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 - Q11. Which is your preferred option to prevent coalescence of settlements?, Option G1

Representation ID: 4872

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

All existing separation areas should be retained with enhance separation area between Lutterworth and Magna Park, Bitteswell and Lutterworth , Bittesby and Magna Park.
Option G1 supported.

Representation ID: 4771

SUPPORT Natural England (Mr Sean Mahoney)

Summary:

We favour Areas of Separation and policy safeguards to control development that could adversely affect the open character of the land. We note the difficulties of protecting Areas of Separation from development without question and the options proposed for defining and defending them.

Representation ID: 4675

SUPPORT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

Support G1. Keep all existing separation areas, enhance separation area between Lutterworth and Magna Park, Bitteswell and Lutterworth, Bittesby and Magna Park.

Representation ID: 4576

SUPPORT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

TCG welcome option G1 as it is more flexible.

Representation ID: 4479

SUPPORT Thurnby And Bushby Society (Mr Jeffrey Rosenthal)

Summary:

G1, so long as the Thurnby/Scraptoft Separation Area is included

Representation ID: 4220

SUPPORT Bruton Knowles (mr Paul Barton)

Summary:

Option G1 is recommended to prevent the coalescence between Great Bowden and Market Harborough. This option provides a greater degree of sophistication and flexibility, whilst retaining control when assessing development within the Area of Separation and will be compliant with NPPF guidance.
All three of my clients' sites (Parcel A to the north east of Market Harborough; Parcel B to the south west of Great Bowden; and Parcel C to the south of Great Bowden) could contribute to the District's housing need over the plan period, and all three sites should be considered deliverable not just developable.

Representation ID: 4217

SUPPORT Mr R Flint

Summary:

Saved Policy EV/3, which forms part of the Local Plan, defines the Areas of Separation. As the logic supporting this Policy remains sound there is no evident reason to modify the principle or detail of Policy EV/3.
It is noted that it is intended to replace the Area of Separation Review (2011). The justification for this action is not clear and an explanation should be provided. The District Council should endeavour to refrain from seeking to review and revise policies that are well established have which have been proven over time to be effective.

Representation ID: 4048

OBJECT Redrow Homes (South Midlands) (Mr Russell Crow)

Summary:

It is considered that the inclusion of a defined Area of Separation within the emerging Local Plan would run contrary to the guidance contained within national policy. Furthermore, it is evident from appeal decisions which have followed publication of the NPPF, both within and outside the District, that such an approach would be unjustified. As such, we would object to the Council following the approach set out at Option G1.

Representation ID: 3809

SUPPORT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

SUPPORT Option G1. This must include the existing Area of Separation between Scraptoft and Thurnby and Bushby. This has already been eroded by the granting of planning permission for two developments off Pulford Drive. The importance of the area was recognised in appeals to the Planning Inspectorate in 2012, but the appeal in Thurnby was upheld by the Inspector, due largely to a lack of housing supply in the District. The proposed SDA would severely erode the Area of Separation, leaving only a small section, which itself would be crossed by the proposed relief road.

Representation ID: 3786

SUPPORT THURNBY AND BUSHBY Parish Council (Mrs S Bloy)

Summary:

This must include the existing Area of Separation between Scraptoft and Thurnby and Bushby. This has already been eroded by the granting of planning permission for two developments off Pulford Drive. The importance of the area was recognised in appeals to the Planning Inspectorate in 2012, but the appeal in Thurnby was upheld by the Inspector, due largely to a lack of housing supply in the District. The proposed SDA would severely erode the Area of Separation, leaving only a small section, which itself would be crossed by the proposed relief road.

Representation ID: 3733

SUPPORT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

support

Representation ID: 3710

SUPPORT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

support

Representation ID: 3546

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

Summary:

This option leaves the door open for development until there is a potential risk of settlements merging. Only then would Areas of Separation be defined. This is "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted".

Representation ID: 3522

SUPPORT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Cotesbach needs a binding separation area between the village and Magna Park in perpetuity.
To protect our lovely rural environment there must be formal restriction and prohibition to prevent and industrial creep and fragmented/periodic infill.
If people wanted to live in an industrial area, they would not have chosen to live in rural South Leicestershire.
The welcome to Leicestershire road signs say
"The Heart of RURAL England"
Could HDC please ensure its part of this beautiful county stays that way?

