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 G2

Representation ID: 4873

OBJECT Mr Michael Lenihan

Summary:

Object to G2.

Representation ID: 4676

OBJECT Cllr Rosita Page

Summary:

Object to G2.

Representation ID: 4577

OBJECT The Co-operative Group (Mr Matthew Stafford)

Summary:

Object to option G2, which appears to seek a restriction on 'coalescence' across the District, regardless of Green Wedge or landscape character designation.

Representation ID: 4049

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

Summary:

In terms of Policy G2, it is noted that the Council proposes to include a specific criterion within the Settlement Development Policy. This approach is generally supported as it allows for development proposals to be considered against their own merits, on a case-by-case basis. However, it is considered that the wording of the criterion requires minor modifications as follows:
"Does not result in the coalescence of settlements [by protecting their] physical and visual separation".
Alongside the policy, it is recommended that the supporting text provides further clarification on the specific circumstances in which development proposals will be considered acceptable within the current areas of separation.

Representation ID: 3818

SUPPORT Miss Margaret Wild

Summary:

There is a need to continue enabling separation zones between areas of development. In particular between Cotesbach and Magna Park.

Representation ID: 3735

SUPPORT Mr Andy Bromley

Summary:

The most sensible option

Representation ID: 3734

OBJECT Miss Ruth Thompson

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3711

OBJECT Mr Simon Smith

Summary:

object

Representation ID: 3543

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

Summary:

The importance of areas of separation are fundamental to many rural areas to maintain the character and identity of settlements. I support the retention of guidelines to protect the separation of settlements particularly reinstating Limits to Development.

Representation ID: 3539

SUPPORT Hungarton Neighbourhod Plan Committee (Mr James Patterson)

Summary:

Hungarton NDP committee believes that maintaining the integrity of settlements is very desirable where possible and supports this approach

Representation ID: 3524

OBJECT Mr Graham Logan

Summary:

Strongly object.

Representation ID: 3306

OBJECT MR Michael Wilcox

Summary:

This will be a very subjective approach which developer's will exploit as no one will be clear on where development is not allowed

Representation ID: 2843

OBJECT Edmund Hunt

Summary:

does not only specific areas to be identified, it's too generic and could risk many appearing and undue bureaucracy (and cost) to obtain them

Representation ID: 2823

OBJECT Mr A Adcock

Summary:

CPC don't approve of the criteria, otherwise could result in complexity, need individual decisions.

Representation ID: 2677

SUPPORT LUBENHAM Parish Council (Mrs Diana Cook)

Summary:

agree

Representation ID: 2598

SUPPORT Mrs Marie Galton

Summary:

I would like to see more protection given to areas of separation to enable communities to retain their separate identity.

Representation ID: 2434

SUPPORT Mr Gary Kirk

Summary:

I am concerned at the need to question the importance of areas of separation - these are fundamental to many rural areas. I support the retention of guidelines to support the separation of settlements and would object to only those at most risk being allowed.

Representation ID: 2401

OBJECT Mrs Julie King

Summary:

I think it is important that Separation Zones are clearly shown in the Plan to prevent these areas being built upon. It only takes one planning application in a separation zone to be approved and a precedent is set whereby other applications will be allowed and the settlements will coalesce.

Representation ID: 2395

SUPPORT Ms Caroline Pick

Summary:

Best

Representation ID: 2289

SUPPORT Dr Jon Davies

Summary:

It is important to maintain local identity within communities and therefore planning should seek to discourage coalescence.

Representation ID: 1807

SUPPORT BURTON OVERY Parish Council (Mrs Kate Barker)

Summary:

It is important that settlements are kept distinct and that rural character around villages is preserved both physically and visually. In the case of Burton Overy, we would seek to protect the particularly attractive countryside setting for our village. This would mean amongst other considerations protecting the ridge line to the south and west of Burton Overy on the parish boundary with Great Glen

Representation ID: 1785

OBJECT mr chris faircliffe

Summary:

not best option

Representation ID: 1618

SUPPORT Dr Paul Dimmer

Summary:

I tend to support this option unless there is a robust way of defining new separation areas. Perhaps a combination of G1 and G2 is even better.

Representation ID: 1452

OBJECT CLAYBROOKE PARVA Parish Council (Maurice C Howell)

Summary:

Object to Option G2

Representation ID: 1000

SUPPORT Mr Stephen Willcox

Summary:

I would request a separation zone between Cotesbach and Magna Park and any further development if permitted. This is key in maintaining a rural outlook for the village

Representation ID: 618

SUPPORT Mrs Jan Butcher

Summary:

Character of villages must be protected

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

Powered by OpusConsult