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 C2 above)

Representation ID: 3722

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3527

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: 3502

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

With about 100 households Cotesbach currently does not have a neighbourhood plan due to cost and ongoing management for a small rural community.

Representation ID: 3267

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: 3212

OBJECT ARNESBY Parish Council (Terry Cane)

Summary:

See option above

Representation ID: 2581

SUPPORT Elizabeth Thomas

Summary:

Needs that are locally identified are more likely to be sustainable than those rigidly controlled by distant bureaucrats who are unfamiliar with local impacts. Selective. Infill and brown land development and conversion of existing buildings is the solution to rural needs and would not conflict with scale and character of settlements.

Representation ID: 2464

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

Summary:

We support this option as it goes furthest to support and maintain the vitality and viability of rural settlements. It accords with the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 28, 54 and 55.

Representation ID: 2078

SUPPORT Mr Christopher Gladman

Summary:

This seems a logical approach that would permit small scale development.

Representation ID: 1451

SUPPORT Mr & Mrs M E Broome represented by Fowler Architecture & Planning Ltd (Mr Aaron Smith)

Summary:

The use of Option C2 with C3 would more appropriately respond to Government policy, including the Rural Productivity Plan that makes clear that 'more housing' should be provided and states "the government wants to ensure that any village in England has the freedom to expand in an incremental way, subject to local agreement". The Representor considers the District's Plan must continue to enable development within the built-up area of all villages, while being sufficiently flexible to respond to the changing needs and priorities by enabling development on the edge of all settlements through the Neighbourhood Planning and Development Management processes.

Representation ID: 1441

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option 3 (with Option C2)

Representation ID: 1266

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

Summary:

My responses to previous policies in the new Local Plan have stressed my opposition to an over-reliance on local needs housing rather than a more positive approach towards rural housing provision. The Government's recently published ten point plan for rural areas stresses the need for more rural housing including the provision of Starter Homes but not excluding other forms of housing development.

Representation ID: 1070

SUPPORT Kay Wilson

Summary:

I think it is important to allow controlled development in rural areas in order to ensure the communities remain sustainable. Preventing development in small communities is likely to kill off such services as they have, to the detriment od existing residents. New services may well become established if the community can be developed sufficiently to support them.
Development should always be allowed where local need has been established and a suitable site can be identified

Representation ID: 1024

SUPPORT KIBWORTH HARCOURT Parish Council (Dr Kevin Feltham)

Summary:

This approach seems sensible.

Representation ID: 1001

COMMENT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

See our comments relating to C 2. above. There should be a combination of these policies.

Representation ID: 921

SUPPORT Mr Robert Mitchell

Summary:

Great Easton could meet it's target from infill and brown field sites

Representation ID: 722

SUPPORT TUR LANGTON Parish Council (Alison Gibson)

Summary:

Like this option

Representation ID: 554

SUPPORT Dr Jon Greiff

Summary:

There is a shortage of affordable houses in general within the Market Harborough Area Including rural areas. Infill and use of redundant farm and other buildings should be considered where appropriate. There is also scope to extend parish building lines in many rural villages making the villages generally more sustainable.

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

Powered by OpusConsult