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 - Q4. Do you have any comments on the proposed criteria-based policy to replace Limits to Development?

Representation ID: 5096

COMMENT Leicester City Council (Mr Fabian D'Costa)

Summary:

Leicester City Council Transport Strategy team:
a) Proposal 14: To include safe access for cyclists and cycleways to access to services and facilities within the settlement.
b) General comment / possible rewording of proposal 14: In order to maximise modal shift, safe, sustainable and accessible transport modes (including walking, cycling and public transport) will be promoted. This will be achieved by providing new routes for pedestrians, cyclists and public transport (as part of new development proposals) and enhancing existing facilities.
c) The proposed transport statement would be better placed higher up in the list of proposals as transport is seen as enabler to economic performance and prosperity.

Representation ID: 5020

COMMENT Mr John L. Marlow

Summary:

All very 'noble' but the policy is far too vague and reliant on a sensitive process of implementation which, of course, cannot be guaranteed.

Representation ID: 4970

COMMENT Mr John Martin

Summary:

Development of the villages is mentioned being out of date but this in itself is not a reason to change. The " Proposed Settlement Development policy to replace current Limits to Development" will create a linear expansion of villages, infringement of agricultural land and the policies are so vaguely worded that consistent interpretation will be impossible. More detailed descriptions are required to ensure the policies will be applied equally across the HDC area.

Representation ID: 4943

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Assets Comments:
The proposal to replace the Limits to Development with a new criteria-based policy is supported in principle. It is agreed that this approach is more flexible and therefore in keeping with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, such a policy has a role to play alongside site allocations.

With particular regards to housing, the Local Plan should offer sufficient certainty on its proposed housing supply by providing a greater number of housing allocations, including in the Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages.

Greater clarity on some of the terminology within the proposed policy is also required. For example, whilst scale is one of the criteria (5) the definition of what would constitute an appropriate increase in scale is not clear.

Representation ID: 4942

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Archaeology Comments
Seems inconsistent with the range of options proposed, notably Options 6-9, e.g. Criteria 3, 4, 5, 9. We, however, support the inclusion of specific criteria to retain and enhance the historic environment (Criteria 10-12).

Representation ID: 4941

SUPPORT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)

Summary:

Transportation Comments
The County Highway Authority would be content with this policy as drafted, providing that there are other policies in the Plan that will cover more general highway safety matters, to which part 14 of the Policy can relate. If not, then we would wish to see Part 13 of the Policy amended to cover the safeguarding of the safe and satisfactory operation of the wider highway network.

Representation ID: 4890

SUPPORT Grace Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

Supported in priciple. This approach is more flexible and therefore in keeping with the requirements of the NPPF. Such a policy has a role to play alongside site allocations. It is suggested that identifying a number of rural housing allocations (including in the Rural Centres and SRVs) alongside this criteria based policy would offer greater certainty.
Greater clarity on some of the terminology (such as 'scale' in 5) is also required.

Representation ID: 4867

COMMENT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Not desirable but acceptable

Representation ID: 4844

COMMENT Mr Stephen Lucas

Summary:

We believe the policy as drafted to be an inordinately detailed and negative policy subset. There appears to be a distinct policy negativity which is contary to the NPPF. We question the policy as drafted as we cannot see this level of detail being applied to the SDA. The policy seems to be the old style regulatory approach and it needs to be reviewed and simplified.
Criteria 7 -12: can't see these being applied to SDA's.
Criteria 11 and 12 are wrong as there should be no preservation in aspic. The word should be conserve not preserve. There is a lack of conservatio area appraisals.

Representation ID: 4824

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

Summary:

This is generally supported, however it is important that the Council makes specific allocations for new housing and employment land to provide the necessary certainly for developers and to ensure that sufficient land is identified to meet requirments. The proposal to allocate some 3 hectares of land at Marlborough Way, Fleckney is supported.

Representation ID: 4817

SUPPORT Millers Homes represented by Pegasus (Ms Joanne Althorpe)

Summary:

The proposal to replace the Limits to Development with a new criteria-based policy is supported in principle as it is agreed that this approach is more flexible and therefore in keeping with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. Such a policy has a role to play alongside site allocations. The Local Plan could offer greater certainty on its proposed housing supply by providing a greater number of housing allocations at settlements identified in the settlement hierarchy.
Greater clarity on some of the terminology within the proposed policy is also required (e.g. (5) it is not clear what would constitute an appropriate increase in scale).

