Call For Sites Register - Stage 2b detailed site assessment

Call for Sites Report - Sites that have Passed Stage 2a

Site Information

ID
21

Name of site
Burley Appliances Ltd

SHELAA Reference
OAK19

Gross Site Area
3.01

Net Site Area
2.41

Type of site
Brownfield (Previously Developed Land)

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Employment/Commercial

Indicative Number of dwellings
72

Indicative Floor Space
1,500 sqm

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Within the PLD for Oakham

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2023/0767/OUT 'Outline application for 61 dwellings with all matters reserved except access' is pending. 2022/0741/PED 'Change of use of former office units to 15 dwelling houses' - Prior approval not required.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

2018m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
557m – Oakham motte and bailey castle and medieval gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Within the PLD therefore not assessed.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
None

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
RED = Loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
709.81m – Oakham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
479.62m – Catmose College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – International and National Designations (SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar)
GREEN = Not within a Natural England Impact Zone, or within a Natural England Impact Zone but is unlikely to have an adverse impact on any designated site, meaning that Natural England consultation not required

Biodiversity – Local Designations
AMBER = Significant impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and BAP priority habitats, but which can be accommodated through mitigation and avoidance of harm and/or further surveys required.

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
GREEN = Within settlement or edged on 3 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
None

Suitable?
Green

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a. Potential loss of employment land - safeguarded

Prior approval consent for conversion of offices to 15 dwellings.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
GREEN = Brownfield

Topography
The site is flat. Topography is not a constraint to development.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Biodiversity Study
Site not assessed in study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Depending on the buildings on site a bat survey may be needed. A badger survey should also be completed as the site is adjacent to a railway line.

The mature hedgerows and trees should be buffered semi-natural vegetation. Buffers should be semi-natural and not incorporated into plot boundaries.

Further details on the scope of surveys can be found on our website at https://www.leicestershire.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/biodiversity/planning-and-biodiversity

Summary:
Ok subject to mitigation. BNG required.
Comments for planning application 2023/0767/OUT will be relevant.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
I have no Heritage or Built conservation objection or comments to make on the employment sites that have no identified heritage constraints and are outside of the historic environment. The no objection raised is notwithstanding any below ground Heritage comments.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential:
Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number):
None

Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number):
300m N of Oakham Conservation Area (478)
100m W of listed chapel (6174)

Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number):
None

Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
E. edge bounded by Midland Railway (16080) and C19th cemetery (21689)
200m E of IA/RB early field system (16642)
300m E. of BA barrow cemetery (16640, 5020, 5021 & 22646)

Comments (ELE numbers):
Medium sized area, mostly developed. Trial trenching to W. was inconclusive (disturbed ground) (9201 & 9887). Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
This site is located within the existing PLD of Oakham and has not been included in the 2023 Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The site is already used for employment land and has a reasonable access onto Lands End Way which leads to the A606. There are a number of current planning consents existing for the whole and parts of the site, with one prior approval consented for 15 dwellings. Whilst the site has an existing access, it would need upgrading to suit a residential use. Should an employment use come forward for the whole site, the access including pedestrian access would need upgrading. Should employment come forward, wrapped around the consented prior approval scheme, the LHA would seek a separate access to that of the residential use, which is achievable given the site frontage along Lands End Way.
In summary, the LHA would therefore have no concerns if this land was allocated for employment land but will be requesting access upgrades both within the site and off-site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Any employment use would need to be supported with a Transport Statement at minimum to demonstrate the net impact when considering the previous use of the site. However, it is likely that the impact will be negligible given the existing/previous use, so it is unlikely that off-site mitigation will be required other than directly adjacent to the site for access.

Parish Council Comments
None.

Consultation responses
None.

Availability
Assumed it is available

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
No substantial constraints

Conclusion
Site suitable for development - retain as employment allocation.
Development principles to include ecology and archaeology comments

Site Information

ID
22

Name of site
Land off Stapleford Road

SHELAA Reference
WHI09

Gross Site Area
7.26

Net Site Area
4.36

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
131

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Partly within Whissendine PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
Yes

Comments: Planning Permission
For part of the site: 2021/1263/OUT approved 05.12.2022; 2023/0271/RES approved 19.01.2024; 2024/0276/RES (Section 73) - pending consideration. Remainder of site: 2022/1461/MAO - refused 20.12.2023.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

2538m – Wymondham Rough

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1299m – Moor Lane moated site, Whissendine

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis
Site already has Planning Permission (part of site)

2023/0271/RES | Application for reserved matters consent for the erection of 66 no. dwellings for layout, scale, landscaping, appearance and access (other than as already approved as part of outline planning permission) pursuant to outline planning permission 2021/1263/OUT. | Land To The South Of Stapleford Road Whissendine Rutland. Approved 19th January 2024

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
The sensitivity of the area is defined by its smaller landscape grain, denser hedgerow pattern and widespread ridge and furrow beyond a more recently defined residential boundaries to the settlement which partially enclose the inner northern area of the study parcel. Ridge and furrow is an irreplaceable asset. In most other respects the parcel does not display landscape components, character or condition which offer strong landscape value, with the exception of its extensive ridge and furrow, and softer enclosure of the settlement. Any landscape and visual value may be derived from its general pastural character with more complete hedges and hedgerow trees. The parcel is not important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and other settlements. The parcel is well-screened on approach into the village from Stapleford Road and therefore not a significant gateway. Any partial views on approach over hedges would be limited to outer dwellings as low relief would limit views beyond. Mature and more dense hedgerows would potentially afford some immediate established screening potential within the parcel to break up and compartmentalise individual areas of new housing and thereby limit wider landscape impact. Development within the parcel would therefore be unlikely to be prominent in the landscape although would be prominent in near views from the settlement fringe. Modest existing ecological value of the study parcel could be enhanced by landscaping and integrated Green Infrastructure.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
256m – Whissendine C of E Primary

Secondary schools
5876m – Catmose College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
None

Impact on wider road network
None

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
To be assessed in detail at stage 2b

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments

Landscape

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments

Parish Council Comments
The northern part of the site is flat and undulating, whilst the southern part of the site slopes slightly south to north, with a definite slope west to east. The northern area is fossilised ridge and furrow. The site is on an elevated plateau and therefore visible from the north, south and west. Flooding in Whissendine could be worsened by development on this site. Limited bus service. SuDS not appropriate for the site and drainage maybe problematic. Additional traffic will exacerbate existing problems which regards to pinch points and narrow roads, especially on Melton Road. If outstanding permissions are granted, development in the village will have exceeded need beyond 2036. The land to the south of this site has been used as pasture. As part of that use there were buildings on site. These buildings were demolished in May 2020 and the construction materials (and other items) burned and buried on site so that it is believed that there may be asbestos, metal waste, chemicals and ashes contaminating parts of the site.

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
Site might be suitable for allocation if large sites in larger villages are required. Subject to appropriate development principles.

Site Information

ID
30

Name of site
Woodcocks, land off Goldcrest.

SHELAA Reference
UPP11

Gross Site Area
2.67

Net Site Area
2.13

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
64

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site connected to Uppingham PLD along the southern boundary only with allotments to the west. Directly to the west of the allotments is the Neighbourhood Plan Allocation SHELAA/UPP/08.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3553m – Eye Brook Reservoir

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
400m from Uppingham Castle Scheduled Monument. Consultation with Conservation Officer previously carried out due to heritage assets being raised by archaeological consultation. No significant impact likely.

