlement hierarchy is supported as it recognises the sustainability credentials of the PUA settlements of of Scraptoft, Thurnby and Bushby at the top of the Harborough hierarchy. tThis needs to be reflected in the vision also.

Representation ID: 4881

SUPPORT Grace Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

The inclusion of selected rural villages in the settlement hierarchiy is supported, as is the method for identifying settlements as SRVs. The recognition that small-scale growth in these settlement could take the form of limited extensions is also supported, although further clarification of 'small-scale' and 'limited' should be provided.

Representation ID: 4856

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

I also consider the designation of SRV to Claybrooke Magna totally unacceptable and an underhanded way of pushing the subject through a consultation process without even hinting that it is in question. Selected Rural Villages have been identified on the basis of the presence of at least 2 of the 6 key services - Claybrooke Magna has a pub which my arithmetic counts as one NOT two. I cannot see any justification for siting the need for two key services and then offhandedly deciding one is enough - why bother making the statement in the first place if you are totally ignoring the requirement.

Representation ID: 4838

COMMENT Mr Stephen Lucas

Summary:

Agree with Swinford's identification as a Selected Rural Village. However the proviso that the designation could change, according to service provision, we believe to be inappropriate. Designation should be more reflective of the profiles and the sustainability of settlements rather than whether, for example, the Post Office has closed. Up to date rural survey information is required to assist policy formulation.

Representation ID: 4823

SUPPORT Wheatcroft Properties Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Guy Longley)

Summary:

The settlement hierarchy is supported. This appropriately identifies Fleckney as one of seven rural centres, reflecting their good sustainability credentials and ability to provide a focus for new housing and employment development in the rural parts of the district.

Representation ID: 4763

COMMENT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)

Summary:

We have no specific comments on the resulting settlement hierarchy other than to make clear that there are a number of environmental considerations to be taken into account when allocating sites for development, such as nationally and internationally designated nature conservation sites, locally and regionally designated sites for geodiversity and biodiversity, wildlife habitats and protected species, ancient woodland and landscape character. These considerations are unlikely to have any influence over the settlement hierarchy but may have a bearing on the subsequent allocation of sites. A coherent network of accessible greenspace is another key component of any sustainable settlement.

Representation ID: 4562

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Support Houghton on the Hill and Great Glen as Rural Centres.
However, Stoughton should be promoted to be regarded as 'Selected Rural village' given its close proximity to the main urban area and opportunities for infill opportunities.

Representation ID: 4515

SUPPORT Merton College Oxford represented by Savills (Mr Roger Smith)

Summary:

The New Local Plan Options Consultation Paper (OCP) identifies 'The Kibworths' as a Rural Centre. Our clients support the Council's approach to development in respect of the settlement hierarchy i.e. that Rural Centres are capable of sustainable expansion to provide a focus for new housing and employment development in rural parts of the District, owing to the level of service and facility provision.

Representation ID: 4267

SUPPORT Cliffe Investments Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Miss Sophie Trouth)

Summary:

Foxton is identified as a Selected Rural Village (SRV's). This approach is supported, as is the method applied to identify settlements as SRV's (2 out of the 6 key services).
Cliffe Investments support the inclusion of SRV's within the Settlement Hierarchy. Growth of an appropriate scale within these settlements offers benefits such as meeting local housing need and enhancing/sustaining existing facilities and services.

Representation ID: 4243

COMMENT Mr Ryan Astill

Summary:

Great Glen should be reclassified as a settlement within the Principle Urban Area. Great Glen has a more comprehensive service provision than either Thurnby & Bushby and Scraptoft. It is also located within approximately 1 mile of the urban conurbation of the Leicester PUA and has excellent transport and pedestrian links
This should be given weight when taking account of its position in the settlement hierarchy, especially given that the settlement profiles of Thurnby & Bushby and Scraptoft are supplemented by nearby services and facilities located within the PUA.

Representation ID: 4221

COMMENT Mr Ryan Astill

Summary:

In respect to Great Glen we assert that it should be reclassified as a settlement within the Principle Urban Area (PUA). The settlement of Great Glen has a more comprehensive service provision than either Thurnby & Bushby and Scraptoft. It is also located within approximately 1 mile of the urban conurbation of the Leicester PUA to which it has both excellent transport and pedestrian links being located adjacent to the arterial A6 dual carriageway.
This should be given due weight when taking account of its position in the sustainability of settlements hierarchy, especially given that the settlement profiles of Thurnby & Bushby and Scraptoft are supplemented by nearby services and facilities located within the PUA. In this regard the settlement of Great Glen benefits considerably from its proximity to the service and facilities within Oadby Town, particularly those located upon the A6 including the three major supermarkets.

Representation ID: 4201

COMMENT GREAT EASTON Parish Council (Mr David Gibley)

Summary:

Great Easton should remain as a selected rural village. This is supported by residents.

Representation ID: 4181

COMMENT Fisher German LLP (Miss Liberty Stones)

Summary:

Great Bowden should be included as a Rural Centre. This will ensure a focus of development to the most sustainable settlements, and ensure the hierarchy reflects accurately the objective conclusions fo the evidence base.

