3 thoughts on “Llangrove Proposed Development Boundary”

  1. Notwithstanding the excellent work that has been done to collate and distribute this parish information, I cannot see any justification for changing boundaries that have been so well, and long, established and recorded in the county archives. In particular, I am surprised and disappointed that new boundaries should be proposed without any reference to any criteria, or have I overlooked them somewhere in the posting?

  2. I quote from Herefordshire Council “Neighbourhood Development Plans should be based on proper understanding of the local issues and effective community engagement. Therefore finding robust information is an important element of developing your Neighbourhood Development Plan.
    The evidence and information needs to be proportionate to the scope and detail of the plan.’ I think this is relevant because unless the PC can demonstrate care in the preparation of plans and boundaries that is evidence based their could be challenges from parties who disagree. I fully support the concept of making The Llangrove village boundary as close as possible to existing developments it seems to me you have given no reasoning behind your proposal as publishes. I also do not think it is appropriate to cut gardens in half when there is a perfectly reasonable road edge to follow. You must be careful not to draw a plan that is influenced by surrounding neighbours who have already made strong objections unless you can agree that this is not favouring any individual, Council member or friend. It is vital that the PC are seen to be above criticism in this area. There is clearly some areas of Llangrove that should be open to more community consultation so that you have strong evidence for your final decision. Once again I do not believe that most members of the community will be aware of your website posts or of the opportunity to comment.

  3. Llangarron Parish Boundaries, Green Spaces, Hedgerows, Verges and footpaths-16 Oct ‘19

    Firstly I would thank all those involved in producing these and please accept my notes as comments and not criticism of the effort or time put in to produce them.

    As a general comment I note that the title for a number of the plans is the ‘settlement boundary’ however the key on all of the plans uses the phrase ‘development boundary’. Please can I ask if they are the same and if so can it be made clear that they are.

    Llangrove Boundary
    Having looked at the proposed boundaries, the original 1992 boundary and the one submitted as part of the Regulation 14, considering that we have two plots for development in Llangrove and the fact that the Parish has exceeded its allocation I can see no reason to particularly extend the boundaries from that submitted last time. The exceptions to this are the inclusion of Old Shoppe Cottage, which was on the 1992 map but somehow was missed in the Reg14, and the inclusion of all the land associated with Site 1 marked for development as this is part of one development.

    I do not believe that we should extend the boundary to include Ivy Cottage, Bramber, Oak Cottage and Weyside. All of these properties were on the 1992 map and were not included at that time or by the Reg14 map. Similary I believe that we should not include Kentrev or The Laurels.

    Kentrev – This property originally formed part of the nurseries and the access was known as Nursery Lane. It has been sold separately and recently improved (new internal layout and roof) and was subject to a planning application P161089/FH (Replacement front porch, extension to and re-cladding of existing garage). This is not a new property and has not had any changes to the housing directly around it and therefore as it was originally outside the Settlement boundary, I see no reason to include it.

    The Laurels – This is a replacement building, the original building was not included in the settlement boundary and once the new building is occupied the original building is to be demolished, see planning application P131997/F (Demolition of existing dwelling and attached outbuildings and construction of replacement dwelling with detached garage). This being a replacement dwelling where the original building was outside the settlement boundary then I can see no reason to include it.

    I therefore can only support the Proposed development boundary in Pink with the inclusion of Old Shoppe Cottage and the full area of Site 1.


Leave a comment