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel UPP2

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
333.72m – Uppingham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
718.58m – Uppingham School

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Red for grade 2 agricultural land, but located in Uppingham and therefore passed stage 2a for further assessment.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Flat ridge running west – east with steep sided valley.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None

Biodiversity Study
If Survey Area 2 is to be allocated/ developed it would be worth considering retaining the area of the historic LWS and allotments to help provide habitat for wildlife and maintain a wildlife corridor through this area of Uppingham. The arable fields to the north of the Site are considered to be a good location ecologically for new housing development. • Update survey of the LWS located towards the south of Survey Area 2 to confirm its current biodiversity value. • GCN population survey of the pond within the LWS and an update GCN population survey of all ponds within 500m of the Survey Area. • Bat activity surveys. • Ground level tree assessments (GLTA) of all standard trees within the Survey Area. Further surveys may be required if Potential Roost Features (PRF’s) are found. This could include emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Badger survey. • Reptile surveys, with particular focus on the good reptile habitat present to the west of the Survey Area in the allotments and the LWS.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
The site is within a Natural England Impact Zone but is unlikely to have adverse impact on any national/international G designated site meaning that Natural England consultation is not required. Arable, hedges, very good species‐rich grassland habitat to south west and south east, 2 veteran trees (cLWS) in south east boundary. A Surveys required include badger and Great Crested Newts of nearby ponds(known population within 200m). Mitigation includes retention of hedges with 5m buffer zone natural vegetation; retain veteran trees with buffer zones; 10m buffers alongside SW/SE boundaries to spp‐rich grassland. Other mitigation pending surveys; including for GC.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
No designated heritage assets on site. 400m from Uppingham Castle Scheduled Monument. Consultation with Conservation Officer carried out in 2021 due to heritage assets being raised by archaeological consultation. No significant impact likely.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): None
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): None
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Large Mesolithic./Neo flint scatter (21112) including rare Upper Palaeolithic Cheddar Point (21110).
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
100m E of multiple ditch system (5848).
Mesolithic flints & pit alignment (8484) and pit circle (9644) to S.
Flint scatters to E (21020)
Upper Pal/Mesolithic site to N. (10451)

Comments (ELE numbers): Known archaeology on the site & surrounds including indications of late Upper Palaeolithic site.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, giving particular consideration to the early prehistoric potential of the site. Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The area has been assessed as part of the Landscape Sensitivity Study 2023. Parcel UPP 2 covers the site. The sensitivity of this area lies in its location within the Undulating Mixed Farmlands LCA, characterised by its rolling landform of ridges and valleys, that is important to the setting of the town in the landscape and the character of Uppingham at the gateway into the town from the north. The mature broadleaf tree belt within the lower lying minor valley along the northern boundary provides a natural landscape feature that is sensitive to development. The study parcel may be able to accommodate development on the higher, flatter ground, of similar pattern and scale to that adjoining it to the south, and as a continuation of the established settlement pattern of built and allocated housing to the west. Development on the eastern part of the study parcel, in front of single storey bungalows, would be more visually intrusive than development on the western side of the study parcel due to the screening and softening effect of surrounding vegetation. Where housing would create a new exposed edge to development in foreground views, mitigation planting could be important in time in reducing its impact and in creating a positive image of the town on the approach from the north, protecting and where possible enhancing its relationship with the countryside. The study parcel UPP 2 is considered of medium sensitivity to development.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None identified.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Contamination unlikely. Possible off site impacts on air quality North Streets / Ayston Rd/ Orange St Junction ‐ could apply to UPP/4, 8 and 6 A especially if combined. Assessment and mitigation if required

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
As a standalone site, without connection through additional site's to Ayston Road or Leicester Road, the full extent of the site area would not be suitable for development. An extension of Goldcrest could be considered, however considerable off-site highway work would be required to reconfigure the layout within Goldcrest to be considered safe and any extension would only be suitable for 5-10 dwellings maximum given the constraints of Goldcrest. Any connection from this site through other developable land to either Ayston Road or Leicester Road is likely to require significant highway works to achieve a suitable and safe access. It is therefore considered that this site could potentially come forward off the back of adjacent land, but a Transport Assessment will be required to assess all of the sites impact and to identify if an safe and convenient access can be achieved in either location. The LHA note that this site is also included in the draft Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan, and the LHA have raised concerns about the ability of the neighbouring land to form a suitable access on Ayston Road. Please also refer to comments made on site 36.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Whilst this site alone may not have a significant impact on the wider road network, the cumulative impact of the connecting site with either Ayston Road or Leicester Road will have a significant impact. Given this, it is highly likely that off-site highway improvements will be required in addition to forming a suitable and safe access for both vehicles and pedestrians. As part of the LHA comments on the draft Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan, concerns have been raised about the ability to form a suitable access on Ayston Road. See also comments on site 36.

Consultation responses

Availability
The site is considered to be available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
As as stand-alone site this cannot be accessed. Would only be suitable for allocation as part of a larger development with adjacent parcels of land, however cumulative impact of this site with adjacent land on Leicester Road will have significant impact and therefore highly likely that off site highway improvement works will be necessary

If allocated, development principles would need to cover BMV land, ecology and archaeology, landscape sensitivity and environmental health

Conclusion
Site not suitable for allocation on its own, would only be suitable for allocation as part of a larger development with adjacent parcels of land.
Note : Allocations will be made through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review.

Site Information

ID
34

Name of site
Land South West of Belmesthorpe Lane, Ryhall

SHELAA Reference
RYH09

Gross Site Area
0.42

Net Site Area
0.40

Type of site
Brownfield (Previously Developed Land)

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture, Vacant

Indicative Number of dwellings
12

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to Ryhall a village with PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0896/MAO (outline permission for 11 dwellings) pending consideration - current EOT date for determination 31.08.2024

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

2206m – Tolethorpe Road Verges

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1979m – Essendine Castle moated site

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
4.75% Overlap with Flood Zone 2, 1.87% Overlap with Flood Zone 3

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
RED = Medium-High/High

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
study parcel RYH3 high overall but says At the eastern end of the study parcel, recent housing development at Gwash Close and a small development opposite Flint Close has left a small piece of remaining open land in-between that could be developed for housing without significant effect on landscape character.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
AMBER = < 50% intersects with Flood risk zone 2 or 3

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
331.29m – Ryhall C of E Primary

Secondary schools
2788.54m – School in Stamford

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
GREEN = Within settlement or edged on 3 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site within a study parcel for Landscape sensitivity which is considered high, however the report concludes that
"At the eastern end of the study parcel, recent housing development at Gwash Close and a small development opposite Flint Close has left a small piece of remaining open land in-between that could be developed for housing without significant effect on landscape character.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
GREEN = Brownfield

Topography
flat

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
No Objections to development on this site, although existing established trees should be retained on site where possible and works should be undertaking in a tree friendly manner.

Biodiversity Study
All planning applications should be accompanied by a suitable ecological report, produced following an initial site walkover survey which has included: • An Extended Phase 1 or UKHab survey of all on-site habitats, with condition assessments completed where necessary and an assessment of the suitability of the habitats present to support legally protected and/or notable species; • Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) assessment of any ponds/ ditches within 250m of the development site for suitability to support breeding GCN (some areas lie within a GCN Amber Risk zone, see Figure 2); • An assessment of buildings/ trees within the red-line planning application boundary for suitability to support bat roosts; • Badger survey (known to be present within the Parish – see Figure 3); • Surveys of any ditches/ watercourses for signs of water vole (known to be present in the adjacent Essendine Parish) and otter; • Assessment of the site to support breeding birds, particularly Red-Listed, declining species such as swift and ground-nesting farmland species such as skylark. The report should also include a desk study, plus the following sections: • Recommendations for further (Phase 2) surveys, such as bat emergence/ re-entry, reptiles, GCN, breeding bird, invertebrate etc. (A reminder that under the NERC Act 2006 and the NPPF, these Phase 2 surveys cannot be conditioned as the Planning Authority must have all the necessary information available to inform its decision. There is case law to support this position). • An assessment of the likely effects of the proposed development on the ecological receptors identified through the site survey and desk study. • Details of mitigation measures and enhancement opportunities, where possible. • From November 2023, most developments must also provide a BNG Assessment and Biodiversity Gain Plan to meet legal and planning policy requirements. Areas of land across the Parish fall within Amber risk zones for GCN (see Figure 2). Surveys of any ponds/ ditches within 250m of a proposed development site should be undertaken to inform any planning applications within these areas. Figure 3 shows the southwestern part of the Ryhall settlement to be within an area known to support swifts, a Red Listed Bird of Conservation Concern. New residential development(s) within this area should incorporate swift bricks or suitable nest boxes to provide additional nesting habitat for this declining species. Figure 3 also shows there to be a number of non-statutory historic/ notified/ candidate Local Wildlife Sites within the parish boundary. These should be surveyed as necessary as part of any development proposals (to include condition assessments), and the potential impacts on their designated features properly assessed. Details of appropriate avoidance/ mitigation/ compensation/ enhancement measures should be included as part of planning submissions to ensure these LWS are protected, with green/blue infrastructure strengthened to ensure links between these sites and other areas of habitat in the wider local area are developed and/or maintained.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger surveys will be required. If present mitigation will be required upfront with the planning application. A habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats on site. The River Gwash is an important corridor and a minimum of a 10m buffer of semi-natural vegetation should be retained outside of plot boundaries. Needs further survey before making decision. BNG required. Ecology comments relating to the current application 2022/0896/MAO will also be relevant.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
The site - Land South West of Belmesthorpe Lane, Ryhall, appears to be outside of the historic environment by some distance greater than 50 metres and as such there would appear to be little adverse impact upon significance of 'settings' to designated Heritage Assets, comprising the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings and as such there would be no objection to development on this parcel of land from a built conservation and perspective.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): None

Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 60m E of Ryhall Conservation Area (480) and C17 house (5528). Further listed buildings within conservation area.

Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Historic Settlement Core (10188) just overlaps the NE boundary.

Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Cropmark complex & pit alignment c250m to the NE (5686).

Comments (ELE numbers): A <1 ha site but adjacent to the HSC. No archaeological deposits identified in trenching on adjacent plot to S (9722) but this is nearer the Historic Core.
Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The Landscape Sensitivity Study states that the parcel RYH03 is overall high in sensitivity to new development, around the Gwash valley, however new housing in the arable field on the higher ground adjacent to the current built-up edge of the village would have some association with settlement form and pattern. At the eastern end of the study parcel, recent housing development at Gwash Close and a small development opposite Flint Close has left a small piece of remaining open land in-between that could be developed for housing without significant effect on landscape character. Overall, thresholds for significant change are very low and the area should remain open to preserve the form and character of the settlement, and to maintain the function of providing important separation between the separate built-up parts of Ryhall.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The LHA have already assessed this site in detail under planning application 2022/0896/MAO, and raised no objection to the outline proposal for housing, subject to conditions. A suitable access can be achieved as demonstrated on the to be approved plans which includes a vehicular access and a footway to connect to the existing footway facility.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
There will be negligible impact on the wider road network.

Parish Council Comments
Council is not opposed to this site This site has already received a planning application which the Parish Council has not opposed. However, development here will represent a further loss of a natural wildlife area and represent a creeping urbanisation of our rural setting resulting in an erosion of its village culture. It should be recognised this is a Brownfield site previously used for heavy machinery manufacture and smelting and so will require significant land clearance as a large portion of the earth will need to be cleared from the site to make it workable and risk contamination of the River Gwash. By not opposing this development, the Local Plan should recognise the importance of restricting further creeping piecemeal development in a rural setting.

Consultation responses
This site is inappropriate due to its proximity to the river. Very recent flooding problems are evidence that this location can cause problems in the future. It will also place extra burden on local traffic, both during the construction phase and when complete. This allocation has small areas of flood zones 2 and 3. Any development applications would need to be supported with a detailed site specific flood risk assessment which is in line with the NPPF and policy CC14 of the Local Plan.

Availability
Available

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Suitable subject to ecology and archaeology development principles. Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact.

Conclusion
Committee decision to grant outline planning permission for up to 11 dwellings, subject to S106 on 19th March 2024. Planning application reference: 2022/0896/MAO

Site suitable for allocation.

Suitable subject to ecology, tree and archaeology development principles.

Site Information

ID
36

Name of site
Land at Ayston Road

SHELAA Reference
UPP05

Gross Site Area
4.15

Net Site Area
2.49

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
75

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to Uppingham.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2014/1047/MAJ previous application was refused.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3693.87m – Eye Brook Reservoir

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1073.39m – Castle Hill motte and bailey, Beaumont Chase

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
RED = Medium-High/High

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Considered as part of Parcel UPP 2 in the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
335.93m – Uppingham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
718.86m – Uppingham School

Topography
RED = Steep slope/ undulations – significant topographical constraints preventing development of the site

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Red for landscape sensitivity and grade 2 agricultural land, but located in Uppingham and therefore passed stage 2a for further assessment.
Topography also noted for being steep/undulating.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
The site has a steep slope. It falls eastwards from approximately 145m above Ordnance Datum A (AOD) at its western end to around 130m AOD at the A47 / A6003 / Ayston Road roundabout.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Site not within 50m of Built Heritage Asset. No significant impact likely.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): None
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Roughly 400m S of Ayston Conservation Area (462) & N of Uppingham (463).
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Mesolithic/BA flint scatter (21020) & Med manuring scatter (21021).
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Adjacent to Mesolithic./Neo flint scatter (21112) including rare Upper Palaeolithic Cheddar Point (21110). Mesolithic flints & pit alignment (8484) and pit circle (9644) to SW. Upper Pal/Mesolithic site to NW. (10451)

Comments (ELE numbers): Known archaeology on the site & surrounds including indications of late Upper Palaeolithic site to NW.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The site has been assessed as part of the Landscape Sensitivity Study 2023 within parcel UPP 2, the site is considered to be high to medium in terms of sensitivity. The sensitivity of this area lies in its location within the Undulating Mixed Farmlands LCA, characterised by its rolling landform of ridges and valleys, that is important to the setting of the town in the landscape and the character of Uppingham at the gateway into the town from the north. The mature broadleaf tree belt within the lower lying minor valley along the northern boundary provides a natural landscape feature that is sensitive to development. The study parcel may be able to accommodate development on the higher, flatter ground, of similar pattern and scale to that adjoining it to the south, and as a continuation of the established settlement pattern of built and allocated housing to the west. Development on the eastern part of the study parcel, in front of single storey bungalows, would be more visually intrusive than development on the western side of the study parcel due to the screening and softening effect of surrounding vegetation. Where housing would create a new exposed edge to development in foreground views, mitigation planting could be important in time in reducing its impact and in creating a positive image of the town on the approach from the north, protecting and where possible enhancing its relationship with the countryside.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
The land slopes towards a ditch to the north. This site will need to provide a SuDs Scheme, taking into account the gradient fall.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Contamination unlikely. Noise and air pollution from the A47 A6003. Assessment and mitigation if required.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
This site has been considered under the draft Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan and the LHA raised concerns whether a suitable and safe access could be achieved when considering all of the constraints. Any access would need to careful consideration and must be designed to ensure that zero traffic backs up on to the A47. The LHA would not support a sixth arm off the A47 roundabout or the A47 itself. A full Transport Assessment will be essential with full junction modelling and road safety audits to support any access proposal coming forward. Junction and link capacity assessments are likely to also be required on the surrounding road network, particularly along Ayston Road, the A47 and to the south towards the town centre, which are known to be visibly at capacity during peak hours. The LHA cannot say at this stage if a suitable access can physically and safely be achieved.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Given the existing capacity issues on the surrounding road network, it is very likely that mitigation will be required, subject to finding a suitable access to the site initially. However, without a Transport Assessment, the LHA cannot give any indication of what the mitigation might consist of.

Consultation responses
This benefits from a draft allocation in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review (ref. U-HA2) for the development of up to 40 dwellings plus a commercial / food store (equating to 13 dph). AH believe circa 70 no. new dwellings plus a commercial / food store is deliverable on the site – resulting in a more efficient use of land in accordance with the NPPF. Currently, Policy U-HA2 and Policy H1 are contradictory, with the proposed allocation suggesting a considerably lower density than the target stated in adopted and emerging Policy H1 (25 dph). Furthermore, AH believe the overall requirement of 316 dwellings delegated to Uppingham should be increased given the uncertainty surrounding the two proposed “longer-term” Neighbourhood Plan allocations. Sites U-HA4 and U-HA5 are reliant on primary vehicular access over third party land and are potentially undeliverable in the plan period due to delivery and ransom constraints.

Availability
Site is considered available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Uncertainty about achieving a suitable access as LHA would not support a 6th arm off the A47 roundabout. Cumulative impact on wider road network means that it is very likely that mitigation will be required, subject to finding a suitable access to the site initially. Biodiversity and archaeology mitigation required consideration of high landscape sensitivity, BMV land assessment may be required.

Conclusion
Access seems to be a major constraint and may prevent the site coming forward.
Site may be suitable for allocation if access can be resolved.
Note : Allocations will be made through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review.

Site Information

ID
38

Name of site
Easson Garage, Cottesmore

SHELAA Reference
COT14

Gross Site Area
0.17

Net Site Area
0.16

Type of site
Brownfield (Previously Developed Land)

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Other

Indicative Number of dwellings
5

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is within the settlement of Cottesmore.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3415.39m – Burley and Rushpit Woods

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1856m – Alstoe Moot and part of Alsthorpe deserted medieval village

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Located within PLD of Cottesmore

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
AMBER = <50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
GREEN = Grade 4/5 or urban

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
315.65m – St Nicholas C of E Primary

Secondary schools
6534.06m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
GREEN = Within settlement or edged on 3 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
None

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Some amber, but site is considered suitable at 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
RED = Intersects or is adjacent

Previously Developed Land
GREEN = Brownfield

Topography
Level ground.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
No objections - two lime stems are situated on the site and should be retained if possible, but are not of high arboricultural quality.

