e. Selected Rural Villages

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5436

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jan Butcher

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Object to the spatial strategy. Conflicts in part with HDC's own data ; specifically Claybrooke Magna PC has submitted considerable evidence to show it should not be selected as an SRV but HDC has refused to listen ; indeed policies within the Local Plan have been changed retrospectively without due process or effective governance in order to justify the designation. There needs to be proper consultation that actually involves listening to local people and reviewing the evidence properly, not simply a tick box exercise going through the motions to justify a decision

Full text:

Object to the spatial strategy. Conflicts in part with HDC's own data ; specifically Claybrooke Magna PC has submitted considerable evidence to show it should not be selected as an SRV but HDC has refused to listen ; indeed policies within the Local Plan have been changed retrospectively without due process or effective governance in order to justify the designation. There needs to be proper consultation that actually involves listening to local people and reviewing the evidence properly, not simply a tick box exercise going through the motions to justify a decision

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5438

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jan Butcher

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The designation of the Claybrookes as an SRV is unfair and incorrect. The Parish Council has demonstrated that the policy has been reverse engineered on a numbers of occasions to support an early decision by Officers rather than policy being developed using evidence. Claybrooke does not meet the safe and acceptable walking distance requirements and development in this location is unsustainable due to lack of facilities and limited access to public transport.

Full text:

The designation of the Claybrookes as an SRV is unfair and incorrect. The Local Plan App F states the SRV criteria to be the presence of 2 of 6 listed key services and, where neighbouring villages share a primary school this is to be within acceptable a safe walking distance. HDC's definition of a walkable distance has changed a number of times without proper process or governance simply, retrospectively, to justify the decision to treat Claybrooke as an SRV. This is unsound and unjustified. Options have not been assessed nor even been submitted to HD Council by Officers for proper consideration. The majority (2/3) of Claybrooke Magna is over 800 m from the school in Claybrooke Parva. The CIHT 'Planning for Walking' document shows 400m as a reasonable benchmark for an acceptable walking distance with up to 800m in relation to walking to a place of importance such as a railway station ( or school perhaps?) as does the Manual for Streets . Yet Officers point to a CIHT document dated 2000, one not adopted by the Council as forming the basis for policy to try to justify using a greater distance, Indeed HDC was for some time working to 800m to define acceptable walking distance, up to the point Claybrooke Magna evidenced that the majority of the village was outside of this range. A clear case of adjusting policies within the Local Plan to justify a decision rather than using evidence from consultation to inform outcomes.
The criteria in App F states that the walking distance must be safe. The Parish Council has recognised and reported the strong local concern about the dangerous stretch of pavement young children would have to use were they to walk to school from Magna. The stretch of pavement in question slopes sharply and has a gulley running through its centre. Parents with pushchairs often have to walk in the road at this point as does anyone with impaired mobility. This is clearly dangerous and the matter has been acknowledged by LCC Highways but funding is not available to address. It would be reckless to exacerbate a known risk by allowing further increase in traffic and footfall. To compound safety issues there is no street lighting for much of the stretch and it is not overlooked.
A travel survey conducted May 2017 shows that 92% parents from Magna regularly transport their children to and from school by car. The main reasons cited were time pressures and concern about road safety due to the increasing volumes of traffic, along with the longstanding and well documented concerns about vehicles speeding through the village. Far from encouraging walking or cycling, the trip to school produces further traffic with adverse impacts and therefore is not sustainable as an SRV.
A further significant issue is the considerable local concern about parking problems around the school at pick up and drop off times. The school is situated on a dangerous bend and the parking difficulties and resultant congestion causes a major risk and much local disquiet; indeed the police have been involved. In short any future development would be poorly connected to, and served by, local facilities and adds to a known road safety risk area within the village - contrary to NPPF paras 38, 69 and 70.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6175

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Deacon

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Why is it that the two separate villages of Parva and Magna have been amalgamated for the purposes of housing developments? This has not happened in other areas of the District, e.g. The Langtons. Harborough District Council appear to make up the rules to fit their plans, not based on documentary evidence.

