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 - Development Management

Representation ID: 3333

COMMENT Mrs Angela Lomas

Summary:

Limits to Development showed a clear 'line' which meant there was no room for doubt. Having a criteria-based policy to provide greater flexibility could favour the developer to the detriment of locals.

Representation ID: 3281

COMMENT Davidsons Developments Limited represented by Bidwells (David Bainbridge)

Summary:

Question 4: Do you have any comments on the proposed criteria-based policy to replace Limits to Development?

Representation ID: 3258

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Strongly object to this approach which is not clear being "subjective" and developers use this fully to their advantage. We need precise clarity.

Representation ID: 3224

SUPPORT George Burton ARCHITECTURE AND ECOLOGY Ltd (George Burton)

Summary:

The current policy on limits to development is too rigid and unresponsive to demand. Changing the policy to that laid out will provide flexibility and enable settlements to grow appropriately

Representation ID: 2627

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Find this section confusing- difficult to comment as information is stated to be for illustrative purposes only. Would favour development where all infrastructure is provided if proposed development is in an safe and acceptable place when judged against all other criteria

Representation ID: 1548

OBJECT Mr Mohamed Master

Summary:

WHY SHOULD WE CHANGE THE LIMITS TO DEVELOPMENT -

Representation ID: 1023

OBJECT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

Neighbourhood Plan policies not included in policy. If limits of development are to be removed, then, if a Neighbourhood Plan is made for the settlement, this should provide much of the detail required to meet this policy. For example, for the Kibworths, sustainable must include adequate healthcare, highways and education provision. What about maximum distance to community facilities - shops, post office etc. Should this be 800m or less?

Representation ID: 942

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: 917

COMMENT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Retain the rural village status of Great Easton and have new houses that are proportionate to the size of the village.

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

Powered by OpusConsult