Biodiversity Study
Within PLD - not included in study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Depending on the structure of the buildings on site a bat survey may be required. If bats are found mitigation will be required. No Local Wildlife Sites will be impacted, and aerial photos currently show that the site does not contain any habitats that may be important. Ok with mitigation.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): Within Cottesmore Conservation Area (467)
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Immediately S. of Cottesmore Hall C15th outbuildings (5776) & N. of C18th Honeypot Cottage (5325). Numerous further listed building in the near vicinity including C12th Church (5321)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Within the Historic Settlement Core (9357)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Immediately S. of southern range of Cottesmore Hall (21360) and further outbuildings (19109, 21360, 9357 & 9534)
Immediately W. of C18th gardens (9534) & E. of (25850)
100m SW of early Roman site (21742)

Comments (ELE numbers): A <1ha site but within Conservation Area/historic core and surrounded by known Roman & post-medieval remains. Watching brief to S & SW showed two early road surfaces (5624) & post-medieval pits (4001). Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Site is within planned settlement limits and has not been considered as part of the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The LHA would raise no objection to the principle of development. A single access point suitable for a residential development would be required in the form of a dropped crossing. Any redundant dropped crossing/s would need removing and would be conditioned should a planning application come forward. Consideration would need to be given for a refuse collection point abutting the public highway and positioned outside of the proposed access route. Given the size of the site, an adequate width of access can be achieved. On plot parking will be required in accordance with the local plan standards current at the time of an application. Turning will be required to ensure all vehicles can enter and leave the site forward gear. An assessment will need to be made to ensure a fire truck does not have to reverse further than 20m and the hose length will reach every room of every property, otherwise on site turning will be required for a fire truck too. In summary, the LHA would have no objection to this site being allocated as all of the above points can be addressed.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
There will be no impact on the wider road network.

Parish Council Comments
Part of the village that has, on occasion, surface flooding. The critical issue here is that it would mean the loss of an important local facility and valuable local employment. To be sustainable villages need jobs as well as housing

Consultation responses
Site is employment land and business is important to the village Site must be contaminated due to fuel tanks Employment land combining a car showroom, workshop, MOT Test station, bodyshop and fuel station, probably classed as B2 (or possibly Sui Generis). It employs about 10 people. The loss of existing employment land in the larger settlements in Rutland should be resisted, as it is critical to the delivery of sustainable communities and the Local Plan itself shows how little new opportunities there are in these larger settlements. The site is within the Conservation Area, opposite a Grade II Listed Building, a heritage assessment will be required. There is no indication from the landowner that the business is anticipating moving to a new site nor any timescales for development proposals for the site coming forward. The site as such cannot be considered available or achievable.

Availability
Site is in operational use, but has been put forward for re development for residential development.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
The site is a brownfield site in employment use, providing a useful community facility.
It is within the Conservation Area and heritage assessment may be necessary.
Ecology and Archaeology mitigation may be required.

Conclusion
The site is within the permitted limits of development to Cottesmore and could come forward as a planning application. The development of this site for housing would involve the loss of employment land in a larger village. Site suitable for development but not for allocation as it is an existing employment and community use.

Site Information

ID
39

Name of site
Tim Norton Motors, Oakham

SHELAA Reference
OAK17

Gross Site Area
0.74

Net Site Area
0.7

Type of site
Brownfield (Previously Developed Land)

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Other

Indicative Number of dwellings
21

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
The site is within the built up area of Oakham.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

1832.91m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
398.67m – Butter Cross and stocks

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site is located within Oakham Town Centre

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
AMBER = <50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
GREEN = Grade 4/5 or urban

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
528.81m – Catmose Primary

Secondary schools
406.17m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
GREEN = Within settlement or edged on 3 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
Site is a garage site and is likely to have contaminated land.

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Green

Suitability (2a)
Site considered deliverable and developable passed to screening stage.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
AMBER = <50m

Previously Developed Land
GREEN = Brownfield

Topography
Site is a flat site.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
The Wellingtonia and sorbus, which are both situated on the Cold Overton Road are trees which must be retained should development occur on this site. Both exhibit very high amenity value.

Biodiversity Study
Not covered as within PLD

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
The site is within a Swift Alert area and swift boxes will be required with any development. No Local Wildlife Sites will be impacted, and aerial photos currently show that the site does not contain any habitats that may be important. BNG will be required.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): None
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Oakham Level crossing footbridge (6185) adjacent to the northern boundary of the area. E. edge bounded by Oakham Conservation Area (478) & numerous Listed Buildings within that.
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Within Historic Settlement Core (9904).
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Midland Railway bounds the E. edge of the site (16080). Site of medieval hospital c.20m to S. (5602). Buildings on the site are on the 1880's OS (c.150 yrs. old)

Comments (ELE numbers): Small area but within the historic core adjacent to a listed footbridge. Previous desk-based assessment (6701) concludes "moderate potential". Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Not considered as part of the Landscape Sensitivity Study as the site is within the settlement boundary.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The principle is acceptable to the LHA. It is not clear at this stage where the access/es are intended to be, however the LHA would prefer one main access for the site, although some limited frontage parking may be acceptable, but consideration must be given to any existing formal on-street parking along Long Row. Any redundant vehicular accesses along Long Row will need to be removed as part of the development and will be conditioned. Depending on the layout, refuse collection areas may be necessary if some units are served by private shared driveways. All rooms in all dwellings must be reachable with a 45m hose from a fire truck that may reverse up to 20m from the main carriageway. In the event, this is not possible, turning will need to be provided for a fire truck.

A simple Transport Statement is likely to be required to set out the net impact of the development when comparing the proposed with the existing use on site.

Minimum parking standards in accordance with the Local Plan in place at the time of any planning application will be required, in the form of on-plot parking. Visitor car parking spaces will also be required.

Any development in this area will need to take into consideration the potential for commuters to park on any proposed roads within the site. The site is positioned close to the railway where there are now parking charges. It is likely that the development will need a traffic regulation order in this location for residential only or a double yellow line parking scheme to avoid the development being used as commuter car parking.

It is anticipated that all of the above can be provided, therefore the LHA would fully support this proposed site allocation.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Other than highway works in the immediate vicinity of the site for a new access and removal of any redundant accesses, there is unlikely to be a need for mitigation works further afield due to the reasonably low level of dwellings anticipated.

Parish Council Comments
Trees would need to be protected. Heritage building should be protected. Immediately facing busy road. Trainline, station and level crossing all adjacent to site. Parking and traffic is problem currently.

Consultation responses
Traffic issues existing Long Row junction into Cold Overton Road. Too close to this junction and Oakham railway crossing. Heritage issues due location close to listed buildings and structures associated with the railway line. Existing employment site should be safguarded

Availability
Site is available within 5 years but is subject to the relocation of the car showroom to an alternative site.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Heritage constraints would require assessment and mitigation.
Ecology and archaeology mitigation may be necessary.
Site not considered available in the near future due to need to relocate existing car showroom off site.
Site in existing use and providing employment

Conclusion
Site is a brownfield site within the Planned Limits of Development and a planning application for redevelopment is likely to be acceptable in principle.
However loss of employment land and concerns about availability means not suitable for allocation but could come forward for redevelopment as a windfall site within PLD. Trees must be retained if the site was to be developed.

Site Information

ID
41

Name of site
Land at Gypsy Hollow Lane, Uppingham

SHELAA Reference
UPP07

Gross Site Area
0.33

Net Site Area
0.31

Type of site
Brownfield (Previously Developed Land)

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Residential, Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
9

Indicative Floor Space
N/A

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to Uppingham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
None

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

6106m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1442m – Castle Hill motte and bailey, Beaumont Chase

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
264.61m – Stockerston Rd hedgerow, Uppingham (west side)

Landscape sensitivity
RED = Medium-High/High

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
study parcel UPP10

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
green - 181.89m – Leighfield Primary

Secondary schools
Green 592.76m – Uppingham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Green

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable for further assessment.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
AMBER = Partially Brownfield

Topography
The site is generally relatively flat

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
No Objections - trees on this site are of generally low quality.

