GD6 Clause 1a

Showing comments and forms 1 to 14 of 14

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5496

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Derrick

Representation Summary:

Support the designation of Areas of Separation

Full text:

Support the designation of Areas of Separation

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5572

Received: 02/11/2017

Respondent: Mr John Martin

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The green wedge that currently lies between Harborough and Lubenham was the subject of much argument when the planning applications for the Airfield Farm developments were under discussion. The results were that this green wedge would remain.
However I cannot find reference to this land being listed within the current plan.

Full text:

The green wedge that currently lies between Harborough and lubenham was the subject of much argument when the planning applications for the Airfield Farm developments were under discussion. The results were that this green wedge would remain.
However I cannot find reference to this land being listed within the current plan.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5577

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Mrs N Stanley

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Burnmill Farm proposal is in an area of separation. Any development in the area could set a precedent for further development and 'creep' into other land units. For example recent sale of pony paddock adjacent to this proposed development could request planning permission for a smaller development. The planted tree line has separated this land unit from the area of separation as a whole and would be deemed as more acceptable, however it still still remains as the designated Area of Separation.

Full text:

The Burnmill Farm proposal is in an area of separation. Any development in the area could set a precedent for further development and 'creep' into other land units. For example recent sale of pony paddock adjacent to this proposed development could request planning permission for a smaller development. The planted tree line has separated this land unit from the area of separation as a whole and would be deemed as more acceptable, however it still still remains as the designated Area of Separation.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5616

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Include in Policy GD6 the Lubenham - Market Harborough separation area as defined in the Lubenham Neighbourhood Plan Policy LNP01 and also mentioned in the Parish Profile for Lubenham which states ' an area of separation must be maintained to protect the village's individual character and physical separateness. '

Full text:

We strongly request that the separation area between Market Harborough and Lubenham designated in the made Lubenham Neighbourhood Plan (Policy LNP01) be afforded the same importance and inclusion on the proposals map and wording of Policy GD6 as others designated around Market Harborough.. With map and text amended accordingly. Whilst we support this separation area and others defined, we believe that the Lubenham Separation Area should be defined in the same way.
Please note HDC Parish Profile for Lubenham states;-
Area of Separation: * Given the amount of development set out in the core strategy for Market Harborough in very close proximity to Lubenham, an area of separation must be maintained to protect the village's individual character and physical separateness.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5639

Received: 27/10/2017

Respondent: Ms Caroline Pick

Representation Summary:

CPRE Leicestershire supports this policy

Full text:

CPRE Leicestershire supports this policy

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5790

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: FLECKNEY Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The Areas of Separation designated and shown on the Policies Map should include the area of land between the Fleckney Parish boundary to the south-east of the Village and the built area of Saddington Village because of its importance to both settlements.

Full text:

The Areas of Separation designated and shown on the Policies Map should include the area of land between the Fleckney Parish boundary to the south-east of the Village and the built area of Saddington Village because of its importance to both settlements.

This section of the Plan sets out the policy where there is a potential risk of new development resulting in the coalescence of settlements and the establishment of areas of separation to ensure that development does not harmfully reduce the separation between settlements.

Notwithstanding that reference is made to 'Other Areas of Separation may be added by future neighbourhood plans' it is the Parish Council's view that the area of land between the parish boundary to the south-east of the Village and the built area of Saddington Village, because of its importance to both settlements, should be designated as an area of separation.

The designation of this area as an area of separation is necessary in order to prevent harmful development extending in to the open countryside and prevent merging of the two settlements to ensure that the identity and distinctiveness of both settlements is maintained as well as their landscape setting, built environment and the views across open countryside.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5871

Received: 31/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Paul Henry

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The current Kingston Way and Bates Close development is characterised by its remote nature (on the edge of the Town of Market Harborough and its quiet and open plan layout. The addition of a further 90 dwellings accessed only by Kingston Way will be deleterious on the wellbeing and rights of existing residents in the current development and those in neighboring Great Bowden due to the increase in traffic and its frequency in traversing between Burnmill Road, Alvington Way and the Development on Burnmill Farm(MH3)

Full text:

The current Kingston Way and Bates Close development is characterised by its remote nature (on the edge of the Town of Market Harborough and its quiet and open plan layout. The addition of a further 90 dwellings accessed only by Kingston Way will be deleterious on the wellbeing and rights of existing residents in the current development and those in neighboring Great Bowden due to the increase in traffic and its frequency in traversing between Burnmill Road, Alvington Way and the Development on Burnmill Farm(MH3)

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6849

Received: 16/11/2017

Respondent: Mr David Hart

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

This objection relates to the Burnmill Farm proposal which is in an area of separation, and if approved would represent another significant step in the merger of Great Bowden with Market Harborough. It would increase the likelihood of further creep of development into other land units with potential access from the new development. There would also be the potential for inter-visibility particularly at night (e.g. to/from Leicester Lane)

Full text:

This objection relates to the Burnmill Farm proposal which is in an area of separation, and if approved would represent another significant step in the merger of Great Bowden with Market Harborough. It would increase the likelihood of further creep of development into other land units with potential access from the new development. There would also be the potential for inter-visibility particularly at night (e.g. to/from Leicester Lane)

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7189

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Taylor

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The proposed development of Burnmill Farm encroaches on the space between Market Harborough and Great Bowden which is designated as an area of separation.
The development will be seen from Great Bowden and the Grand Union Canal.

Full text:

The proposed development of Burnmill Farm encroaches on the space between Market Yarborough and Great Bowden which is designated as an area of separation.
The development will be seen from Great Bowden and the Grand Union Canal.

