THEY ARE NOT PLEASED WITH US

WE NOW have all the responses to the Blaby consultation about our Neighbourhood Plan.

Almost all responses are favourable but there are two exceptions. We did say we would respond to all these responses, and it will not take long as the residents’ comments all supported our stances as expected, given the plan is based on what you told us. There was some query about communication and meetings, and it was unfortunate that more meetings could not be held but lockdowns, etc. intervened and we had to resort to articles in this paper and email exchanges with the 400 plus of you who said you wanted to keep involved.

The great weight of responses from the public argued against the golf course being developed which is not yet proposed for that element in Glenfield but we have in the plan tried to have it designated as a local green space to give it more protection.

That has not been well received. Both Blaby DC and the City Council are in total disagreement with us on this given their apparent plans to change its status and develop it. We are not proposing any change to our submission, and it will be for the inspector to decide and a good number of the residents’ responses were very well crafted with a lot of supporting detail so ‘David’ may yet prevail over two ‘Goliaths’.

Blaby are unhappy with elements of it but the City, even more so, perhaps not surprisingly. To quote them “The City Council will keep this matter under review and consequently reserves its position as to whether legal proceedings may be necessary to protect the integrity of the City Council Local Plan.”

This threat is unhelpful and unnecessary. Our plan does not impact any land within the city and this is a very heavy-handed approach when dealing with a community-led plan.

Several agencies that responded very supportive of the plan overall actually made more detailed reasons they felt justified many of our policies and suggested we might have given more detail. While this might well have been good to do, the very fact that these notes are in their responses means the inspector will have them on the table.

The inspector will decide on a number of elements of our plan where Leicester City Council and Blaby have suggested changes, but we have made observations that we feel both Blaby and more particularly Leicester City Council have actually made factual errors in their interpretation of what we can and cannot, should or need not do.

Following these responses to this Blaby D.C. formal consultation, a number of points of clarification and justifications have now been sent to the inspector – it is now for the inspector to decide or suggest amendments, and the outcome will be interesting but hopefully positive for us. Watch this space.

Cllr. Roy Denney

Closure of St Peter’s Churchyard, Glenfield, Leicester

Notice is hereby given that it is the intention of the Secretary of State for Justice, acting on an application by the incumbent and churchwardens, to apply to the Privy Council for an Order requiring the discontinuance of burials in the above churchyard.

Provision would be made for the following exceptions: - a. In any existing earthen grave in the churchyard, the burial may be allowed of the body of any member of the family of the person or persons previously buried in that grave, but no part of the coffin containing the body shall be less than one metre below the level of the surface of the ground adjoining the grave.

Any representations about the proposed closure should be sent to the Coroners and Burials Team, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France, London SW1H 9AJ or by email to coroners@justice.gov.uk quoting reference CC/MAR23/007 within 21working days of this publication.

THIS NOTICE WAS POSTED ON 1st June 2023