Representation ID: 4768

SUPPORT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)

Summary:

We welcome the Proposed Settlement Development Policy to replace current Limits to Development. We particularly welcome points 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 & 12.

Representation ID: 4666

COMMENT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

Not desirable but acceptable - no explanation or reference is provided of the spatial strategy mentioned in point 1 page 40.

Representation ID: 4572

SUPPORT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Support the criteria-based approach which should theoretically provide flexibility for positively achieving development proposals and sites on the edge of settlements.Flexibility must not be eroded by a settlement hierarchy or options for distributing development which endorse the heavy weighting of new housing growth to urban areas alone or indeed Strategic Development Area options. Thus suggest criteria 2 should be amended to read "Notwithstanding Option 1 - rural, helps to meet the identified housing target for the settlement".
Re: "Additional supporting text [that] will be provided in the pre-submission new Local Plan to give some guidance to the interpretation and implementation of the criteria". TCG considers that this supporting text should be provided at this initial Options stage

Representation ID: 4509

SUPPORT Mr J Blenkin represented by Aitchison Raffety (Mr Jonathan Weekes)

Summary:

Support criteria based approach. The settlement boundary approach is an inflexible and blunt tool to consider whether proposals are acceptable. The time needed to adopt policy to define limits to development means that they could be out of date for a number of years before they are appropriately reviewed. The criteria based policy allows flexibility to enable each case to be considered on its merits, with weight attributed to various matters dependent on their importance to that particular proposal. The remit of matters noted to be considered within such a policy is sufficient to ensure holistic assessment of any proposal against such a policy.

Representation ID: 4477

COMMENT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

The criteria based policy is good because it is pragmatic, flexible and sensible but suffers from the drawback that it can be open to varying subjective interpretations.

Representation ID: 4296

COMMENT Sport England (Steven Beard)

Summary:

Does not seek to protect or secure appropriate replacement for sports facilities which may be affected by development.

Representation ID: 4272

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

Summary:

It is agreed that a criteria-based policy is more flexible and therefore in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, clarity on some of the terminology used within the proposed policy is needed. For example (5); "an appropriate scale which reflects the settlement size, character and level of service provision" is vague, and it is unclear what constitutes an appropriate increase in scale.
A criteria-based policy offers no certainty, and it is considered that to provide this certainty sufficient allocations should be made within SRVs. This would provide the appropriate balance between certainty and flexibility for developers.

Representation ID: 4245

COMMENT Mr Ryan Astill

Summary:

In respect to the proposed criteria-based policy to replace Limits to Development. We would propose amending the policy provide Limits to Development for Principal Urban Area (PUA), Sub Regional Centre, Key Centres and Rural Centres, and applying the policy specifically selected rural villages, sub-selected rural villages and other settlements.
This will allow well planned considered schemes providing appropriate infrastructure to come forward within the larger settlements whilst allowing small developments to come forward when required to meet local needs in accordance with paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Representation ID: 4225

COMMENT Mr Ryan Astill

Summary:

We would propose amending the policy to provide Limits to Development for Principal Urban Area (PUA), Sub Regional Centre, Key Centres and Rural Centres, and applying the policy specifically to selected rural villages, sub-selected rural villages and other settlements.
This will allow well planned considered schemes providing appropriate infrastructure to come forward within the larger settlements whilst allowing small developments to come forward when required to meet local needs in accordance with paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Representation ID: 4218

SUPPORT Bruton Knowles (mr Paul Barton)

Summary:

This policy is welcomed as it provides a more sophisticated tool to control inappropriate development in an Area of Separation, rather than a blanket bar on
development.
It is suggested that point 10 is amended to give officers and members a great degree of flexibility as follows:
'8. Does not result in an unacceptable reduction in the physical and visual separation of settlements in order to prevent the coalescence of settlements'.

Representation ID: 4212

COMMENT Mr R Flint

Summary:

The proposal to replace definitive Limits to Development with a criteria-based system is retrogressive. It would remove the certainty afforded by a plan and replace it by unnecessary vagueness. The element of certainty in planning is fundamental and should not be compromised. If the proposal has any degree of benefit it would be greatly outweighed by the inherent disadvantages.

