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 - Housing

Representation ID: 4270

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

Summary:

The document provides a range of growth options for each of the Selected Rural Villages. This is welcomed given that these settlements are considered appropriate for additional growth. The Planning Practice Guidance sets out that Local Plans "should make clear what is intended to happen in the area over the life of the plan, where and when this will occur and how it will be delivered" (Reference ID: 12-002-20140306). By identifying potential growth options for Foxton, the Council is taking positive steps to address these questions.

Representation ID: 3703

OBJECT Mr Luke Demery

Summary:

Rural villages around Lutterworth are already plagued by extra traffic not following designated routes to Magna Park. Infrastructure is insufficient to support further housing and it is not required. It should be a priority of HDC to maintain rural villages as villages and not turn them into towns by forcing additional housing that is neither wanted nor needed.

Representation ID: 2899

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: 2629

SUPPORT Elizabeth Thomas

Summary:

Broadly favour those options which will maintain village character, are to scale, and proportionate to infrastructure constraint, inevitable in historic villages.

However actual development seems driven by developer preferences for villages where they perceive most external demand (i.e profit) for new homes. These tend to be large and expensive and do little to address the housing shortage. In the face of this one wonders how much weight these options will in practice carry?.

Representation ID: 2295

COMMENT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

The villages play a significant role in the overall character and value of the district, thus acting to attract people to the area. Pursuing a development policy that adversely affects the character of the villages will have an overall detrimental effect on the whole district. I strongly favour options 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 since they maintain village character whilst recognising modest development is needed to maintain their viability. Improving public transport links will also significantly help viability.

Representation ID: 928

COMMENT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Great Easton should have some new homes but it must be proportional to the size of the village and would support between 5 and 20 new homes.

Representation ID: 873

SUPPORT W Moon

Summary:

I support small infill development.

Representation ID: 620

OBJECT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

Claybrooke magna does not meet the stated criteria as an SRV therefore cannot be included

Representation ID: 570

OBJECT Mr Mark Durose

Summary:

Objections to plan A/GE/HSG/05 Land west of Stockerston Lane, Great Easton.
The size of this development is too large for a Selected Rural Village.

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

Powered by OpusConsult