SC1 3h.iii.

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Support

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6027

Received: 01/11/2017

Respondent: Mr Gary Shepherd

Representation Summary:

The increase in population over the last 20 years has not been met by improvement in many areas. There is not currently a cemetery in the area and one will be needed

Full text:

The increase in population over the last 20 years has not been met by improvement in many areas. There is not currently a cemetery in the area and one will be needed

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 6878

Received: 16/11/2017

Respondent: Ms Bindu Modi

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

This Policy not suitable and I Object. due to the following:
Increased Traffic
increased pollution
Loss of peaceful village life
Loss of local wildlife

Full text:

This Policy not suitable and I Object. due to the following:
Increased Traffic
increased pollution
Loss of peaceful village life
Loss of local wildlife

Object

Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 7552

Received: 17/11/2017

Respondent: Parker Strategic Land Limited

Agent: Mr Andrew Hiorns

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Cemetery could be located within the retained Green Wedge area within the SDA, subject to specific assessments of the site suitability. However, the Policy isn't evidenced or justified, for the following reasons:

- no comparative assessment of the suitability of specific alternative locations or sites.
- evidence identifies a surplus of capacity within Scraptoft
- provision is proposed to meet wider needs
- options closer to larger population centres would be better able to meet the requirements than this more peripheral location.
Policy is not justified and should be supported by a comprehensive consideration of the specific alternative options first.

Full text:

3h. a multifunctional green infrastructure network, including: iii. a new cemetery in accordance with Policy GI3.

We do not object to the principle of a new cemetery being located within the SDA area as such, and the Green Wedge Policy GD7 provides for this use within paragraph 2 (as 'burial grounds') and therefore the cemetery could be located within the retained Green Wedge area within the SDA subject to specific assessments of the site suitability. However, the Policy does not appear to be evidenced or justified by any comparative assessment of the suitability of specific alternative locations or sites.
The main basis of the Policy appears to be the Harborough Cemetery and Burial Strategy (2016) which identifies a surplus of capacity within Scraptoft (paragraph 6.52.5 and Table 7). It therefore appears that provision is proposed within the SDA to meet wider needs. Indeed, the strategy at paragraph 12.2.1 identifies the need 'towards the north of the district around Thurnby and Bushby and Houghton on the Hill', not Scraptoft, so new sites at those settlements may better meet the need than Scraptoft.

The Scraptoft SDA is located at the northern edge of the district, and while the SDA is one focus for growth, Scraptoft itself remains a small settlement, with the highest concentration of the district's population being within the larger established settlements of Market Harborough, Lutterworth, Broughton Astley, and the larger villages of Kibworth, Fleckney, Great Glen, Thurnby and Bushby. On the basis that the larger population centres are likely to generate the largest proportion of demand, we would have thought that options closer to those settlements would be better able to meet the requirements than this more peripheral location.

We therefore consider that the Policy is not justified and should be supported by a comprehensive consideration of the specific alternative options first.