H6 clause 2

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5754

Received: 29/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Graeme Bonser

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

-Losing green further belt land in an area adjacent to significant development proposed in the Core strategy
-Losing visual and landscape value from local footpaths and bridalways "not in keeping of setting"
-Changing agricultural to residential use within green belt
-Infill development between villages of Claybrooke Parva/Ullesthorpe.
-The proposal is not located within a reasonable distance to a settlement, has
inadequate access to a range of services. Does not have suitable highway access and is
detrimental to public safety. It is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy CS4.
-Not council owned land nor planning proposal has been submitted for location

Full text:

-Losing green further belt land in an area adjacent to significant development proposed in the Core strategy
-Losing visual and landscape value from local footpaths and bridalways "not in keeping of setting"
-Changing agricultural to residential use within green belt
-Infill development between villages of Claybrooke Parva/Ullesthorpe.
-The proposal is not located within a reasonable distance to a settlement, has
inadequate access to a range of services. Does not have suitable highway access and is
detrimental to public safety. It is therefore contrary to Core Strategy policy CS4.
-Not council owned land nor planning proposal has been submitted for location

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5802

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: John Eales

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

I believe that one gypsy camp site is enough in the immediate area

Full text:

I believe that one gypsy camp site is enough in the immediate area

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7471

Received: 16/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Ogden

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

General concerns and particular concerns re traveller sites (Policy H6) and Magna Park (Policy BE2)

Full text:

My concerns with the plan start with its title. It cannot be retrospectively applied to year 2011. By the time it is adopted we could well be in year 2019 if not 2020. 2011 is already 6 years past. Events have overtaken it.

Secondly there is a complete imbalance in the proposals. It would appear that a line has been drawn across the district following the route of the A6 road and all "hard landscaping" development proposals concentrated to the west of this road with the consequential loss of agricultural land particularly in the southwest corner in the Lutterworth area and very little to the east of this road. Times change, circumstances alter; the plan leaves little room to accommodate such events.

Policy H6
Consistent with the above observation of imbalance, all the existing and proposed traveller sites apart the site at Keyham are concentrated around the Lutterworth and Market Harborough areas. Another site between Ullesthorpe and the Claybrookes is not needed nor is it desirable. Additional provision should be made in the eastern half of the district where at present there is a shortage.

Policy BE2 (Magna Park)
It is noted that the plan allows for the expansion of Magna Park subject to certain criteria, one of which is the effect of traffic flows on the local roads and A5. The area around Magna Park does not have an unemployment problem consequently any expansion will create commuter traffic to and from the site as well as increase the flows of HGVs servicing the site. The plan should state emphatically that no expansion of the Magna Park be entertained until, i. there is an unemployment crisis in the Lutterworth district and ii. The A5 trunk road is majorly improved along its whole length from the M1 to the M42 with a dual carriageway and safety improvements at all its junctions with the minor roads with which it interconnects.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7494

Received: 26/10/2017

Respondent: National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups

Representation Summary:

In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.

Full text:

I am responding to the above consultation on behalf of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, with particular regard to Policies H6 and GD3.
In H6 we strongly support the recognition in section 2ci and 2cii that allocation of pitches needs to have regard to potential changes affecting those who meet the definition of gypsies and Travellers and to meet the "unknown" need.
We have the following concerns relating to section 5:
* Criterion a) is unnecessary and unduly restrictive. There will be situations where limited ancillary commercial activity is appropriate and acceptable. If commercial activity would be unacceptable at the particular location for which permission is being sought, then this could be controlled by a planning condition.
* Criterion b) is too restrictive. Sites which are within walking distance of a settlement will usually be unavailable as Gypsy and Traveller sites due to affordability, availability and local opposition. In allocating new sites, it is reasonable for the local authority to first consider Such locations, but such a rigid approach could prevent suitable sites from coming forward in other suitable locations. Local authorities need to be realistic about the availability of alternatives to the car in accessing local service"

In section 7, we strongly oppose criterion b) which is not in accord which paragraph 22e) of PPTF, which advises against restricting sites to those who have local connections.

Finally, in Policy GD3, there needs to be a recognition that Gypsy and Traveller sites are acceptable outside settlements. This is crucial to the delivery of sufficient sites.