Full text:

Why is it that the two separate villages of Parva and Magna have been amalgamated for the purposes of housing developments? This has not happened in other areas of the District, e.g. The Langtons. Harborough District Council appear to make up the rules to fit their plans, not based on documentary evidence.

In addition there are severe parking problems around Claybrooke School, which have the potential to cause a death or injury to someone. Further housing can only increase this danger.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6594

Received: 11/11/2017

Respondent: EAST LANGTON and CHURCH LANGTON Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

East Langton Parish is classed as a Selected Rural Village, one of only three settlements where two villages have been grouped together as a result of walking distances to Church Langton Primary School.

The impact is to increase the housing requirement for the Parish to 30, and East Langton which would otherwise be treated as an unsustainable location for housing is required to take a significant number (although the Local Plan doesn't distinguish between villages in terms of location for housing so it could therefore increase the requirement for Church Langton if no suitable East Langton sites come forward.).

Full text:

East Langton Parish is classed as a Selected Rural Village, one of only three settlements where two villages have been grouped together as a result of walking distances to Church Langton Primary School.

The impact is to increase the housing requirement for the Parish to 30, and East Langton which would otherwise be treated as an unsustainable location for housing is required to take a significant number (although the Local Plan doesn't distinguish between villages in terms of location for housing so it could therefore increase the requirement for Church Langton if no suitable East Langton sites come forward.).

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6732

Received: 15/11/2017

Respondent: TILTON ON THE HILL Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Tilton on the Hill should be reclassified in the settlement hierarchy as 'Other Villages and Rural Settlements'.
No GP surgery or primary school within acceptable walking distance. The library van calls monthly, 4 residents access this service, thus a threat of withdrawal. Post office is an outreach service two afternoons a week, with staff departure closure possible. Public house closed on 20th July and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Tilton has a shop.

Full text:

Tilton on the Hill and Halstead Parish Council seeks Tilton's re-classification as "Other Villages and Rural Settlements".
Tilton does not have a GP surgery or primary school within acceptable walking distance. The library van calls monthly, 4 residents access this service, thus a threat of withdrawal. The post office is an outreach service in the foyer of our village hall two afternoons a week, the post office employee will be leaving with the possible closure of this facility. The public house closed on 20th July and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
Tilton has a shop.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7148

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Marrons Solicitors

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Representation Summary:

Support Bitteswell's allocation as a Select Rural Village based on the level of local services and proximity to the strategic road network

Full text:

Acting on behalf of Alpha Investments

Alpha Investments supports the identification of Bitteswell as a Selected Rural Village in the Settlement Hierarchy. Bitteswell has two of the six key services (primary school and two public houses) as well as a village hall, church and open space, sports and recreation facilities. It is also close to a wider range of facilities, services and employment opportunities in Lutterworth as well as the strategic road network (the A4303, the A426,the A5 and junction 20 of the M1. The proposal for new housing to meet local need is supported and it is agreed that this strategy promotes sustainable development in rural areas and is therefore consistent with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7153

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Alpha Investments

Agent: Marrons Solicitors

Representation Summary:

Support due to settlement size, services and strategic road network proximity

Full text:

Alpha Investments supports the identification of Bitteswell as a Selected Rural Village in the Settlement Hierarchy. Bitteswell has two of the six key services (primary school and two public houses) as well as a village hall, church and open space, sports and recreation facilities. It is also close to a wider range of facilities, services and employment opportunities in Lutterworth as well as the strategic road network (the A4303, the A426,the A5 and junction 20 of the M1. The proposal for new housing to meet local need is supported and it is agreed that this strategy promotes sustainable development in rural areas and is therefore consistent with paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7336

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Barwood Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Settlement Profile for Great Bowden confirms that with 4 out of the 6 key services, it has the level of services to become upgraded from a Selected Rural Village to a Rural Centre. Barwood Homes considers that the spatial strategy for the district should be amended so that Great Bowden is upgraded from a Selected Rural Village to a Rural Centre.

