New Local Plan Options

Search Representations

Results for Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane) search

New search New search

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Q2. Do you have any comments on the Draft Objectives, or any additional objectives to suggest?

Representation ID: 2406

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We welcome the first objective of the New Local Plan, to provide a range of market and affordable housing types, tenures and sizes in appropriate locations which meets local housing needs and recognises the specific accommodation requirements of the aging population and the need for starter homes to help first time buyers.

However, this should also include a commitment to locate new homes in the areas where they are needed.

Object

New Local Plan Options

Q3. Which Housing and Employment Option(s) do you favour? You can select a single option, a number of options or suggest a new option. You can also tell us which options you don't like.

Representation ID: 2407

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We do not support any of the development options; all neglect to consider the potential of planning for any further development at Broughton Astley and as such, they do not consider all reasonable alternatives.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Harborough's Settlement Hierarchy

Representation ID: 2408

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We support the principle of a settlement hierarchy based on service provision to focus development to the most sustainable locations; one of the core principles set out at paragraph 17 of the NPPF.

However, specifically in relation to Broughton Astley, the settlement hierarchy has not been used to inform the distribution options.

Support

New Local Plan Options

How many new houses do we need to build?

Representation ID: 2409

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We support the intention to plan for 475 dwellings per annum as this is the objectively assessed need as identified by the Leicester and Leicestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014. The SHMA identifies particularly acute market affordability pressures in the district so it is appropriate to plan for the highest end of the range.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Q4. Do you have any comments on the proposed criteria-based policy to replace Limits to Development?

Representation ID: 2411

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We welcome the more flexible approach to non-strategic development proposed; a criteria based policy will bring the New Local Plan into compliance with the NPPF and future proof it. However, considerably more clarity is required, which the consultation document states will be provided in the pre-submission new Local Plan to give some guidance to the interpretation and implementation of the criteria. We will therefore reserve comments on the interpretation of the criteria until the additional supporting text is available.

Object

New Local Plan Options

Option C1: Strictly controlling development in the countryside

Representation ID: 2429

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We object to this options as it does not comply with the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 28, 54 and 55. It is overly restrictive and would not represent sustainable development in accordance with national policy.

Support

New Local Plan Options

Option C2: Limited infill and Development Management led

Representation ID: 2430

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We support this option as it will help to enhance and maintain the vitality of rural communities, however, we feel the policy could go further, hence our support for Option C3.

We do not support the element of the policy which places additional controls conversion of existing buildings within the smaller settlements, over those which the NPPF places on buildings in the open countryside.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Q7. Do you have any comments on the list of employment sites proposed to be retained and protected?

Representation ID: 2432

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

An existing employment site, Arkwright Hill Farm Industrial Estate, Lutterworth Road, Cosby, is missing from the list. This site comprises 7.76 Hectares of employment space and was submitted to the 2011 Call for Sites.

This is a significant site for local employment and should be included in Appendix F. Its retention and opportunities for expansion are particularly important in light of the under-supply of B1, B2 and B8 floorspace within the district.

Comment

New Local Plan Options

Q3. Which Housing and Employment Option(s) do you favour? You can select a single option, a number of options or suggest a new option. You can also tell us which options you don't like.

Representation ID: 2439

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

An alternative option would be a distribution similar to Option 1, Variation on the current distribution strategy - with an enhanced rural focus, but with the inclusion of development at Broughton Astley. The dwelling allocations to each of the settlements would be adjusted downwards, in accordance with the allocation at Broughton Astley. A sensible level of development at Broughton Astley would be approximately 450, in broad alignment with the proportionate increase but would require further testing.

Support

New Local Plan Options

Option C3: Meeting locally identified need (with Option C2 above)

Representation ID: 2464

Received: 28/10/2015

Respondent: Sworders (on Behalf Of Mr And Mrs I P Crane)

Representation Summary:

We support this option as it goes furthest to support and maintain the vitality and viability of rural settlements. It accords with the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 28, 54 and 55.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.