H6 5b.
Object
Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission
Representation ID: 5755
Received: 29/10/2017
Respondent: Mr Ian Robertson
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Whilst the Spinney Farm site is away from the road and would be largely unobtrusive (provided the authorities could enforce only 3 pitches) there is still a concern about the safety of walking on the paths at night or in the winter for children walking to either the Ullesthorpe or Claybrook schools as they are unlit, very dark, and dangerous. The same would apply to walking to the surgery in Ullesthorpe as part of that journey (the bridge over the brook) has no footpath at all.
Whilst the Spinney Farm site is away from the road and would be largely unobtrusive (provided the authorities could enforce only 3 pitches) there is still a concern about the safety of walking on the paths at night or in the winter for children walking to either the Ullesthorpe or Claybrook schools as they are unlit, very dark, and dangerous. The same would apply to walking to the surgery in Ullesthorpe as part of that journey (the bridge over the brook) has no footpath at all.
Object
Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission
Representation ID: 5771
Received: 29/10/2017
Respondent: Claybrooke Parva Parish Council
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Whilst the Spinney Farm site is away from the road and would be largely unobtrusive (provided the authorities could enforce only 3 pitches) there is still a concern about the safety of walking on the paths at night or in the winter for children walking to either the Ullesthorpe or Claybrook schools as they are unlit, very dark, and dangerous. The same would apply to walking to the surgery in Ullesthorpe as part of that journey (the bridge over the brook) has no footpath at all.
Whilst the Spinney Farm site is away from the road and would be largely unobtrusive (provided the authorities could enforce only 3 pitches) there is still a concern about the safety of walking on the paths at night or in the winter for children walking to either the Ullesthorpe or Claybrook schools as they are unlit, very dark, and dangerous. The same would apply to walking to the surgery in Ullesthorpe as part of that journey (the bridge over the brook) has no footpath at all.
Object
Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission
Representation ID: 6377
Received: 03/11/2017
Respondent: Mr Rob Harrop
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Re: Land at Spinney View Farm. The route to the nearest school in Claybrooke Parva crosses a very narrow bridge with no footpath in a derestricted stretch of road and no street lighting. I don't consider safe for adults let alone primary age children.
The route to the nearest school in Claybrooke Parva crosses a very narrow bridge with no footpath in a derestricted stretch of road and no street lighting. I don't consider safe for adults let alone primary age children.
Object
Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission
Representation ID: 6387
Received: 16/11/2017
Respondent: Mrs Carole Allen
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
Safety would be a concern for any children on the site walking to school on dimly lit paths in the winter.
Safety would be a concern for any children on the site walking to school on dimly lit paths in the winter.
Object
Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission
Representation ID: 7497
Received: 26/10/2017
Respondent: National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
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 services.
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.
Object
Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission
Representation ID: 7504
Received: 10/11/2017
Respondent: National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
We have the following concern relating to section 5:
* 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"
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.