Comment

Representation ID: 2610

Received: 24/01/2025

Respondent: Mrs Suzanne Cordon

I agree with all the suggestions apart from removing 16-18 Chapel Hill from the conservation area. It is noted that an extension running parallel with the road has been added to part of the property at the rear but the rest of the building is original. The extension is also in keeping with character of the village. Therefore, 16-18 Chapel Hill should be retained within the conservation area.

Comment

Representation ID: 2613

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Mr Harry Whinney

Regarding 18 Chapel Hill, statement 9.3.3. on the Conservation Area Appraisal document is incorrect. Formerly the village bakery until 1908, this stone-built 1860s house extends to the North away from Chapel Hill. The stone extension, built in 2000, faces Chapel Hill. As such, it brings the house to the road, reversing the argument that this house has been altered to face away, or distract from, the Conservation Area. Although planning permission for the 2000 extension granted uPVC windows & doors, [REDACTED] the front door has been replaced with a traditionally crafted timber door to reflect the heritage of the house& village.

Comment

Representation ID: 2616

Received: 06/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jean Doughty

Paragraph 9.3.2. - The property was originally the village blacksmith. I was told no one was aware of this information and said that it could be of interest. The front doorway of the property is wider than a normal doorway which was to accommodate heavy horses in and out, this fact seemed to be confirmed when a new door was required as this had to be made to measure. On the strength of this information a stable door was made as part of keeping the character of the original use.

Comment

Representation ID: 2617

Received: 20/02/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Whinney

Re 18 Chapel hill, Ropsley. Formerly village bakery until 1908. Object to para in from SKDC letter 6.1.25 Ropsley Conservation Area 2025 'The proposed amendments....'. The houses continues to offer positive contribution to the Conservation Area. To take number 18 out of the conservation area based on the quote given above would be erroneous.

Comment

Representation ID: 2619

Received: 02/03/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Marshall

The appraisal seeks to enhance the harmonious character of the area by including additional traditional buildings and removing those that do not contribute. The recommendation includes an extension to include No 48 High Street, which is a post war, 1970s, property that does not match the style of the properties upon which the conservation area focuses. The frontage of the No 48 plot is already included, covering visuals of the high street. It is proposed that the entire plot of No 48 should not be included as the extant inclusion of frontage of the plot and associated TPO already suffices.

Comment

Representation ID: 2620

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Elizabeth Hicks

Hopefully the amendments won't affect the schools ability to grow + adapt to suit the future needs of children, and not be limited by being in the conservation area.

Comment

Representation ID: 2621

Received: 30/01/2025

Respondent: Ann Cook

I'm concerned about limitations to the up-keep of trees.

Comment

Representation ID: 2622

Received: 27/01/2025

Respondent: Historic England

Thank you for consulting Historic England on the draft conservation area character appraisal for Ropsley
There are over 1000 conservation areas in the East Midlands. While we do not provide detailed advice on every appraisal and management plan due to resource implications, if there are specific issues that would merit our closer involvement on this occasion please advise us of this.
The policy considerations relating to conservation area designation and appraisal are dealt with extensively in the NPPF and its associated guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 2623

Received: 21/02/2025

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

From both an archaeology and built heritage perspective, we have no comments to make on the draft appraisal.

Comment

Representation ID: 2628

Received: 21/01/2025

Respondent: Cllr Sarah Trotter

Some confusion about which Ropsley Rectory, as there has been several in Ropsley, but the original Rectory is on the High Street, although the private bungalow on School Lane was also once lived in by the local Rector.
Please can you confirm why these boundaries have changed and the choice of the boundary changes and confirmation of which Ropsley Rectory?
Concerned regarding potential restrictions on building a garage/carport within the conservation area.
Nos 2&4 School Lane misleadingly named, it is 2-4 School Lane, also 'Honeypot Cottage'