Harborough Local Plan 2011-2031, Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5606

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

please clarify if this means villages other than those designated as selected rural villages or rural centres. If so should it not refer as development 'in the open countryside. Where Neighbourhood Plans have been made in selected rural villages and sites designated, there should be restrictions on development of sites outside the designated areas - otherwise it ridicules Neighbourhood Planning.

Object

Representation ID: 5616

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

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. '

Object

Representation ID: 6051

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is unclear what consolidate means in this instance.

Infrastructure is insufficient to support the level of development already planned and until highways and other infrastructure issues are addressed there should be no more housing development around Market Harborough and business development should be strictly managed.
Market Harborough has already been allocated large numbers of housing developments through the SDA, off Kettering Road and at off Northampton Road. It is important to get infrastructure in place before such developments are completed.

Object

Representation ID: 6053

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This statement leads to a developer led system - in working proactively the District Council should include negotiations with other partners and stakeholders including Parish Councils who need to have an opportunity help to find joint solutions to secure development that is not only based on developers needs.

Object

Representation ID: 6056

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Comment rather than objection - Some weight could be given here to Neighbourhood Plans where they exist..

Object

Representation ID: 6058

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Needs to reaffirm the importance of separation areas
suggest reword item

Object

Representation ID: 6061

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Add exclusion of development in separation areas to policy

Object

Representation ID: 6202

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Add the need for buildings to be built to high standards of energy efficiency.

Object

Representation ID: 6209

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Sites for more than this number of dwellings have been allocated through the Lubenham NDP. Chapter is misleading on allocating housing numbers and allocations already identified through Neighbourhood Plans and other completions.

We are told that figures are calculated on population size. Lubenham is a Parish of 4 settlements yet development is not supported in 3 parts of the Parish. Therefore Lubenham Village grows disproportionately as outlying settlements are not considered sustainable. Lubenham has also provided for over 1,000 dwellings through the Airfield Farm development in the Parish.

Object

Representation ID: 6211

Received: 03/11/2017

Respondent: LUBENHAM Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Please make it clear how settlements have been chosen as Selected Rural Villages. Services have changed since this original designation was made - we no longer have an hourly bus service or a shop. Also please make it clear how housing numbers have been decided for each settlement and how this relates to the options in the previously published options papers and numbers designated through Neighbourhood Plan sites.