Do you support or object to the preferred option for Rural Communities, particularly in respect of rural housing?

Support

Representation ID: 102

Received: 03/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Zita Lowe

I feel the development of Rural land will be detrimental to the environment,we live in a rural village and would be very annoyed if houses were merged into Town. When asked at the local council meeting if there would be money given to our village to improve our facilities we were told that that would not be the case.

Object

Representation ID: 122

Received: 06/07/2009

Respondent: R A Chapleo

No - I think this is apolitical resonse. Rural communities IN THIS DISTRICT require no strengthening.

Object

Representation ID: 228

Received: 09/07/2009

Respondent: Mr Duncan Hurwood

No Green-field sites should be used to build more housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 327

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D Bolam

As long as the needs of the existing residents were given priority, any development to improve and ensure the communities future existence must be a good thing.

Object

Representation ID: 354

Received: 22/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Pounds

Object.

Comment

Representation ID: 392

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Canon David Tilley

Support provided the integrity of villages is preserved, e.g. avoid in-filling thus in effect merging communities

Support

Representation ID: 432

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Peter Clarke

I agree in reducing the need to travel but 4200 houses in the middle of the countryside would only cause travel and commuting problems.

Support

Representation ID: 483

Received: 24/07/2009

Respondent: Georgina Wilson

Planning officers need to balance the requirements for affordable housing for local village residents with the desires of developers who prefer building for "executives".

Support

Representation ID: 553

Received: 27/07/2009

Respondent: Mr A M Webley

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 616

Received: 23/07/2009

Respondent: Mr G.R. Summers

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 706

Received: 10/08/2009

Respondent: P.A. Yarwood

Each large village should have 30-50 new houses.

Object

Representation ID: 744

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

It is considered inappropriate to set limitations on the scale of development that may be permitted in rural areas as this approach is unnecessarily negative. The Council should instead seek to implement positive, practical policies that encourage affordable housing development that is proportional in scale and nature to identified needs and the character and scale of the rural area to which it relates.
The conflict apparent within paragraph 9.11 should indicate that residential development should not be unnecessarily restricted through an arbitrary measure but instead be assessed against local need on a case by case basis.

Comment

Representation ID: 759

Received: 06/08/2009

Respondent: West Midlands RSL Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning

A rural exceptions policy should genuinely enable schemes to be developed in the correct locations both within and on the edge of rural settlements.

Support

Representation ID: 777

Received: 05/08/2009

Respondent: Faye Davis

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 845

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Adrian Farmer

No need for any expansion into green belt. Services must be viable.

Support

Representation ID: 909

Received: 19/08/2009

Respondent: Christine Betts

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 947

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Bull

Some new housing in villages would appear essential to maintaining village vitality. A modest mix of housing would allow the elderly to downsize and thus remain in their community, would create the opportunity for first time buyers and would release some of the larger properties to avoid the need to build more "executive" homes

Object

Representation ID: 975

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Kirit Marvania

Disagree with Kings Hill.

Comment

Representation ID: 995

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Cllr Tim Sawdon

Where possible villages with low populations should be expanded to create more viable communities.

Support

Representation ID: 1075

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Mrs Pamela Beedham

But new housing should be in a style that fits into the existing houses and good landscaping to fit with the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1098

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs T Robinson

Some village growth is essential to keep local shops, amenities,services, bus routes etc. Development needs to offer housing options for younger people and families. Many of the District's village primary schools are not full.

Object

Representation ID: 1155

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Alice Jarrett

Limited expansion of desirable village development should be made easier, to increase sizes sufficient that extra services may become viable. The French appear to be able to achieve this, with British assistance in many cases!

Support

Representation ID: 1177

Received: 21/08/2009

Respondent: Barry Elliman

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1234

Received: 24/08/2009

Respondent: Andrew Horsley

You cannot expect people not to travel unless schools, shops, employment are all facilitated in each village of course people will have to travel.

Support

Representation ID: 1368

Received: 18/08/2009

Respondent: Guide Dogs for the Blind Association

Agent: DNS Planning and Design Consultants

Support

Object

Representation ID: 1551

Received: 31/08/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Heather Hall

A rural housing policy should be flexible to enable schemes to be developed and adapted both within and on the edge of rural settlements. This would make the villages and their services sustainable. To do nothing will result in the loss of more village communities and then they may as well be merged into the larger connurbations.

Support

Representation ID: 1561

Received: 31/08/2009

Respondent: B.L.A.S.T.

9b It is important to maintain existing allotment land and seek provision for future allotment land to keep it available for the community and not let it become an expensive housing estate

Object

Representation ID: 1682

Received: 27/08/2009

Respondent: J.G Whetstone

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 1730

Received: 01/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs D zacaroni

Object

Object

Representation ID: 1787

Received: 20/08/2009

Respondent: Max Bacon

Object.