Biodiversity Study
If the Survey Area is to be allocated for development in the local plan it is recommended that the south-eastern area is retained and enhanced through mandatory BNG requirements to avoid potential impacts to the historic LWS. Consideration should also be given to enhancing the LWS for the benefit of wildlife. Overall, the Site is considered to be a good location ecologically for development, providing the recommendations relating to the south-eastern area are imposed. • Update vegetation survey of the fields to confirm whether the grassland is semi-improved neutral grassland or poor semi-improved grassland, and to confirm its condition. • Update survey of the LWS to see if the LWS selection criteria are still met and as a result what impact nearby development may have on this site. • If the stream along the south-eastern boundary is to be affected by development, a MoRPH5 river assessment survey may be required and suitable mitigation (in the form of a buffer strip) proposed. • Ground level tree assessments (GLTA) of all standard trees within the Survey Area that are likely to be impacted by development. Further surveys maybe required if Potential Roost Features (PRF’s) are found. This could include emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. Copyright © 2023 Johns Associates Limited 12 • Bat activity surveys, to include the LWS to the south-east. • Reptile surveys, with particular focus on the field margins and areas in close proximity to the LWS.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Site not within 50m of Built Heritage Asset. No significant impact likely.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): None
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 250m SW of Uppingham Conservation Area (463)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Not on HER but 1880's OS map (confirmed with StreetView) shows the survival of a stone outbuilding in the NE corner,
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): 250m SW of Historic Core (5861)

Comments (ELE numbers): Small area. No recorded archaeology but stone outbuilding may require historic building record. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The sensitivity of this area lies in its location on a relatively elevated, flat plateau on the western edge of the town where there are currently open views from adjacent properties out across the study parcel to open countryside. There are links to open countryside
from the Uppingham School playing fields, regarded as Important Open Space in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan. As a localised landscape uncharacteristic of the wider Undulating Mixed Farmlands LCA the area may be able to accommodate housing without
significantly affecting landscape character, but detailed design and layout should ensure that sensitive open space, sensitive visual receptors and the area of transition to the Leighfield Forest LCA are avoided where possible. The principle of residential development would be consistent with settlement pattern and character. Sensitive new housing design and layout could create a more sympathetic settlement edge than existing along the western side of the town, better assimilated into the surrounding countryside.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None identified.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Close to 250m boundary of former landfill & potentially contaminating past use. Site specific contamination risk assessment & remediation if needed.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The site is capable of accommodating a suitable access to serve 5 dwellings. The shared access will need to be located to avoid the accesses to the parking area opposite the site and any redundant accesses will need to be removed as part of any future planning applications. The development would need to include a refuse collection area for two wheely bins per dwelling located adjacent to the public highway and the new shared access. Turning for a fire truck will be necessary if they need to reverse further than 25m from the main carriageway of Gipsy Hollow Lane and a 45m hose will not reach all rooms of all dwellings. On-plot parking in accordance with the minimum Local Plan standards at the time will be required on any future planning application. As all of the above requirements are achievable, the LHA would support the allocation of this site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
None

Consultation responses

Availability
Available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Access for 5 dwellings achievable
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required.
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact.

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation.
Note : Allocations will be made through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review.

Site Information

ID
48

Name of site
Hooby Lane North

SHELAA Reference
STR03

Gross Site Area
9.4364 ha

Net Site Area
n/a

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
n/a

Indicative Floor Space
n/a

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
No relationship to a PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

7843m – Rutland Water, 569.12m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2091.1m – Manorial settlement, 127m north west of St Mary’s Church

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
1136.29m from FZ3

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
AMBER = <50m

Biodiversity
6.81m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
2600.86m – School in South Witham

Secondary schools
9559.71m – Casterton Business & Enterprise College (Casterton Campus)

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – International and National Designations (SSSI, SAC, SPA and Ramsar)
AMBER = Site is within a Natural England Impact Zone – Impact Zone indicates that Natural England required to be consulted on likely risks.

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
None

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
The site has potential for restoration to a medium or low level using site derived clay overburden and the limestone not suitable for building stone production. There is no requirement for importation of fill. Final restoration would be to agricultural land or beneficial nature conservation uses such as either woodland or calcareous grassland with exposed quarry faces. There is the opportunity to link and extend local woodland corridors and LWS (Hooby Lane Verge) through restoration.

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)
N/a

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Some amber, no red. Passes 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Land is flat therefore topography unlikely to be an issue for operations.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
All trees on this site lie on the boundaries in hedgerows. All of which must be retained should development occur on this site.

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
GCN have been recorded within 100m of the site and a survey will be required (or District Level Licensing Considered) with a mitigation plan to be submitted upfront with the development if appropriate. A badger survey and mitigation plan (if required) should also be submitted. Hedgerows should be retained with buffers. The restoration of this site post development would provide a rare opportunity to create calcareous grassland. Ok subject to surveys and mitigation. BNG required. There are a range of locally designated Wildlife Verges around the site: Hooby Lane verge 200m to the west, Thistleton Roadside Verge Nature Reserve 600m to the north-west and Greetham Verge around 1.5km to the south-west and west. Stretton Wood LWS and Ancient Semi Natural Woodland lies 1.4km to the east. Hooby Lane Plantation broadleaved woodland is 20m to the south-east, adjacent to the existing quarry. The boundary trees and managed hedgerows should be retained and protected throughout the development wherever possible. To provide enhancement for biodiversity the site could be restored at medium or low level to either woodland providing links to Hooby Lane Plantation to the south, hay meadow or calcareous grassland with exposed quarry faces and scree slopes.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Medium Risk

"Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity MLE number"
Sources indicate that a Deer Park of medieval date lay approximately 500m to E. (5746). Large area. No known archaeological sites recorded within the proposed development area. Further site specific investigations would be required to accompany the planning application (desk-based assessment, further pre-determination archaeological investigation may be required to inform a planning decision and to develop any appropriate post determination mitigation strategy). Medium risk - A known or anticipated significant archaeological potential of local or regional importance, likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission. Pre-determination evaluation by desk based and appropriate field assessment recommended.

Landscape
The site is in both the Kesteven Uplands and the eastern edge of the Cottesmore Plateau character sub-area of the Rutland Plateau.

The site is visible from New Road to the north west and Hooby Lane situated close to the crossroads of the two roads. The site is crossed by public footpath E129. The site is flat, arable and in general is not well screened. There is no existing hedgerow screening the site from Hooby Lane and gappy hedgerows border the site along the other three sides. The boundary trees and managed hedgerows should be retained wherever possible and protected throughout the development. Views of the site from the village of Stretton to the east are well screened.

Further assessment accompanying the planning application would be needed to determine the potential to mitigate impacts of the extraction phase on landscape local to the site or enhance the landscape character of the area in the long term.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
LLFA
The site is within flood zone 1, due to the size of development a sustainable drainage scheme will need to be submitted. Consideration of surface water drainage and continued maintenance of existing surfaces and drainage systems will mitigate contamination risk. Further assessment would be required to accompany a planning application. The site is not located within, or adjacent to, flood zone 2 or 3. Minerals working and processing are classified as less vulnerable, as per the flood risk vulnerability/compatibility tables the development is appropriate. Refer to the National Planning Policy Framework and Associated Technical Guidance - Sequential Test table. There is a small pond located in the south-eastern corner of the site. As part of any quarrying dewatering and surface water drainage implications will be need to be assessed as part of any planning application.
According to the flooding hotspot data received from RCC on the 30/06/16 this site is not subject to any historic flooding records.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
The site is north of the existing quarry located on Hooby Lane. This site is suitable for designation as a mineral extraction location with respect to environmental impacts providing the relevant assessments and mitigation is put in place under the planning process.

Scoping opinion application was submitted for this site under 2019/0161/SCO. Environment and Amenity Impacts highlights to be addressed in the scheme, included assessment of Dust and Air Quality, Noise and Lighting.

The nearest sensitive receptor is Hooby Lodge on Stretton Road approximately 500m from the boundary of the proposed area.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Access to and from the site is proposed to be from Hooby Lane connecting on to the A1. The LHA would have no objections to this proposed site for minerals provided HGV movements are controlled through routing agreements determined through the planning application process. Any such agreements should seek to divert traffic away from Thistleton or Greetham. The site is an extension to an existing quarry but is likely to be an intensification of extraction so HGV movements may increase. Careful phasing would be required to make sure both sites are not operational at the same time. Sufficient safety measures would need to be considered to make sure there is no potential conflict with other road traffic. Further site specific investigations would be required to accompany the planning application.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
The surrounding road network is adequate to accommodate current operations. Although there is expected to be an increase in HGV movements, the increase would be small and the HGVS would route straight to the A1. Further site-specific investigations would be required to accompany the planning application.

Parish Council Comments

Consultation responses

Availability
Site available within the next 5 years.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
The site is located on agricultural land identified as Grade 3 (good to moderate quality) which would be temporarily lost during the operational life of the quarry, however restoration to previous land use and condition is possible. The public footpath that passes diagonally through the site may require temporary re-routing during extraction and subsequent restoration works. There are few biodiversity constraints, only issues of sensitivity arising from proximity to SSSI and other designated biodiversity sites and non-designated features. Further assessment accompanying the planning application would be needed to determine the potential to mitigate impacts of the extraction phase on landscape local to the site or enhance the landscape character of the area in the long term. Where potentially adverse environmental health impacts are likely to occur, appropriate mitigation measures must be identified to avoid and/or minimise impacts to an acceptable level. Where applicable a site-specific management plan should be developed to ensure the implementation and maintenance of such measures throughout construction, operation, decommissioning and restoration works.