Representation ID: 3520

SUPPORT Dr Stuart Rimmington

Summary:

I would like a separation zone between Magna Park and Cotesbach.

Representation ID: 3474

COMMENT Mrs Angela Lomas

Summary:

It is extremely important to maintain the openness of land between settlements. The constant creep of development would destroy the individual identity of the district's towns and villages alike.

Representation ID: 3344

SUPPORT Mrs Rachael Edgley

Summary:

seems sensible/logical and practical approach

Representation ID: 3317

SUPPORT Mr John Coombs

Summary:

Defined areas are more easily understood by all concerned.

Representation ID: 3302

SUPPORT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

This should include clear definition and maps

Representation ID: 2840

SUPPORT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

Cotesbach needs to request a specific separation area between the village and magna park.

Representation ID: 2830

SUPPORT BILLESDON Parish Council (Paul Collins)

Summary:

We strongly believe that village identities need to be preserved with the maintenance of green space between settlements paramount. Billesdon must be kept seperate from any expansion in Houghton and Skeffington for example.

Representation ID: 2822

SUPPORT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

Cotesbach needs a separation area between the village and Magna Park.

Representation ID: 2676

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

We believe it is already recognised that a separation area between Harborough and Lubenham shoul dbe defined but would like to see this defined officially as soon as possible and included in this plan and the Lubenham Neighbourhood Plan.

Representation ID: 2585

SUPPORT Elizabeth Thomas

Summary:

Defining areas of separation offers more protection against developers, who are intent upon developing what they see as more profitable areas, with a high demand for larger and more expensive homes...

a broader undefined policy would dilute this protection.

Representation ID: 2579

SUPPORT Mrs Penelope Fielden

Summary:

Places like Scraptoft need greater powers to preserve their areas of separation which are under threat constantly by developers wishing to build more homes on cheap surrounding agricultural land. There needs to be safe-guarding of physical and visual separation and protection against whole-scale merging into conurbation.

Representation ID: 2459

SUPPORT Mr Ian Madeley

Summary:

It is vital to quality of life that a good size separation zone exists between Lutterworth, Cotesbach, and Magna Park.

Representation ID: 2455

SUPPORT Mr Simon Howes

Summary:

Request a separation zone between Magna Park and Cotesbach to protect the environment from the current over zealous expansion to the detriment of the environment and residents.

Representation ID: 2398

SUPPORT Mrs Julie King

Summary:

Separation areas need to be maintained otherwise the current separation areas will gradually be eaten away little by little by individual applications. The separation area between Lutterworth and Magna Park is particularly important to stop Lutterworth becoming a suburb of Magna Park.

Representation ID: 2120

SUPPORT Mr Michael Ward

Summary:

Best solution

Representation ID: 2056

SUPPORT Mr John Turner

Summary:

Identifying key locations where separation issues are important should remain a feature of the local plan.

Representation ID: 1818

SUPPORT Mr Michael Lord

Summary:

The Thurnby/Scraptoft Separation Area is important

Representation ID: 1784

SUPPORT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

keep existing separation areas

Representation ID: 1617

COMMENT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

Who would define where the risk is greatest, and would there be a process for adding to the list as new risks emerge over time up to 2031? It seems incredible that separation is defined for Magna Park/Bitteswell but not Magna Park and Ullesthorpe.

Representation ID: 1450

SUPPORT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Support Option G1

Representation ID: 1356

SUPPORT STOUGHTON Parish Council (Karen Giddens)

Summary:

Stoughton Parish Council strongly supports option G1. Stoughton is a unique village retaining its original historic estate character. It is vastly different from any nearby settlement and a clearly defined Green Wedge totally surrounding the village is essential to prevent erosion of this unique and valued character.

Representation ID: 1082

SUPPORT Mr William Richmond

Summary:

I support Option G1 as it clearly defines where development can and cannot take place. The Areas of Separation need to be clearly defined to avoid creeping development which would ultimately lead to coalescence of settlements.

Representation ID: 809

COMMENT Market Harborough Civic Society (Bernard Bowen)

Summary:

The boundaries should be defined in the plan or in a neighbourhood plan for Market Harborough.

Once defined, the Council should include a policy to state which developments will be or will not be acceptable in such area.

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

Powered by OpusConsult