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 - Q5. Which is your preferred Option for Development in the Countryside?

Representation ID: 5043

COMMENT IDI Gazeley represented by Now Planning (Ms Nora Galley)


Paragraph 82-83 fails to point out that the highly restrictive approach of CS17 to the countryside is inconsistent with the approach of the NPPF. CS17 adopts a level of protection that the NPPF affords only to nationally designated areas (e.g. Green Belt).

Representation ID: 4946

COMMENT Leciestershire County Council (Mrs Sharon Wiggins)


Assets Comments:
It is agreed that Policy CS17 requires updating in order to accord with paragraph 55 of the NPPF. Option C3: Meeting Locally Identified Need is supported as it is more in keeping with the flexible approach of the NPPF which places importance on the need to enhance or maintain the vitality or rural communities. Development on the edge of the District's smaller settlements should not be restricted as there may be special circumstances which justify development, as set out at paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

Representation ID: 4868

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lenihan


All of these options are supportable, however it should be for individual Parish Council's to make the final decisions that control development in their open countryside.

Representation ID: 4769

COMMENT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)


Along with our usual concerns about landscape character, biodiversity and protected species, early consideration should be given to the quality of soil resource affected by potential development sites. Local authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land.

Representation ID: 4608

COMMENT Trustees of Quenby Settlement represented by Savills incorporating Smiths Gore (Mr Robert Phillips)


The Trustees of the Quenby Settlement are generally supportive of the combination of Options C2 and C3 in light of the clear positive effects that these options would bring in respect of Housing and Economy objectives which are in line with national planning policy. Allowing some growth at Sub-Selected Rural Villages will help to support existing services and facilities promoting the vitality of these villages and supporting the long term sustainability of these settlements.

Representation ID: 4573

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)


TCG objects and does not see the necessity to introduce a further strategic policy layer in relation to future development in the countryside. Option 1, supported by TCG, provides the most appropriate and justifiable Option, compliant with national planning policy and the proposed Settlement Development policy in Chapter 6 will already provide an effective criteria-based policy for managing the distribution of the housing in the rural parts of the District. Should the Council proceed with such a policy,TCG would state a preference for a hybrid combination of the approach of Option C2 and Option C3. Strongly object to Option C1.

Representation ID: 4135

COMMENT Mr Peter Dixon Smith


A further category for potential development should be added to include 'settlements with less than 50 households wishing to develop within existing boundaries'. It is inappropriate to limit development to urban areas when there are available sites for houses in other areas.

Representation ID: 3449

COMMENT Leicestershire County Council (Mr Richard Clark)


Development in the Countryside. Section is entitled 'housing' but Option 1 appears to encompass wider development, e.g. renewable energy. Are these housing or wider development policies? We support the inclusion of significant architectural and historical features being identified as a constraint to to development, however this should be extended to encompass archaeological remains.

Representation ID: 3285

COMMENT Davidsons Developments Limited represented by Bidwells (David Bainbridge)


Potential housing delivery outside Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages is welcomed.

Representation ID: 3257

SUPPORT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin


Preferred option is Option C2: Limited infill and Development Management Led. See comments on C2 Option for details.

Representation ID: 2888

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

Representation ID: 2631

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)


Seems that a combination of C2 and C3 might be appropriate with emphasis on the community needs being identified through a Neighbourhood Plan. This should allow for some growth so that these communities do not fossilise while still protecting the countryside.

Representation ID: 2325

OBJECT Mr Hugh Goodacre represented by Berrys (Val Coleby)


Alternative Option 2 comes closest to our preferred approach although we would recommend additional changes in relation to this policy approach as set out in the attached.

Representation ID: 2287

COMMENT Dr Jon Davies


The District's core value and attraction stem from the current high quality of its rural landscape. Future development must maintain this quality otherwise the whole district would suffer. Future planning must maintain the viability of the countryside (including provision of necessary services) but all decisions should have a very strong focus on the issues set out in Option C1. I would favour a hydrid approach with maintaining countryside quality at the core.

Representation ID: 1459

COMMENT Historic England (Claire Searson)


We would have no objection to options 2 or 3, provided that any growth was in accordance with Local Plan policies of policies on the NPPF relating to heritage assets.

Representation ID: 1159

SUPPORT Mr Lewis Freeman



Representation ID: 1079

SUPPORT Mr William Richmond


I support Option C1 in Stoughton, as there is very little scope for infilling, as virtually all sites have already been developed by new houses or property conversions over the years, leaving little open space visible from the roads which pass through the village. Combine this with the lack of sustainability recently highlighted by a Planning Inspector endorses my belief that Option C1 is appropriate

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

Powered by OpusConsult