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

Representation ID: 3801

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Diana Cook)

Summary:

There is no opportunity to accept locally identified need which I would support if I could

Representation ID: 3719

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3525

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

Summary:

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: 3498

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Not appropriate for Cotesbach given its limited amenities and capacity for them.

Representation ID: 3340

SUPPORT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 3264

SUPPORT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin

Summary:

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).

Representation ID: 2759

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Not appropriate for Cotesbach given limited amenities/ capacity for them.

Representation ID: 2758

COMMENT Mr O Tebbs represented by Hutchinsons Planning (Mr Keith Hutchinson)

Summary:

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.

Representation ID: 2635

COMMENT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 2430

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

Summary:

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.

Representation ID: 2391

OBJECT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

No, not this one

Representation ID: 2286

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

Option C2 should reflect the views and needs of the local community, noting the overall policy focuses on maintaining the character of the area

Representation ID: 1800

SUPPORT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

This seems reasonable for the size of settlements in question.

Representation ID: 1630

SUPPORT Miss Annali Ruddock-Brown

Summary:

smaller villages need to grow

Representation ID: 1439

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 2

Representation ID: 1265

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

Summary:

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.

Representation ID: 1030

COMMENT BRINGHURST, DRAYTON AND NEVIL HOLT Parish Meeting (Christopher Newton)

Summary:

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

Representation ID: 955

SUPPORT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

Strongly support this option as it is in accord with the requirements of the NPPF and does not seek to restrict delivery.

Representation ID: 920

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Limited development

Representation ID: 808

COMMENT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

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.

Representation ID: 720

OBJECT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Do not like this option

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

Powered by OpusConsult