Representation ID: 4191

SUPPORT William Davis Limited (SARAH JINKS)

Summary:

The new criteria based policy approach to determining applications is supported. The existing Limits to Development policy has the potential to be confusing as Neighbourhood Plans could propose different settlement limits to those identified in the Local Plan. Conversely it is not sensible to delegate boundary definition to Neighbourhood Plans as this could cause a policy vacuum if Neighbourhood Plans are delayed or fail to come forward. The new cirteria based approach would allow greater flexibility and be more responsive to local circumstances.

Representation ID: 4110

COMMENT DLA Town Planning (David Lane)

Summary:

The concept of this policy is welcomed as a means of managing growth, particularly in a situation where there is no five-year land supply. It is a more flexible and robust option. However, there appears to be a lack of clarity in terms of housing targets. It seems to be the intention that any shortfall in supply should be made up within that same settlement. However, it may be that more sustainable sites exist elsewhere in the district to make up any shortfall.

Representation ID: 4046

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

Summary:

The Council's approach to include a policy which replaces the current Limits to Development is wholly supported. However, there is concern that the wording of the policy is too restrictive and would limit its overall effectiveness. In particular, we note criterion (2) provides an additional set of considerations for housing developments.
It is considered that the inclusion of criterion (i) and (ii) conflicts with the national guidance as the policy is not positively prepared. The NPPF explains that local authorities should look to boost significantly the supply of housing and, as such, should simply have regard to whether a proposal constitutes sustainable development. Secondly, it is considered that sub-section (iii) should be removed from the policy as there is no requirement within the NPPF to demonstrate that a scheme has community support. Suggest criteron 2 should read as follows:
'2. Helps to meet the identified housing target for the settlement. Where development would result in the number of completions plus outstanding permissions exceeding the identified target, regard will be given to whether any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits;'

Representation ID: 3962

OBJECT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

For villages, it is essential to retain prescribed Limits to Development and I therefore object to the criteria-based approach described and support the retention of drawn boundaries beyond which development is prohibited. It is essential also to retain separation areas between settlements again by map-drawn boundaries particularly between Lutterworth and Magna Park, Lutterworth and Bitteswell, Bitteswell and Magna Park and Ullesthorpe and Magna Park. The separation area between Lutterworth and Bitteswell has already been breached by recent house-building and further erosion should not be allowed.

Representation ID: 3960

OBJECT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

For villages, it is essential to retain prescribed Limits to Development and I therefore object to the criteria-based approach described and support the retention of drawn boundaries beyond which development is prohibited.

Representation ID: 3779

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

While the proposed criteria-based policy to replace Limits to Development has merits, there are concerns in the case of the PUA with respect to Points 4-9 and in particular Point 8:. 'Does not result in the coalescence of settlements; and protects the physical and visual separation of settlements'.

Representation ID: 3739

COMMENT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

No expansion provided for special strategy

Representation ID: 3689

COMMENT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

no reference provided for special strategy

Representation ID: 3575

SUPPORT Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Summary:

In addition I would like to see consideration of maintaining and enhancing rights of way and access to countryside (not just to amenity/recreation areas)

Representation ID: 3565

COMMENT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

While the proposed criteria-based policy to replace Limits to Development has merits, there are concerns in the case of the PUA with respect to Points 4-9 and in particular Point 8m. 'Does not result in the coalescence of settlements; and protects the physical and visual separation of settlements'.

Representation ID: 3548

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

Summary:

Limits to Development provide certainty (if followed by the LPA) and consistency and should be retained as they have in other Districts.

Representation ID: 3535

COMMENT Hungarton Neighbourhod Plan Committee (Mr James Patterson)

Summary:

Hungarton NDP committee would generally prefer the retention of limits to development but recognise that this change is likely so there is no strong objection.

Representation ID: 3501

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

Summary:

The provision of a such a criteria based policy is favoured over the current restrictive limits but concern is expressed about the detail of some of the criteria.

Representation ID: 3489

COMMENT Mr Kenneth Hollinshead

Summary:

The criteria will be manipulated in my opinion.

Representation ID: 3487

SUPPORT Elizabeth Marsh

Summary:

I suggest reference is included to development conforming with any proposed or adopted neighbourhood plan and that a more positive 'maintains separation' replaces the 'prevents coalescence'.

Representation ID: 3447

COMMENT Leicestershire County Council (Mr Richard Clark)

Summary:

Proposed Settlement Development policy. Seems inconsistent with the range of options proposed, notably Options 6-9, e.g. Criteria 3, 4, 5, 9. We, however, support the inclusion of specific criteria to retain and enhance the historic environment (Criteria 10-12).

