Indicative Settlement Boundary

Object

Representation ID: 61034

Received: 18/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Bignall

As per the attached document.

Object

Representation ID: 61530

Received: 11/12/2013

Respondent: Mrs Sonia Scrimshire

-Concerned about the redrawing of our boundary.
-It appears illogical that 'Tower House', Hill Wootton is excluded although Hilary Farm directly opposite is included. On what grounds would Tower House be excluded when it is clearly part of Hill Wootton?
-Hill Wootton is essentially rural farmland/Green Belt and it is inappropriate that it should be removed from the protection of the Green Belt by insetting.

Object

Representation ID: 61666

Received: 17/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Keri Elsy

-There is still scope in current planning law to allow certain infill should an individual householder suggest building a single dwelling on their property and that any proposed site should be considered extremely carefully for the impact on the rural nature of the hamlet, with special attention issues of access, volume of traffic and amenities.

-Do not agree with the proposed boundary removing the Green Belt from the hamlet and it has been drawn in a strange way, removing one Tower House from the hamlet but cutting the gardens and land of other houses in half.

Object

Representation ID: 61875

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs. Joy Maisey

-Hill Wootton is an agricultural area with a small settlement of houses between working farms. It is surrounded by cultivated, agricultural Green Belt fields. As such it is important that it retains the protective wash of the Green Belt and insetting is entirely inappropriate.
-Boundary has been drawn with no real knowledge of the hamlet. Agricultural lane and farmyards have been included at one end but Tower House (Part of the settlement since 1920 and within the signage of Hill Wootton) has been excluded even though its driveway and garden is directly opposed Hilary Farm, which is included.

Object

Representation ID: 61950

Received: 12/12/2013

Respondent: Mr Brian Holt

-The exclusion of Tower House from within the proposed inset boundary for Hill Wooton is unwarranted and inexplicable.
-The Police HQ in Leek Wootton being included within the village of Leek Wootton becomes a nonsense if Tower House is excluded from Hill Wootton.

Object

Representation ID: 62074

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mr Thomas Maisey

-The settlement boundary of Hill Wootton should not be amended.

Object

Representation ID: 62227

Received: 20/01/2014

Respondent: Mrs Cindy Grove

This is an agricultural area with 2 farms and liveries. Insetting it out of the Green Belt wash is inappropriate as this hamlet is surrounded by Green Belt farmland and it should be protected. The boundary does not make sense and cuts out land and housing which has always been thought of as within the residential part of Hill Wootton.
To resolve the objection keep Hill Wootton in Green Belt and examine the boundary more carefully taking into account houses which have always been part of it.

Object

Representation ID: 63231

Received: 15/01/2014

Respondent: Leek Wootton & Guy's Cliffe Parish Council

Oppose the boundary changes on the following grounds:
-Scale and character of the settlement is that of typical rural hamlet, concentrated around farming activities. Any increase in the settled area would destroy this.
-2013 Consultation Report concluded that the open character of the hamlet makes an important contribution to the Green Belt.
-WDC Local Plan states Hill Wootton is an important Green Belt parcel which fulfils a valuable role in maintaining open space between larger settlements.