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 - Preventing the coalescence of settlements

Representation ID: 5016

SUPPORT Bloor Homes Ltd, Jelson Ltd and Davidsons Developments Ltd represented by Pegasus Planning Group (Mr Guy Longley)

Summary:

The recognition of the need for a policy approach which prevents the coalescence of settlement whilst allowing for sustainable devlopment which does not unduly impact on the separation of settlements is welcomed.
The proposed SDA at Scraptoft has carefully considered the issue of local separation between settlements by includig an area of green space providing links from Scraptoft Lane eastwards towards the countryside. This area will provide opportunities for informal recreation and access utilising the existing footpath network, whilst ensuring the continued separation between new development extending north of Uppingham Road and development along Covert Lane.

Representation ID: 4977

COMMENT Mr John Martin

Summary:

The existence of a green belt around \Market Harborough protecting such villages as Great Bowden, Foxton, Lubenham, East Farndon, Oxendon, Braybrooke and Dingley should be maintained and should form an essential statement of the Local Plan. Planning applications that would minimise the size of these wedges or possibly even destroy them should be refused and thus minimise the risk of creating areas where current villages become merged into Harborough.

Representation ID: 4047

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

Summary:

It is noted that adopted policies relating to areas of separation, contained within Policy EV/3 of the Harborough District Local Plan and Policy CS1 (h) of the Harborough Core Strategy 2006-2028, pre-date adoption of the NPPF. As such, and as highlighted at paragraph 150 of the Options Consultation Paper, the NPPF through its presumption in favour of sustainable development has called into question the appropriateness of Separation Areas.

Representation ID: 3963

COMMENT Mrs Shiela Carlton

Summary:

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: 3961

COMMENT Mr W Carlton

Summary:

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: 3806

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Diana Cook)

Summary:

there needs to be a wider parish wide view - some parishes are not just settlements e.g.Lubenham this is particularly important where parishes border on major development areas

Representation ID: 3299

SUPPORT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

Need Clear definitions

Representation ID: 2674

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

Agree that Neighbourhood Plans should play a part in defining separation areas but also some protection is needed before/ during preparation of plans or where they do not exist - would support a combination of both options where specific areas where potential development is planned can be defined and also providing the same protection for areas where development is not yet planned

Representation ID: 1637

SUPPORT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

Seperation must be maintained, unless the harm is minimal.

Representation ID: 1028

OBJECT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

The area of separation between Kibworth Beauchamp and Smeeton Westerby needs additional protection in any agreed policy or it is in danger of being developed.

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

Powered by OpusConsult