Selected Rural Villages

Showing comments and forms 1 to 16 of 16

Object

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 556

Received: 09/10/2015

Respondent: Mrs Jan Butcher

Representation Summary:

Strongly object to the inclusion of Claybrooke Magna as the village does not meet the stated criteria. The critieria set out are specific: 2 of 6 services. Claybrooke Magna has only 1. There is no room for manoeuvre, no exceptions or additional criteria are stated therefore the village clearly cannot be designated as an SRV. Claybrooke Magna has been selected in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion. It is clear the criteria are not being applied in a fair and consistent manner across the HDC area.

Object

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 750

Received: 09/10/2015

Respondent: Claybrooke Magna Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Strongly object to the inclusion of Claybrooke Magna as the village does not meet the stated criteria. The criteria set out are specific: 2 of 6 services. Claybrooke Magna has only 1. There is no room for manoeuvre, no exceptions or additional criteria are stated therefore the village clearly cannot be designated as an SRV. This issue has been raised on numerous occasions with HDC Planning Policy Team. No satisfactory explanation has been provided as to why CM has been included as an SRV.

Support

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 1096

Received: 19/10/2015

Respondent: SWINFORD Parish Council

Representation Summary:

As long as the key services do not drop below the defined minimum as the future of the pub is not certain beyond the next two years

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 1258

Received: 21/10/2015

Respondent: Brudenell Estates

Agent: Landmark Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

There is an unjustified emphasis on social housing, small-scale market housing and development aimed at meeting the needs of local people which implies that only this type of development is acceptable. Whilst clearly this has a role in settlements such as Medbourne and others that have been categorised as Selected Rural Villages, these settlements are less well suited to the provision of affordable housing than those higher up in the settlement hierarchy.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 1308

Received: 08/10/2015

Respondent: Ms Julia Weaver

Representation Summary:

Great Easton should remain as a selected rural village

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 1379

Received: 22/10/2015

Respondent: Mrs M Vizma

Representation Summary:

Great Easton should remain a Selected Rural Village

Support

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 1724

Received: 27/10/2015

Respondent: Andrew Granger & Co

Agent: Andrew Granger & Co

Representation Summary:

We support the inclusion of these settlements as Selected Rural Villages. The retention and improvement of the services they provide can be achieved by allowing further residential growth and we commend this.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 1749

Received: 26/10/2015

Respondent: mr chris faircliffe

Representation Summary:

A school which is full and cannot be expanded should not be considered to support further development.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 1908

Received: 30/10/2015

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Neighbourhood Plans that have been prepared or are in the course of preparation for these villages should be used to inform any local needs or sites for development. These are based on local information and should provide the information to be utilised in making decisions in regard to development.

Support

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 2273

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Dr Jon Davies

Representation Summary:

I strongly support the overall approach to defining the settlement hierarchy and the definition of the rural villages. The overall approach clearly reflects the natural character of the District. I support the definition of Great Easton as a rural village but note that it has limited facilities.

Object

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 2431

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Mr Gary Kirk

Representation Summary:

This is a very unsophisticated tool for measuring a settlement hierarchy. Church Langton technically has two services - a pub that has been closed for much of the recent period and remains vulnerable, and a school which serves a very wide catchment area beyond the Village - so there is no special sighnificance to the school being in Church Langton as opposed to any other village within the catchment area. What about accessibility of public transport etc?

Object

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 2902

Received: 29/10/2015

Respondent: The Co-operative Group

Representation Summary:

Please see representations submitted by the Co-operative Group (20151029 TCG Reps New Plan for Harborough Options Consultation Doc') by email on 29/10/15 to planningpolicy@harborough.gov.uk

Object

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 3475

Received: 30/10/2015

Respondent: EAST LANGTON and CHURCH LANGTON Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The future of the pub is precarious as it is currently up for sale and the school is already full. Both these criteria are flawed and seem no basis for identifying potential housing need.
26 houses would impact on the landscape, settlement character, and heritage of the village not say put more pressure on the school. The separation area between Church Langton and East Langton would certainly be under threat.
The trend for cutting public transport along with the increased vehicles so many houses would produce, would put even more pressure on the lanes around the village.

Support

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 3506

Received: 30/10/2015

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Johnston

Representation Summary:

I strongly support the designation of Great Easton as a Selected Rural Village - it does not have the services to be considered a Rural Centre, and would lose its character if developed too much.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 4209

Received: 30/10/2015

Respondent: Mr R Flint

Representation Summary:

Among the cited objectives the issue of local need should be emphasised.

Object

New Local Plan Options

Representation ID: 4965

Received: 30/10/2015

Respondent: Mr John Martin

Representation Summary:

Lubenham has been selected as a "Selected Rural Village" yet only has a pub and a primary school neither of which is on any use to households who for example may wish to buy a loaf of bread or a pint of milk. Such a definition requires a revisit to make it acceptable and appropriate. The developments in these villages should not include social housing as they attract people without finances to use a private car and currently, bus services cannot correctly be described as services.