Representation ID: 4111

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)

Summary:

We support the hierarchy in principle as a useful tool. However, there seems to be a lack of clarity in relation to the "Approach to development" taken for each level in the hierarchy. The Sub-Regional Centre of Market Harborough and the Key Centres of Lutterworth and Broughton Astley both contain the same "Approach to development" description. If the Council's technical work has identified Market Harborough as being more sustainable than either Lutterworth or Broughton Astley then this ought to be reflected in the hierarchy and the "approach to development" text should specify a greater role for Market Harborough.

Representation ID: 4008

OBJECT Redrow Homes (South Midlands) (Mr Russell Crow)

Summary:

The designation of Market Harborough as a Sub Regional Centre is supported. Market Harborough provides a wide range of retail, service and employment with good road and rail links. However, it is considered that the Council is unjustified in its approach for defining Great Bowden as a Selected Rural Village - the fifth tier within the settlement hierarchy. It is considered that the shops and services contained within Great Bowden ensures that the settlement meets the Council's definition for classification as a 'Rural Centre'. Furthermore, due to the proximity of Market Harborough, Great Bowden should be regarded as one of the more sustainable 'Rural Centres' within the category.

Representation ID: 3424

COMMENT Lutterworth East Landowners represented by Gary Stephens

Summary:

LEL support the recognition given to Lutterworth as a 'Key Centre', and agree that it is a suitable settlement for expansion given its extended range of services, facilities, shops, employment, and availability of deliverable and developable land.

Representation ID: 3273

SUPPORT Davidsons Developments Limited represented by Bidwells (David Bainbridge)

Summary:

Our client largely welcomes the settlement hierarchy.

Representation ID: 3248

OBJECT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin

Summary:

This section of the plan fails to recognise the status of PDL in the countryside and the role it has in delivering some housing provision in the countryside. The policy context as proposed, which is limited to the conversion or subdivision of existing appropriate buildings in the countryside, does not meet the proposed new Local Plan Objective 3: Location of Development aims and is also contrary to the requirement set out in the NPPF to promote the re-use of PDL.

Representation ID: 3218

COMMENT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Be flexible to re-define if services change . ie despite village growth services often close because residents do not support them or do not intergrate into the village

Representation ID: 2900

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Please see representations submitted by the Co-operative Group (20151029 TCG Reps New Plan for Harborough Options Consultation Doc') by email on 29/10/15 to planningpolicy@harborough.gov.uk

Representation ID: 2868

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Please see representations submitted by the Co-operative Group (20151029 TCG Reps New Plan for Harborough Options Consultation Doc') by email on 29/10/15 to planningpolicy@harborough.gov.uk

Representation ID: 2862

OBJECT Bovis Homes Ltd represented by Star Planning & Development (David Barnes)

Summary:

Bovis Homes' option is that a greater proportion of the housing growth should be directed away from the lower tier Selected Rural Village towards the higher order Rural Centres. It would be appropriate to limit new growth at Selected Rural Villages to no more than 50 dwellings (in the period up-to 2031).

Representation ID: 2606

SUPPORT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

We are in support of the proposed Settlement Hierarchy. We welcome recognition of the roles Key Centres and Rural centres play within the District, providing key services to the settlements and surrounding areas. The focus for new development in Rural Centres and the acknowledgement of their capabilities for significant expansion is supported.

Representation ID: 2408

COMMENT Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane) (Rachel Padfield)

Summary:

We support the principle of a settlement hierarchy based on service provision to focus development to the most sustainable locations; one of the core principles set out at paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

However, specifically in relation to Broughton Astley, the settlement hierarchy has not been used to inform the distribution options.

Representation ID: 1759

OBJECT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

Development in Rural Centres should be limited to a level that existing and realistically possible future facilities and services can support. We must avoid overloading the transport, education, health, retail and other services. Development should also be of an appropriate level and type that respects the historic heritage and character of the Rural Centres.

Representation ID: 1436

OBJECT Mr & Mrs M E Broome represented by Fowler Architecture & Planning Ltd (Mr Aaron Smith)

Summary:

The proposed Settlement Hierarchy is inconsistent with national policy as there is a failure to support sustainable rural communities in accordance with NPPF paragraphs 17(5), 28, 29, 34, 54, 55 and 157, the PPG reference ID: 50-001-20140306 and the Rural Productivity Plan.

Representation ID: 1297

COMMENT Swift Valley Partnership (Mr Dennis Singer)

Summary:

Policy choices generally should not be constrained by false requirements on sustainability but in each case proposals for new housing should be judged on their individual merits. It is acknowledge that Core Strategy Policy CS17 is out of date and should be substantially amended. Any proposal to constrain development in a particular location should not be predetermined by a rule book set up in advance. Each proposal should be judged on its own merits and through this process inappropriate development, either through type or scale, can be judged by the Planning Department, for which function they are employed.

Representation ID: 1257

COMMENT Brudenell Estates represented by Landmark Planning Ltd (Lance Wiggins)

Summary:

Paragraph 25 above - para 55 of the Framework also acknowledges that there are circumstances where new homes in the countryside may be appropriate. Accordingly, the implication from the derived hierarchy that development in small settlements or in the countryside would be unacceptable in policy terms is not supported by national guidance.

Representation ID: 1131

SUPPORT Barratt Homes/David Wilson Homes (Mr Robert Galij)

Summary:

Endorse the role of 'Rural Centres' in accommodating new development across the rural part of the District and welcome recognition of their pre-eminent position in the settlement hierarchy ie 'as a focus for rural development'.

Having trouble using the system? Visit our help page or contact us directly.

Powered by OpusConsult