Conclusion
Site is suitable for allocation for the extraction of limestone (building stone) and clay. The reserves will ensure a continuing supply of building stone is available for local builders and merchants. Geological investigations have confirmed the presence of high quality limestone which would be suitable for building stone purposes for use in new and historic buildings. There remains a strong market for building stone in Rutland with the operator of the adjacent operational building stone quarry currently having to meet demand in Rutland by importing stone from outside the County. The site is located in the north of the County and is in proximity to Lincolnshire and Leicestershire boundaries. The mineral will predominately be used to support the building industry within Rutland however there is also potential for export due to the proximity of the site to neighbouring authorities.
A potentially suitable site in the longer term.

Site Information

ID
49

Name of site
Quarry Farm

SHELAA Reference
LIT01

Gross Site Area
67.36

Net Site Area
40.42

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Other

Indicative Number of dwellings
1,213

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to Stamford.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0227/MAO - Outline application for residential development (up to 650 dwellings) a local centre (up to 3000m² of gross floor space for uses within Class E (a-g) and F.2 (a) and F.2 (b)), open space including a country park, access, drainage and landscaping - pending (current agreed extension date of 30.04.2024)

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

6240m – Rutland Water, 124.74m – Great Casterton Road Banks.

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
20.51m – Ermine Street, section S of Quarry Farm

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
579.03m to FZ3

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
0m – Former limestone quarry, Stamford, Little Casterton Verge (west) (LWS), 8.74% overlap with Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Area not covered.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
AMBER = <50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
547.74m – School in Stamford

Secondary schools
922.19m – School in Stamford

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
RED = Site is a locally designated nature site; and/or Significant impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats. Significant mitigation required; only partial development of the site may be acceptable

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Red for Local Wildlife Site (former limestone quarry, 50% overlap with site), Priority habitat (deciduous woodland adjacent and overlapping), however mitigation measures have been agreed with County ecologist. Wider public benefit of access to unlock land in SKDC outweigh potential harm. Passes 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Land rises gently from the road but relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
There are two major parcels of woodland on this site, both of which must be retained at all costs, should development be permitted on this site. Efforts to tie these two parcels of woodland with tree planting corridors should be made as part of the Biodiversity Net Gain planting.

Present hedgerows and hedgerow trees around the site should be retained wherever possible.

Biodiversity Study
If this Survey Area is allocated within the new Rutland Local Plan, a thorough suite of ecological surveys and subsequent ecological impact assessment report is recommended to inform the planning decision. This should include the following elements: • Update UKHab survey of the site and assessment of the current condition of on-site habitats against the LWS selection criteria, to confirm whether the non-statutory designated area still meets the standard for selection. This survey should be undertaken by an ecologist with good botanical skills (at least FISC level 4). Hedgerow surveys should assess the value of all linear features in terms of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. • GCN surveys of all on-site ponds and any additional ponds within 500m of the Survey Area boundary to confirm whether this species is still present. • Update badger survey. • Reptile surveys of suitable habitat, including woodland edges, areas of longer grassland earth banks and dense scrub. A precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to these species during construction. This should include sequential cutting of vegetation to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles or amphibians prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. Timing of vegetation clearance works to avoid the bird besting season (mid-February – August inclusive) is also recommended for inclusion in this Method Statement or a similar document (for example, a Construction Ecological Management Plan, CEMP) to be produced through formal Planning Condition. • Production of an Ecological Impact Assessment to current CIEEM Guidelines to ensure all potential effects to ecological receptors are properly considered. This should include a full BNG assessment using the current Defra Metric 4.0. • Bat activity surveys (including use of static detectors) to assess current level of use of the site by commuting and/or foraging bats. Lighting proposals will need to properly consider the results of these surveys. • Ground Level Tree Assessments of all trees to be felled or impacted as part of future planning proposals for Potential Roost Features for bats. Subsequent emergence/ climbing surveys may also be required. • Use of tree protection fencing to ensure woodlands and trees to be retained are properly protected from accidental damage during construction. Appropriate buffer strips around habitats of biodiversity value should be included as part of any development proposals, together with enhancement of hedgerows as appropriate to strengthen the wildlife corridors into the wider local area. • Appropriate post-construction management and monitoring of all retained, enhanced and newly created habitats and habitat features (e.g. bat boxes and reptile hibernacula) through an agreed Landscape and Ecology Management Plan (LEMP) or similar, to be produced through formal Planning Condition for agreement with Rutland Council.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Within the Natural Impact zone of Great Casterton Road Banks (SSSI). Natural England will need to be consulted on likely risks of road infrastructure on the site. Calcareous grassland (including rare species), scrub woodland in former brickworks and adjacent fields. Badger, GCN, Phase 1 habitat, bat foraging, specific mapping of rare plant species, invertebrate surveys required. Some development possible, with significant mitigation and habitat creation, and avoidance of spp‐rich habitat. Great potential and opportunity for creation calcareous grassland (priority BAP habitat). Needs survey and proposed layout before making decision.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Consultation with Conservation Officer carried out due to site being within 50m of Built Heritage Asset. Sufficient separation to limit any significant impact.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Neolithic burial (5466) Possible prehistoric enclosures (27091-3) Large post-med quarry (23470)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
Adjacent to C19th/C20th quarry and kiln(26755)
Prehistoric cropmarks 100m to NW (5471)

Comments (ELE numbers): Large development area. Watching brief (5963) in the northern portion did not reveal archaeology. A geophys survey to the east (11842) identified curvilinear features.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The site covers an extensive area including land between the Old Great North Road and Quarry Farm Wood and extending eastwards A to Little Casterton Road and land extending to the north of Quarry Farm Wood into open countryside. The area to the north of Quarry Farm Wood has not been assessed in the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
No Objections in principal. The site must use sustainable drainage such as localised soakaways, swales, ponds, permeable paving. A full drainage strategy will need to be carried out to identify areas of flood risk and surface water flooding.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Contaminated Land Assessment would be required. This is likely to extend to intrusive investigations, monitoring and mitigation schemes. Assessment Air Quality assessments are needed for traffic from the proposed sites (all) locations that will have to be considered are Stamford and Great Casterton. Sites that border the B1081 may need to have a stand off distance from the road to avoid impacts from vehicle emissions. Liaison with SKDC is important.
Noise impact assessments and if required mitigation will be required for the BP garage on the B1081 and light industrial units off Casterton Road Business Park.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A full transport assessment will be required to include junction capacity assessments at agreed locations and identify both on-site and off-site mitigations, if required. A planning application is currently under consideration for this site, but the outcome is yet to be decided. However, through various meetings and submissions, it is likely to be found acceptable to the LHA subject to various conditions. Pedestrian connectivity, public transport, suitability of proposed access roads with a hierarchal grading, safe and suitable access points off the existing public highways, adequate parking and turning, etc are all key considerations within the detailed design.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
There is likely to be some impact on the wider road network, but it is unclear at this stage what that will consist of.

Parish Council Comments
Ryhall Parish Council have commented that this will substantially and deleteriously weaken the rural identity of Ryhall as a discrete village and virtually make it a suburb of Stamford.

Consultation responses

Availability
Site is considered to be available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
More than 100 dwellings and multiple developers on the same site - higher build out rate of 100 dwellings per annum is considered achievable.

Overcoming constraints
Significant ecological, tree and biodiversity mitigation required.
Proximity to Scheduled Monument may require additional heritage assessment and mitigation measures.
Archaeology mitigation
Contaminated Land Assessment
Air Quality assessments
Noise impact assessments and if required mitigation will be required for the BP garage on the B1081 and light industrial units off Casterton Road Business Park.

Conclusion
The site is adjacent the built up area of Stamford and required to enable access to a wider Stamford North development, which is required to meet the housing needs of Stamford and SKDC.

The CLWS on site is a significant constraint, however it has been concluded that as a comprehensive development providing access into a wider development, the site could be appropriately designed to mitigate any impact on the landscape, ecology and heritage.

Allocation of this site would only be suitable if a comprehensive development comprising the wider area of land in SKDC as part of a comprehensive Stamford north is to be brought forward.