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7214

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter Mitchell

Representation Summary:

It is important for the maintenance of Great Bowden to remain an identifiable community to have separation land between it and MH. It would be tragic if its identity was lost as has happened to Little Bowden

Full text:

It is important for the maintenance of Great Bowden to remain an identifiable community to have separation land between it and MH. It would be tragic if its identity was lost as has happened to Little Bowden

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7502

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Messrs Haynes

Agent: Wells McFarlane

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Register our objection to Policy GD6 as it has not objectively assessed the area and has included the built area of Valley Farm yard in the area of Separation. This area is not required or needed for the adequate protection of the 1.4 kilometre gap between Bitteswell and Magna Park.

Full text:

We wish to register our objection to the blanket allocation of land adjoining Bitteswell( western edge) as Area of Separation under Policy GD6. In particular, we draw your attention to the existing farm yard at Valley Farm. This is a mixed range of portal framed buildings, part with planning consent for Storage uses and part in agricultural use. The designation of this built area as an area of Separation is inappropriate as the buildings and yard are already developed and do not fulfil the criteria of an area designated as an Area of Separation. Areas of Separation are defined as areas where the potential risk of merging is at its greatest. It is our view that the area of Separation should seek to protect the open areas of separation necessary to fulfil its purpose, rather than a blanket cover on not only buildings and yard, but also the immediate areas adjoining the farmyard that may need to be utilized to expand the range of farm buildings in the future. The distance between Bitteswell village and the edge of Magna Park is 1.4 kilometres. The Area of Separation review 2017, which has informed this policy has lumped this area in with what it considers is the central core of the agricultural landscape, suggesting it is mainly arable land. This is incorrect as their zone includes the existing buildings and yard.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7548

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Trustees of the Bowden Settlement

Agent: Mr. David Smart

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Land off Burnmill Road (land rear of Top yard Farm) is well suited to a residential allocation and whilst the SHLAA (May 2016) states development could occur within a 6-10 year time frame, the site is available now.

Comments provided in the Area of Separation Review 2017 are noted, however the west of Unit 3 is very different to the east of Unit 3, and as such the representation site will not contribute to the coalescence between Market Harborough and Great Bowden, as it is already self-contained/screened.

The site should be removed from the Area of Separation and allocated for residential development.

Full text:

See attached.

The representation concerns land off Burnmill Road (land rear of Top Yard Farm), Great Bowden. The site boundary is attached.

The site is contained within unit 3 in the Area of Separation Review 2017. The
review found that unit three forms part of a primary contribution to the Area of
Separation. However it is considered that the west of unit 3 is different to the east,
and notably the representation site is self-contained and screened by mature trees,
thick vegetation and existing residential development. We submit that the site should be removed from the Area of Separation.

Given the sustainable location, the site would make an appropriate residential allocation. The entire site is in single ownership and is immediately deliverable, and could be brought forward in the next 5 years.



Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7555

Received: 16/11/2017

Respondent: Trustees of the Bowden Settlement

Agent: Mr. David Smart

Representation Summary:

We support the removal of the land from the Area of Separation.

We suggest given the site's location and my client's control of number 54 The Ridgeway, the site would make an appropriate residential allocation to fill the unallocated numbers within the district.

Full text:

See attached documents.

Land to the Rear of The Ridgeway (see attached map) is well suited to a residential allocation and development could occur within a 1-5 year time frame. The April 2017 Area of Separation Review confirms that coalescence will not be compromised given the position and context of the site and the site could potentially accommodate circa 45 dwellings at a standard density of 30 units per hectare.

We support the removal of the land from the Area of Separation, and suggest given the site's location and my client's control of number 54 The Ridgeway, the site would make an appropriate residential allocation to fill the unallocated numbers within the district.

The entire site is in single ownership and is immediately deliverable, and this is recognised by the 2016 SHLAA which identifies the land could be brought forward in the next 5 years.

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7559

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Trustees of the Bowden Settlement

Agent: Mr. David Smart

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Land off Main Street, Great Bowden should be removed from the Area of Separation. Comments provided in the Area of Separation Review 2017 confirm that part of the site provides only a secondary benefit to the Area of Separation. It is considered that all of the representation site should only provide limited benefit due to the screening of the site.

We suggest that the site should be removed from the defined Area of Separation, and allocated for a Village Green-style small residential development of up to 15 dwellings.

Full text:

See attached documents.

The representation concerns land off Main Street, Great Bowden. The site boundary is shown in attachment.

This site should be removed from the Area of Separation, as the Area of Separation Review found that the westerly section of the representation site presented only a secondary benefit to the Area of Separation. It is considered that all of the representation site should only provide limited benefit due to the screening of the site.

Given the sustainable location, the site would make an appropriate residential allocation. The entire site is in single ownership and is immediately deliverable, and
could be brought forward in the next 5 years. The landowners believe that a high
quality development, based on the concept of a Village Green would be in-keeping
with the characteristics of Great Bowden and would be complementary to its unique
character and style. Any such scheme would be widely consulted on with local
stakeholders, and would be designed in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan.

The representation site is well suited to a residential allocation and whilst the SHLAA (May 2016) states development could occur within a 6-10 year time frame, the site is available now.

Comments provided in the Area of Separation Review 2017 confirm that part of the site provides only a secondary benefit to the Area of Separation. It is considered that all of the representation site should only provide limited benefit due to the screening of the site.

Our client would be prepared to offer some of the site for use as a village green to replace those historic greens within the village which have been lost. We believe that the site could become the new "Middle Green" in Great Bowden.

The site is suitable for a small residential allocation of up to 15 dwellings and the representation site will not contribute to the coalescence between Market Harborough and Great Bowden, because the site is self-contained and screened.

We suggest that the site should be removed from the defined Area of Separation, and allocated for a Village Green-style small residential development of up to 15 dwellings.