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
OBJECT Mr John Martin
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.
COMMENT Mr R Flint
Among the cited objectives the issue of local need should be emphasised.
SUPPORT Mrs Charlotte Johnston
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.
OBJECT EAST LANGTON and CHURCH LANGTON Parish Council (Mrs Roz Folwell)
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.
OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)
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 email@example.com
OBJECT Mr Gary Kirk
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?
SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies
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.
COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)
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.
COMMENT mr chris faircliffe
A school which is full and cannot be expanded should not be considered to support further development.
SUPPORT Andrew Granger & Co (Mr Fritz Graves) represented by Andrew Granger & Co (Mr Fritz Graves)
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.
COMMENT Mrs M Vizma
Great Easton should remain a Selected Rural Village
COMMENT Ms Julia Weaver
Great Easton should remain as a selected rural village
COMMENT Brudenell Estates represented by Landmark Planning Ltd (Lance Wiggins)
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.
SUPPORT SWINFORD Parish Council (Katherine Clarke)
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
OBJECT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)
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.
OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher
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.