Site Information

ID
51

Name of site
Land at Leicester Road, Uppingham

SHELAA Reference
UPP04

Gross Site Area
8.37

Net Site Area
5.02

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
150

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Uppingham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

2955m – Allexton Wood

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
356m – Castle Hill motte and bailey, Beaumont Chase

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
Includes LWS - Ash trees south of Leicester Road

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
The Landscape Sensitivity Study (June 2023) parcel UPP11

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
AMBER = <50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
AMBER = Site Intersects with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
Green 608.8m – Uppingham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
Green 867.82m – Uppingham School

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Red for Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, although in Uppingham so not automatics rule out. Site is adjacent to and overlap with LWS but this could be mitigated against, therefore passes 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Flat ridge running west – east with steep sided valley.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
The site is within a Natural England Impact Zone but is unlikely to have adverse impact on any national/international designated site meaning that Natural England consultation is not required. Arable, hedges, very good species‐rich grassland habitat to south west and south east, 2 veteran trees (cLWS) in south east boundary. Surveys A required include badger and Great Crested Newts of nearby ponds(known population within 200m). Mitigation includes retention of hedges
with 5m buffer zone natural vegetation; retain veteran trees with buffer zones; 10m buffers alongside SW/SE boundaries to spp‐rich grassland. Other mitigation pending surveys; including for GC.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Consultation with Conservation Officer due to comments raised by Archaeological comments. '‐ Development on this site would potentially impact on the Castle Hill at Beaumont Chase, a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) that is considered to be a particularly well‐preserved example of a major defensive medieval earthwork and an important landmark mentioned in the Anglo‐Saxon Charter. Although only earthworks survive they are an important feature in the landscape. Clearly this is a nationally important heritage asset. The castle was built to dominate its surroundings and a Heritage Impact Assessment would be required to establish the extent to which development mightcompromise its setting.
Clearly, the further west built development encroaches, the more likely it is to impact on the setting of the SAM. If this site were to be allocated, development should be restricted in height to 2 – 21⁄2 storeys. It would be interesting to know the thoughts of Historic England on the allocation of this site in relation to the SAM.'

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Known archaeological remains on site include fieldwalking has produced varying range & quantity of finds: Lower/Middle Palaeolithic hand axe, 7 Palaeolithic flints, Mesolithic/ Neolithic/ Bronze Age flints, Roman, Saxon and medieval pottery and a concentration of iron slag. (metalworking site). Known archaeological remains within vicinity include Pit alignment and double ditch in neighbouring NW and NE fields, lithic and medieval scatter to south, Iron Age pits and ditches to SE and Uppingham Castle site 300m to west. Possible setting issues for Uppingham Castle. Fieldwalking has produced a quantity of prehistoric material and some suggestion of later activity. Cropmark evidence.

Landscape
The Landscape Sensitivity Study completed in 2023 assessed this area as having medium sensitivity. The sensitivity of this area lies in its location on a relatively elevated, flat plateau on the western side of the town where there are currently open views from adjacent properties out across the study parcel to open countryside. As a localised landscape uncharacteristic of the wider Undulating Mixed Farmlands LCA the area may be able to accommodate housing without significantly affecting landscape character, but detailed design and layout should ensure that sensitive visual receptors and the area of transition to the Leighfield Forest LCA are avoided where possible. The principle of residential development would be consistent with settlement pattern and character. Sensitive new housing design and layout should aim to create a sympathetic settlement edge to the town. Retains a strong, positive rural character, in good condition, although adjacent modern housing to the north and east, Leicester Road and Uppingham Town Cricket Club located along the southern boundary of the study parcel, reduce sense of place. Boundary features are worthy of conservation as habitats with good connectivity providing wildlife corridors and as important elements of green infrastructure. Western expansion of the town has occurred along Leicester Road, taking advantage of the relatively flat landform. The outlying residential development at Westlands (including Shepherd’s Way) is located adjacent to the study parcel on the north side of Leicester Road. A housing development immediately to the east has recently been constructed, with additional housing allocated in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan further east and to the north of Leicester Road, closing the current gap. When allocated building is completed the study parcel will have housing on two sides, exerting an urbanising influence. Leicester Road is uncharacteristically wide with urbanising features. New housing would be consistent with settlement pattern and character. Employment uses would be inconsistent.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None identified. Site in low area of risk for fluvial and surface water flooding

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Contamination unlikely. Possible off site impacts on air quality North Streets / Ayston Rd/ Orange St Junction ‐ could apply to UPP/4, 8 and 6 especially if combined. Assessment and mitigation if required.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Cumulative impact with existing residential land allocations may require moderate mitigation along Leicester Road and at junction with Ayston Road.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments

Parish Council Comments
The (now withdrawn) draft Local Plan proposed that the review of the current made Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan (UNP) should allocate the development sites required to meet the housing needs of Uppingham for the plan period • In line with this proposal the emerging refreshed UNP proposes to allocate more than enough sites to meet the identified needs of the Town for the plan period which now corresponds to the new Local Plan period of 2022-2041 • These allocations were made following a call for sites and a detailed site assessment using established good practice • The revised UNP will be "made" long before the new Local Plan is adopted • In the light of this the new Local Plan should respect the UNP assessments and allocations and should not propose further sites for housing development in Uppingham beyond those currently proposed in the UNP • If, in the future, new sites are required then any future allocations should be left to the next review of the UNP.

Consultation responses

Availability
Site is considered to be available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
More than 100 dwellings, it is assumed that a build out rate of 50 dwellings per annum is achievable.

Overcoming constraints
Part of the site adjoins the planned limits of development along one boundary. The site is part of an area where there is a flat ridge running west to east with steep sided valley. An amber RAG rating for topographical constraints has therefore been identified. The Landscape Sensitivity Study (June 2023) assesses parcel UPP11 overall medium landscape capacity a RAG rating of amber is applied.
The development of the site would not result in the loss of employment land, a public open space, a recreation facility or a designated important open space. There are no likely adverse impacts on national ecological designations but surveys including badger and Great Crested Newts are required to identify any possible impacts on local wildlife. There are Tree Preservation Orders on or adjacent the site.
The entire site is identified as being on Grade 1 or 2 Agricultural Land and the loss of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land needs to be carefully considered. The site is not located within 50m of designated heritage assets however the presence of the scheduled monument 354m away was raised by the archaeologist comments. Castle Hill at Beaumont Chase are an important feature in the landscape and this is a nationally important heritage asset. The castle was built to dominate its surroundings and a Heritage Impact Assessment would be required to establish the extent to which development might compromise its setting. An amber RAG rating is therefore applied at this stage. There are known archaeological remains on the site and within the vicinity of the site therefore further assessment will be required.
The Highways Authority have identified that the access would be appropriate. They have also identified that there may be an issue of cumulative impact with other sites allocated in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan and that mitigation may be required to limit the impact on the wider road network.

The site is located adjacent to the town of Uppingham. The site is not considered to be in walking distance of the town centre, school or GP/Health Centre. The town centre, school and GP/Health Centre are all within 1.3km. The site is within 50m of a bus stop and more 10km of a train station. Water resources constraints at Uppingham with particular concern with environmental water quality. Site submission states mains water supply, mains sewerage, electrical & gas supply are available.
The site is identified by the promoter as being available immediately.

Conclusion
The site is adjacent the built up area of Uppingham. The site is promoted for residential use with an indicative capacity of 150 dwellings. There are significant constraints; The loss of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land needs to be carefully considered. As this affects much of the land around Uppingham an assessment will need to be made about which sites are needed to meet housing and employment needs. In addition the extent of the site towards the west and the impact that this may have on the Scheduled Monument needs to be assessed further, as does the impact of development on protected trees.

Suitability will depend upon an assessment of the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land across the town versus the need for development land and mitigation of impact on identified constraints.
Note : Allocations will be made through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review

Site Information

ID
53

Name of site
Northern Extension to Ketton Quarry

SHELAA Reference
KET23

Gross Site Area
110.10 ha

Net Site Area
n/a

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
n/a

Indicative Floor Space
n/a

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Minerals site therefore does not automatically exclude.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2024/0066/MIN minerals application for extension of quarry

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

23m – Shacklewell Hollow

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1328m – Air photography site NE of village and site of Roman town

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
AMBER = <50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
0m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site not adjacent to town or large village and not therefore covered by the LSS

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
N/A

Secondary schools
N/A

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
None

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
AMBER = site is public open space/recreation facility but any loss can be mitigated against

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
Final restoration would be to agricultural land or beneficial nature conservation uses such as either woodland or calcareous grassland with exposed quarry faces TBC. The use of inert waste (inert recovery) to infill voids resulting from extraction supports long-term restoration outcomes of the site.

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)
The use of inert waste (inert recovery) to infill voids resulting from extraction supports long-term restoration outcomes of the site.

