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 C2: Limited infill and Development Management led
COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Diana Cook)
There is no opportunity to accept locally identified need which I would support if I could
OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson
OBJECT 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.
OBJECT Mr Graham Logan
Not appropriate for Cotesbach given its limited amenities and capacity for them.
SUPPORT Mrs Rachael Edgley
As these villages lack amenities to make life better for people at present so could do with the community provisions such as shops/pub/community centres
SUPPORT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin
We support Option C2 in principle, as it represents a more balanced approach to development. However, we believe that the current drafting of this policy does not adequately address the reuse of PDL sites which should contribute to the District's housing land supply. If explicit reference to countryside PDL were included within the policy, this would support Local Plan Objective 3 as well as being in line national planning policy (Paragraphs 17 & 87 of the NPPF).
OBJECT Mr A Adcock
Not appropriate for Cotesbach given limited amenities/ capacity for them.
COMMENT Mr O Tebbs represented by Hutchinsons Planning (Mr Keith Hutchinson)
Whilst we support safeguarding the countryside from inessential development, we strongly support the move away from village limits to a criteria based approach. In our opinion the opportunity to provide limited infilling within or on the edge of the built form of sub-selected rural villages such as Leire would be appropriate, so we would support Option C2.. Adoption of this policy would help to maintain existing facilities and services and enable rural settlements to retain their vitality.
COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)
Do not see a reason for listing any communities over other smaller communities. Being too prescriptive could prevent development where it may be needed Should be combined with Option C 3 . Neighbourhood plans, where relevant, should provide the basis for this policy. There seems to be nowhere to comment on option 3
SUPPORT Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane) (Rachel Padfield)
We support this option as it will help to enhance and maintain the vitality of rural communities, however, we feel the policy could go further, hence our support for Option C3.
We do not support the element of the policy which places additional controls conversion of existing buildings within the smaller settlements, over those which the NPPF places on buildings in the open countryside.
OBJECT Ms Caroline Pick
No, not this one
SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies
Option C2 should reflect the views and needs of the local community, noting the overall policy focuses on maintaining the character of the area
SUPPORT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)
This seems reasonable for the size of settlements in question.
SUPPORT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown
smaller villages need to grow
OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)
Object to Option 2
COMMENT Brudenell Estates represented by Landmark Planning Ltd (Lance Wiggins)
Option C2 is more favoured, however, this merits based approach should also be extended to Other Settlements in the hierarchy rather than just the selected rural villages as this would enable proposals for additional, small scale residential developments to be appropriately considered.
COMMENT BRINGHURST, DRAYTON AND NEVIL HOLT Parish Meeting (Christopher Newton)
Drayton should not be included in this list of villages. Its Village Hall was closed some 4 years ag. Drayton has no services or amenities to provide for additional housing
SUPPORT Mr Paul Johnson
Strongly support this option as it is in accord with the requirements of the NPPF and does not seek to restrict delivery.
SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell
COMMENT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)
This policy will give some flexibility without causing harm.
Should be combined with Option C 3 . Neighbourhood plans, where relevant, should provide the basis for this policy. However, it will be noted that most of the neighbourhood plans listed in Appendix A apply to setlements larger than selected rural villages.
OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)
Do not like this option