Full text:

These representations have been prepared on behalf of our client Barwood Homes Ltd in respect of its interest in Bowden Sawmill, north of Leicester Lane, Great Bowden. See attached document

The extent of our client's land interest is shown on the attached Site Location Plan.

SS1: Object
Great Bowden currently has Selected Rural Village status in the Harborough District Core Strategy (2011). This means that some level of development will be is likely to be directed to the village on a scale that reflects the size and character of the settlement. Selected Rural Villages have been identified on the basis of the presence of at least two of six relevant services (food shop, GP surgery, library, post office, primary school and pub).

Great Bowden currently has four of these Key Services; these are a Primary School (Great Bowden Academy Church of England Primary School, Gunnsbrook Close); two Pubs (The Shoulder of Mutton, The Green; The Red Lion Inn, Main Street); and Food Stores/Post Office (Bowden Stores, The Green - Fresh produce and Off License; Welton's, The Green - Post Office, Newsstand, Deli Counter and Tea Room (ATM located here too)).

The Settlement Profile for Great Bowden confirms that with 4 out of the 6 key services, it has the level of services to become upgraded from a Selected Rural Village to a Rural Centre. Barwood Homes considers that the spatial strategy for the district should be amended so that Great Bowden is upgraded from a Selected Rural Village to a Rural Centre.

GD2: Support and Object
Barwood Homes objects to the wording of Policy GD2 Part 1 (a) as it only seeks to support housing where 'it does not cumulatively with other proposals, significantly exceed the target for the delivery of new homes in Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages specified in Policy H1: Provision of New Housing.' Whilst this approach is not generally objected to, the wording of Policy GD2 Part 1(a) provides difficulty in determining applications for 'development within or contiguous with the existing or committed built up area of...Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages' where the Rural Centres and Selected Rural Villages in question do not have an identified target set out in Policy H1.
Policy H1 makes reference to and provides a specific housing target for all Selected Rural Villages apart from Great Bowden. Although it is understood that this approach was adopted due to the scale of previous development permitted in the village, the Plan fails to make any reference to why this decision was taken. Furthermore, Policy H1 only makes reference to the Rural Centres of Billesdon, Fleckney, Great Glen and Houghton on the Hill as having housing targets. The wording adopted under Policy GD2 Part 1(a) would therefore prohibit 'development within or contiguous with the existing or committed built up area of' Great Bowden, Husbands Bosworth, The Kibworths and Ullesthorpe.

However, Barwood Homes supports the approach to separate reference to 'previously developed land which is not of high environmental value' within GD2(Part 2), thus meaning that such development is not subject to criteria (a-d) of GD2 Part 1. This approach would allow the development of appropriate previously developed land to come forward within all settlements. However, it is considered that this approach needs to be made clearer within the policy, as it is important and in accordance with national policy that LPAs 'encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.' This is established within the Core Planning Principles at para 17 of the NPPF.

H1 Provision of New Housing

As set out above, it is considered that Great Bowden should be identified as a Rural Centre and an appropriate housing target assigned accordingly.

In any event, the relationship between Policy H1 and Policy GD2 needs to be addressed in accordance with the comments made above.

In so far as Policy H1 relates to the Policies Map and Inset Plans, Barwood Homes considers that there is no justification for omitting Bowden Sawmill from the limits to development for Great Bowden. As is evident from Figure 2 below, the site is intensively developed brownfield land that directly adjoins the settlement; the Harborough Local Plan limits to development should therefore be revised to include the site.

Finally, in reviewing the role of Great Bowden in the settlement hierarchy, the LPA should also have regard to the comments in the proceeding section below.