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 - Selected Rural Villages

Representation ID: 4965

OBJECT Mr John Martin

Summary:

Lubenham has been selected as a "Selected Rural Village" yet only has a pub and a primary school neither of which is on any use to households who for example may wish to buy a loaf of bread or a pint of milk. Such a definition requires a revisit to make it acceptable and appropriate. The developments in these villages should not include social housing as they attract people without finances to use a private car and currently, bus services cannot correctly be described as services.

Representation ID: 4209

COMMENT Mr R Flint

Summary:

Among the cited objectives the issue of local need should be emphasised.

Representation ID: 3506

SUPPORT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

I strongly support the designation of Great Easton as a Selected Rural Village - it does not have the services to be considered a Rural Centre, and would lose its character if developed too much.

Representation ID: 3475

OBJECT EAST LANGTON and CHURCH LANGTON Parish Council (Mrs Roz Folwell)

Summary:

The future of the pub is precarious as it is currently up for sale and the school is already full. Both these criteria are flawed and seem no basis for identifying potential housing need.
26 houses would impact on the landscape, settlement character, and heritage of the village not say put more pressure on the school. The separation area between Church Langton and East Langton would certainly be under threat.
The trend for cutting public transport along with the increased vehicles so many houses would produce, would put even more pressure on the lanes around the village.

Representation ID: 2902

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: 2431

OBJECT Mr Gary Kirk

Summary:

This is a very unsophisticated tool for measuring a settlement hierarchy. Church Langton technically has two services - a pub that has been closed for much of the recent period and remains vulnerable, and a school which serves a very wide catchment area beyond the Village - so there is no special sighnificance to the school being in Church Langton as opposed to any other village within the catchment area. What about accessibility of public transport etc?

Representation ID: 2273

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

I strongly support the overall approach to defining the settlement hierarchy and the definition of the rural villages. The overall approach clearly reflects the natural character of the District. I support the definition of Great Easton as a rural village but note that it has limited facilities.

Representation ID: 1908

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Neighbourhood Plans that have been prepared or are in the course of preparation for these villages should be used to inform any local needs or sites for development. These are based on local information and should provide the information to be utilised in making decisions in regard to development.

Representation ID: 1749

COMMENT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

A school which is full and cannot be expanded should not be considered to support further development.

Representation ID: 1724

SUPPORT Andrew Granger & Co (Mr Fritz Graves) represented by Andrew Granger & Co (Mr Fritz Graves)

Summary:

We support the inclusion of these settlements as Selected Rural Villages. The retention and improvement of the services they provide can be achieved by allowing further residential growth and we commend this.

Representation ID: 1379

COMMENT Mrs M Vizma

Summary:

Great Easton should remain a Selected Rural Village

Representation ID: 1308

COMMENT Ms Julia Weaver

Summary:

Great Easton should remain as a selected rural village

Representation ID: 1258

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

Summary:

There is an unjustified emphasis on social housing, small-scale market housing and development aimed at meeting the needs of local people which implies that only this type of development is acceptable. Whilst clearly this has a role in settlements such as Medbourne and others that have been categorised as Selected Rural Villages, these settlements are less well suited to the provision of affordable housing than those higher up in the settlement hierarchy.

Representation ID: 1096

SUPPORT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)

Summary:

As long as the key services do not drop below the defined minimum as the future of the pub is not certain beyond the next two years

Representation ID: 750

OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

Strongly object to the inclusion of Claybrooke Magna as the village does not meet the stated criteria. The criteria set out are specific: 2 of 6 services. Claybrooke Magna has only 1. There is no room for manoeuvre, no exceptions or additional criteria are stated therefore the village clearly cannot be designated as an SRV. This issue has been raised on numerous occasions with HDC Planning Policy Team. No satisfactory explanation has been provided as to why CM has been included as an SRV.

Representation ID: 556

OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

Strongly object to the inclusion of Claybrooke Magna as the village does not meet the stated criteria. The critieria set out are specific: 2 of 6 services. Claybrooke Magna has only 1. There is no room for manoeuvre, no exceptions or additional criteria are stated therefore the village clearly cannot be designated as an SRV. Claybrooke Magna has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion. It is clear the criteria are not being applied in a fair and consistent manner across the HDC area.

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

Powered by OpusConsult