Representation ID: 3417

OBJECT Bloor Home Ltd represented by Define (Mr Mark Rose)

Summary:

It is important that the criteria set out in the policy for considering proposals accords with the NPPF, can be readily interpreted and consistently applied.

Representation ID: 3283

COMMENT Davidsons Developments Limited represented by Bidwells (David Bainbridge)

Summary:

The proposed Settlement Development policy which is proposed to replace the current Limits to Development is supported if the new Local Plan contains clear housing allocation for the plan period.

Representation ID: 3256

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

This summary is not acceptable because nothing is precise and although well intentioned all criteria are "subjective" so residents will be unsure of what is allowable.
Point 1 should at least say "in the designated areas for housing development identified in this local plan" Also how do you gauge local support (Parish council is often 3 people taking a view without any consultation to residents and often unknown to residents. Please make the criteria more precise.

Representation ID: 3226

SUPPORT George Burton ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY Ltd (George Burton)

Summary:

The criteria based policy will be more flexible and provide settlements with the ability to grow to natural limits.

Representation ID: 3211

OBJECT Dr Janet Riley

Summary:

The Limits to Development set out policy clearly, once and for all.

Given the weight, once 'made', of Neighbourhood Plans, the list should explicitly include 'Is in conformity with the Neighbourhood Plan (where one exists)'

Representation ID: 3199

SUPPORT David Wilson Homes East Midlands (Helen Bareford)

Summary:

The propsed criteria seems acceptable, and increased flexibility towards determining planning applications in a positive manner is welcomed.

Representation ID: 3157

OBJECT Misterton with Walcote Parish Council (Miss Lindsey Astle)

Summary:

I am concerned that this will encourage piecemeal developement around rural settlements

Representation ID: 2906

SUPPORT mr william naylor represented by mr william naylor

Summary:

Limits to development have been too restrictive in the past. Boundaries have been drawn as a way of restricting natural extensions and small development. The removal of this policy is welcome and key for keeping to the requirements of the NPPF.

Representation ID: 2887

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: 2743

SUPPORT Mr O Tebbs represented by Hutchinsons Planning (Mr Keith Hutchinson)

Summary:

We strongly support the replacement of development limits by a criteria based policy. The flexibility that this will achieve will enable potential development sites to be considered by a proper contextual assessment rather than by a line on a plan.

Representation ID: 2626

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

at point 2 please add compatibility with Neighbourhood Development Plan for the area.

Also add 15 Is in conformity with Neighbourhood Plan for the area please

Representation ID: 2414

OBJECT Mr Gary Kirk

Summary:

Limits to Development provide certainty (if followed by the LPA) and consistency and should be retained as they have in other Districts.

Representation ID: 2411

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

Summary:

We welcome the more flexible approach to non-strategic development proposed; a criteria based policy will bring the New Local Plan into compliance with the NPPF and future proof it. However, considerably more clarity is required, which the consultation document states will be provided in the pre-submission new Local Plan to give some guidance to the interpretation and implementation of the criteria. We will therefore reserve comments on the interpretation of the criteria until the additional supporting text is available.

Representation ID: 2293

OBJECT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

In these statements there are too many let-out clauses which would weaken the expression of views by existing local residents of sttelemts and allow for more expansion than would be deemed locally acceptable. Strict boundaries drawn around settlements should be sustained as in the Local Plan of 2011.

Representation ID: 2285

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

The criteria offer a good balance between promoting development and ensuring its form reflects the local character. There should not be any weighting applied to the criteria such that they all have equal value in any decision.

Representation ID: 2119

OBJECT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Uncontrolled development and land grab.

Representation ID: 2092

COMMENT Mrs Carol Birch

Summary:

Local Neighbourhood Plans should be taken into account and HDC should allow time for those in preparation, eg Kibworth, to be completed.

Planning applications currently being considered piecemeal should all be put on hold as they could render some of the options you are considering invalid.

Representation ID: 1955

OBJECT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Object. Loss of Limits to Development could lead to uncontrolled developer land grab. This was also massively rejected by residents in our Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Representation ID: 1902

COMMENT mr Frank Cooper

Summary:

NONE OF THE CRITERIA MAKE MENTION OF AIR POLLUTION PARTICULARLY NO2 LEVELS WHICH IN PARTS OF THE DISTRICT ARE APPROACHING DANGEROUS LEVELS .THIS PARTICULATE MATTER IS NOW KNOWN TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY HEALTH MALADIES, MANY FATAL. Ignoring this criteria could result serious PRIVATE AND E.U. LITIGATION.

