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?, Option C1: Strictly controlling development in the countryside

Representation ID: 4667

SUPPORT Cllr Rosita Page


These are all good options that limit development to some extend, however option 1 is the strictest criteria and my preference and it compliments housing option 8.

Representation ID: 4213



The preference is for Option C1. So much countryside of the District has been surrendered to built development that future development should be strictly controlled

Representation ID: 3761

SUPPORT Miss Margaret Wild


There are few sites still available within village boundaries.

Representation ID: 3717

SUPPORT Miss Ruth Thompson


i support this aproach

Representation ID: 3699

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith


i support this approach

Representation ID: 3612

SUPPORT Mr Andrew Craig


Need to protect the green spaces.

Representation ID: 3523

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


English Heritage have identified East Langton as a rare example of retaining its medieval village layout. The open spaces are crucial to this layout therefore infill development would be extremely detrimental to its heritage status.

Representation ID: 3496

SUPPORT Mr Graham Logan


This is the best solution for Cotesbach given its limited existing facilities and lack of capacity for further ones.

Representation ID: 3331

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


Option C1 makes no provision for the re-use of brownfield sites in the countryside or the re-use/redevelopment of redundant/derelict buildings outside of settlements. This would deny the owners the opportunity to save vernacular and/or historically interesting buildings through conversion to residential use or improve the quality of the environment through well designed residential developments on such sites. Stifling such innovation is not pro-active and the suggested approach would not assist with the long term sustainability of the rural area.

Representation ID: 3261

SUPPORT MR Michael Wilcox


We are a rural community which should be maintained

Representation ID: 3260

OBJECT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin


We object to Option C1 being taken forward as part of the Local Plan. Option C1 restricts development in the countryside, limiting it to only agricultural and similar activities. In order to meet housing need and to satisfy the vision and objectives in the new Local Plan, which states in Paragraph 83 that: 'there must be a shift in the mentality towards development in the countryside as more housing is needed', the new Local Plan must provide a positive planning policy context for the redevelopment of PDL sites in the countryside to ensure that they can accommodate housing growth.

Representation ID: 3206

SUPPORT ARNESBY Parish Council (Terry Cane)


Arnesby Parish Council supports development being strictly controlled in sub-selected rural villages and that existing boundaries to development should remain.

Representation ID: 2831

SUPPORT Edmund Hunt


worked fine for many areas to date

Representation ID: 2757



This is the best solution for Cotesbach given its limited existing facilities and lack of capacity for further ones.

Representation ID: 2637

OBJECT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)


Too restrictive for small villages but OK for countryside in between. The two should be categorised differently villages need some opportunity for development but apart from reasonable agricultural buildings, the countryside does not

Representation ID: 2633

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)


This seems overly restrictive and liable to fossilise the villages

Representation ID: 2449

SUPPORT Mr Ian Madeley


There has to be a limit on green belt development to preserve our countryside and the character of smaller market towns, such as Lutterworth.

Representation ID: 2429

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


We object to this options as it does not comply with the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 28, 54 and 55. It is overly restrictive and would not represent sustainable development in accordance with national policy.

Representation ID: 2389

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick


This one

Representation ID: 1603

SUPPORT Neil Heptonstall


And you must heed local neighbourhood plans

Representation ID: 1437

SUPPORT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)


Support Option 1. Consultation with individual Parish Councils should be essential.

Representation ID: 1358

COMMENT STOUGHTON Parish Council (Karen Giddens)


Please note the suggestion for the removal for the houses on the southern side of Stoughton Lane from the Green Wedge whilst retaining Stoughton Lodge Farm on the northern side of the Lane is totally unacceptable, indeed incomprehensible

Representation ID: 1354

SUPPORT STOUGHTON Parish Council (Karen Giddens)


Stoughton Parish Council strongly supports option C1. With its minimal facilities (a small village hall) and the recent ruling by the planning inspector Jonathan Hockley on 19 August 2015, and minimum opportunity for infill we consider, as Mr Hockley has ruled, that no further construction is sustainable in Stoughton.

Representation ID: 1264

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


The approach set out in C1 above fails to recognise the other acceptable developments set out in the 4 bullet points of paragraph 55 of the Framework and would result in a overly restrictive open countryside approach also being applied to existing communities. This would do nothing to promote sustainable development or enhance the vitality of rural communities. Restricting development in the countryside and sub-SRV settlements would not, in itself, enable the provision of new services and facilities in rural settlements.

Representation ID: 1155

OBJECT Mrs Michelle Gamble


I strongly object to the proposed plans in great bowden. The additional houses are on designated separation land which could set a precedence going forwards. The houses are not needed and will put strain on local services.

Representation ID: 1119

SUPPORT Mr Ian Duffield


It is important that we manage development and protect rural areas.

Representation ID: 996

SUPPORT Mr Stephen Willcox


Allow infill where appropriate in rural areas

Representation ID: 977

SUPPORT Mrs Jan Butcher


Character of villages must be protected

Representation ID: 919

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell



Representation ID: 887

SUPPORT Susan Sharpe


We must preserve agricultural land, protect the environment, as the destruction of trees is detrimental to pollution.
There are plenty of brown sites for housing that could be used

Representation ID: 838

SUPPORT Mrs Jaqueline Strong


Support option C1

Representation ID: 763

SUPPORT Claybrooke Magna Parish Council (Mrs J P Butcher)


Development must be controlled to protect the character of our villages

Representation ID: 719

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)


Do not like this option

Representation ID: 682

SUPPORT Mrs Joy Burgoine


Because in the Cotesbach, Lutterworth area the density of traffic using the A426 is already saturation point and more houses and increased warehousing will only exacerbate this critical situation. The density of traffic at the Whittle island the extreme pollution recorded in Lutterworth town centre, being the highest in the UK makes it obvious that increased development can only worsen the situation.

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

Powered by OpusConsult