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 C3: Meeting locally identified need (with Option C1 above)

Representation ID: 4510

SUPPORT Mr J Blenkin represented by Aitchison Raffety (Mr Jonathan Weekes)

Summary:

Supoort this approach. Reflecting the need to allow natural growth of villages to occur, it would be inappropriate to state no additional development is allowed in the lower order settlements. However, there is a requirement to protect the countryside for its own sake (as set out in the NPPF). Given the typically small scale nature and unsustainability of such villages, the level of development envisaged should be kept to a minimum, meeting identified local and agricultural need.

Representation ID: 3721

COMMENT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

with option 1 strictly controlled

Representation ID: 3702

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

by the means of option c1

Representation ID: 3536

SUPPORT Hungarton Neighbourhod Plan Committee (Mr James Patterson)

Summary:

Hungarton NDP committee stongly favours C3 with C1

Representation ID: 3526

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: 3500

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

With 100 households Cotesbach does not currently have a neighbourhood plan due to cost and the ongoing management for a small rural population. Therefore cannot be disadvantaged as a consequence under C3.

Representation ID: 3356

COMMENT Mrs Angela Lomas

Summary:

The countryside is constantly under attack. It is therefore vitally important that strict planning rules are in place to prevent inappropriate development in all the wrong places. This applies to housing, industry and so called green energy.

Representation ID: 3266

OBJECT Hft represented by Mr. Nigel Simkin

Summary:

This option would allow for the provision of some housing in smaller settlements such as Shangton where development needs are identified locally either through a housing needs survey or through a Neighbourhood Plan. This option therefore does not recognise the potential to reuse PDL sites in the future and hence this must be included if this option is carried forward in the future, to ensure that the Local Plan is in line with the NPPF.

Representation ID: 2824

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

The recent Billesdon Neighbourhood Plan set out the wishes of the Community. We strongly believe that local needs should be met within the confines of limits agreed in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Representation ID: 2762

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

With c. 100 households Cotesbach does not currently have a neighbourhood plan due to cost and ongoing management for a small population. Therefore cannot be disadvantaged as a consequence under C3.

Representation ID: 2390

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

This one is best

Representation ID: 1956

SUPPORT FOXTON Parish Council (Mrs A Hall)

Summary:

Development in the Countryside. Page 44. This does not apply to Foxton but would prefer C3

Representation ID: 1560

SUPPORT mrs Emma Andrew

Summary:

Best option

Representation ID: 1440

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 3 (with Option C1)

Representation ID: 956

OBJECT Mr Paul Johnson

Summary:

This is far too restrictive.

Representation ID: 721

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