Representation ID: 1846

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

Summary:

We welcome the opportunity for more flexibility which should enable the delivery of more new homes and services to fulfill need and strategy.

Representation ID: 1816

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lord

Summary:

The criteria based policy looks OK

Representation ID: 1780

COMMENT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

It is important that the individual character of a settlement is maintained and this includes in the case of Burton Overy it's beautiful rural setting. Item 8 is particularly relevant in this respect as there is a danger that continued development in Great Glen particularly to the north and east will result in houses being intrusively visible from Burton Overy and the surrounding countryside along the ridge line of the parish boundaries.

Representation ID: 1727

OBJECT Grenville Smith

Summary:

As an affected householder we objected to Jelsons development off of Pulford Drive. The development is awful and ill considered but it was approved. Jelsons continue to ignore Planning requirements and we now live in a street where our house like the roads is covered in dust and grime from the estate. We email Harborough DC, response nothing. We speak to Jelson site, response nothing! So why bother with this consultation when you ignore the plight of residents. I am one disaffected resident who you clearly care so little about.

Representation ID: 1629

SUPPORT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

with a total lack of brownfield sites, some smaller villages need to accept small scale development that fits a sequential criterior policy to limit the impact on landscape and village character.

Representation ID: 1602

SUPPORT Neil Heptonstall

Summary:

Seems OK

Representation ID: 1591

OBJECT Mark Burns

Summary:

Scraptoft is a rural vilage with limited facilities and is already struggling with the current trafficlevels. To propose a bypass road that terminates at a roundabout right outside the village church would destroy the character of the village and would nothing to alleviate the current traffic issues.
1000 houses would change the identity of the village and remove the separation between Scraptoft and Thurnby and Bushby

Representation ID: 1458

COMMENT Historic England (Claire Searson)

Summary:

We welcome reference within this policy to the protection of heritage assets

Representation ID: 1445

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

Summary:

Criterion 2 should be amended to reflect the housing requirement being expressed as a minimum figure.

The general approach within the criteria to enable proposals to be considered on a case-by-case basis is welcomed.

Representation ID: 1435

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

This is not desirable. There is no explanation or reference provided to special strategy.

Representation ID: 1262

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

Summary:

The provision of such a criteria based policy is favoured other the current restrictive limits but concerns is expressed about the detail of some of the criteria.

Representation ID: 1158

SUPPORT Mr Lewis Freeman

Summary:

Proposals 3, 4, 6, and 8 are essential to any criteria based policies. The latter being particularly important re. Lutterworth/ Bitteswell!
No. 13- Magna Park (by it's sheer size) will NOT be able to meet this criteria!

Representation ID: 1144

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

Summary:

The draft wording covers relevant material planning considerations and, at the same time, allows judgements to be made and a balance to be struck on each development proposal.

Representation ID: 1069

SUPPORT Kay Wilson

Summary:

I think this suggestion is eminently sensible and provide a relevant and positive set of criteria against which to examine new proposals

Representation ID: 954

SUPPORT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

Generally support this more responsive and flexible approach.

Representation ID: 943

OBJECT Mr Richard Painter

Summary:

housing or to magna park the area in my opinion can not sustain this proposed growth on the country side infastructure and community we have all must full employment now adding more warehouses would not make any changes to the people living here now or in the future people that would buy any new housing in the area already have employment on would assume

Representation ID: 918

COMMENT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

I'm not sure if this is the right section but I stress that Great Easton retains it's selected rural village status even under pressure from developers who don't live in the village but want to ruin our lives by applying for the village to be a selected rural settlement.

Representation ID: 758

COMMENT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)

Summary:

Item 5 needs to read maintain the individual character of the settlement rather than simply reflects.... Item 8 should read maintain separation rather than does not result in coalescence

Representation ID: 577

OBJECT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

Object
The criteria are too limited to cover situations that will be experienced in Market Harborough and the other large settlements. Will result in too much uncertainty.

Within settlements a test relating to overlooking
should be included.- also need for access ,parking design and open space.

Either the boundaries should be defined. in Market Harborough with appropriate criteria or the Council should prepare a neighbourhood plan for Market Harborough.

Representation ID: 559

OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

Item 5 needs to read maintain the individual character of the settlement rather than simply reflects....

Item 8 should read maintain separation rather than does not result in coalescence

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

Powered by OpusConsult