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a. Site is adjacent to Priority habitat (deciduous woodland) however is Minerals therefore goes forward to stage 2b.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
None

Topography
The large majority of the site is flat, however the land drops to lower levels on the western section of the site. The topography in the local area does vary greatly due to the extraction and restoration operations. The disposal of inert wastes would support the restoration of the site to return land levels to what they were previously.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Rutland Water internationally important RAMSAR, SPA and SSSI is located 3.2km to the west. Site in close proximity to Shacklewell Hollow SSSI (around 20m at the closest point north-west and west of the site) designated for woodland, lowland neutral grassland, calcareous grassland and fen, marsh and swamp. Ketton Quarries SSSI, designated for woodland, calcareous grassland and earth heritage, including an exposure of Jurassic limestone, is 1.5km south-west of the site. Tickencote Marsh SSSI is 1.1km north of the site and Great Casterton Road Banks SSSI is 1.2km north-east. Habitat surveys needed to inform potential loss. Bat activity, Badger and GCN surveys required with mitigation plan submitted up-front if needed. Immediately adjacent to Shacklewell Hollow SSSI – check if NE need to be consulted. Potential Local Wildlife Site hedgerows on site, these would need assessing against the LWS criteria as part of the habitat survey and mitigated for accordingly. The restoration of this site post development would provide a rare opportunity to create calcareous grassland. Ok subject to surveys and mitigation. BNG required.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Scheduled Ancient Monuments - None, Registered Parks and Gardens - None, Conservation Area - None, Tinwell conservation area is located 1km east of the site. Listed Buildings - None, a number of listed buildings are located in the Tinwell conservation area.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
"Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity
MLE number"
Further sub-rectilinear enclosure to W. (5393) & Iron Age double ditched enclosure (5987) & S. (21317)

"Large site (c.110ha) and includes known archaeology.
Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission."

Medium risk -
A known or anticipated significant archaeological potential of local or regional importance, likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission. Pre-determination evaluation by desk based and appropriate field assessment recommended.

Landscape
The site is located in the Ketton Plateau within the Rutland Plateau. The landscape around the area is already impacted upon due to the historical quarrying and existing cement works which are a prominent feature within the landscape.
A Public Right of Way E226 crosses the site and E227 also runs along the southern boundary.
The site is visible from the A606 that runs along the northern edge of the site, there is a small well maintained hedge that runs along side the road but offers limited screening. However the boundary hedge should be retained wherever possible and protected throughout the development.
Further assessment would be required to accompany the planning application in order to determine potential to mitigate the impacts on landscape and provide compensation or enhance the landscape character of the area. The use of inert was in restoration works will assist in re-profiling the landform and provide opportunity for restoration of the landscape, helping to mitigate the impacts on landscape character.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
The site is within Flood Zone 1, however due to the size of development a sustainable drainage scheme would need to be submitted to demonstrated how surface water will be managed on the site. Flood zone 2 and 3 are located adjacent to the western boundary. Minerals workings and processing area classified as less vulnerable, as per the flood risk vulnerability/compatibility tables the development is appropriate. Refer to the National Planning Policy Framework and Associated Technical Guidance - Sequential Test table.
Consideration of surface waste drainage and continued maintenance of existing surfaces and drainage systems will mitigate contamination risk. Further assessment would be required to accompany the planning application.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
The site is located adjacent to the north-western extension to Grange Top Quarry, which is under screening for mineral extraction. For future mineral extraction at this site scoping and screening would be necessary under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011. Assessments of the potential Environmental Impact, including an assessment on air quality, dust, noise and lighting, will be required for any further planning application for mineral extraction at this site.

The site is located in within 100m of Tinwell Lodge Farm, Tinwell Lodge Farm cottages, properties on Steadfold Lane and Shacklewell Hollow Scoutcamp, which will require consideration. The site is also located adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest at Shacklewell Hollow.

The disposal/recovery of inert waste would be related to restoration of worked areas. There is limited potential for contamination however licensing and regulation will ensure effective prevention and control measures are implemented to maintain operations within accepted standards.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
he LHA do have concerns regarding this site and the impact of traffic generated from the quarry on Empingham.
If this site did come forward for development, the LHA would want a full transport assessment being carried out. The applicant would need to agree the scope of assessment and distribution pattern from the site; once agreed the applicant will need to assess any junctions or link roads which may be impacted by the development.
The existing quarry is predominantly accessed via the A6121. This new location may result in increased vehicle movements on the A606 and A1. Therefore National highways will need to be consulted.

This development may reduce the impact of traffic associated with the quarry (staff and HGVs) on Ketton, it will move the traffic to Empingham and Whitwell, which are more problematic in geometry.

A full set of ATC on the existing quarry access and network will identify if there is any existing site peak hour that need consideration. Generally quarry work in 12 hour shifts and therefore their peak periods may be outside the "normal" peak time.

Any new accesses will need to be designed in accordance with DMRB and have a stage 1 RSA.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
The surrounding road network is adequate to accommodate current operations. It is expected that HGV movements will remain at current levels. Inert waste is currently imported for restoration - this would continue. Site is an extension to an existing quarry so the HGV movements are expected to remain the same however the existing quarry is predominantly accessed via the A6121 and this new location may result in increased vehicle movements on the A606 and A1. HGV movements would need to be controlled through routing agreements determined through the planning application process. Any such agreement should seek to divert traffic away from local villages where possible. Sufficient safety measures would need to be considered to make sure there is no potential conflict with other road traffic. Further site-specific investigations and assessments would be required to accompany the planning application.

Parish Council Comments

Consultation responses

Availability
Site available within the next 5 years.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
The site is located on agricultural land identified as Grade 3 (good to moderate quality) which would be temporarily lost during the operational life of the quarry, however through inert disposal/recovery site restoration to previous land use and condition is possible. There are few biodiversity constraints, only issues of sensitivity arising from proximity to SSSI and other designated biodiversity sites and non-designated features. With mitigation, further extraction should avoid impacts on any protected species and designated sites. Appropriate mitigation measures (for example like that currently employed to control dust associated with the operational quarry) should reduce potential effects on environmental health to an acceptable level. Archaeological remains are recorded within the proposed development area therefore further archaeological investigation will be required and appropriate mitigation strategies developed. The public footpaths that cross through the site and along the southern boundary may need to be temporary re-routed and/or buffered during extraction and subsequent restoration works.

Conclusion
Site is suitable for inert disposal linked to the restoration of mineral extraction operations. The Draft Local Plan identifies indicative waste management capacity requirements and the capacity gap for the plan period (up to 2041), including inert fill. The plan sets a preference for inert fill to be directed towards restoration of mineral extraction sites. This additional capacity will assist in addressing capacity gaps.

Site Information

ID
55

Name of site
The Lookout (land west of Main Road, Barleythorpe/Oakham)

SHELAA Reference
BAE01

Gross Site Area
46.30

Net Site Area
27.78

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
833 (smaller parcels have also been suggested which would have lower capacities)

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Oakham PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0564/SCR application withdrawn

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3035.77m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1561.77m – Oakham motte and bailey castle and medieval gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
0m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
RED = Medium-High/High

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site partly falls within parcel OAK19

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
None

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
Green 635.67m – Langham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
Green 835.37m – Catmose College

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
N/A

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)
N/A

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Red for landscape sensitivity and adjacent to priority habitat (Deciduous woodland) but located adjoining Oakham so has passed 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Gently rises to the west to high ground at Mill Hill (Landscape Sensitivity OAK19)

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
mature lapsed hedgerow hawthorns and mature hedgeline trees are situated all around this site making the area of high arboricultural merit. the area of highest arboricultural quality is the east side of the site where there are mature parkland trees accompanied by understory hawthorn. The area with the highest amenity value is at the north east corner of the site, where mature horse chestnuts and hedgeline trees screen the Burley Way-A606 roundabout from the fields behind.

Based on the character of the site and amount of mature trees/lapsed hedgerows on it, developement should not take place on this site, especially the eastern side of the site.

Biodiversity Study
The grassland habitats are considered to be a good location ecologically for allocation in the local plan as long as the area of woodland to the south and the boundary hedgerows can be retained, protected and enhanced for wildlife. • Any trees associated with the Survey Area that have potential to support roosting bats and that could be affected by any development either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level tree assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Bat activity surveys should be conducted to assess whether there are any important commuting routes for bats around the Area that need to be retained as dark corridors within any new development design (particularly along the woodland edge and hedgerow boundaries). • A lux lighting plan should be produced prior to determination of any planning applications to avoid lighting impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife. • Reptile surveys of any suitable habitat, particularly close to the woodland edge. A precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to reptiles and amphibians. This should include sequential cutting of vegetation to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles or amphibians prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. Vegetation clearance should take place outside of the bird breeding season (mid-February – August inclusive). • Hedgerows, ponds, woodland and individual trees should be retained, protected and enhanced through mandatory BNG requirements within the development design. Suitable buffers should be implemented, and Heras fencing used to as necessary to ensure no development related impacts occur.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
The site is within a Natural England Impact Zone (RAMSAR/ SSSI/SAC/SPA) but is unlikely to have an adverse impact on any designated site, meaning that Natural England consultation is not required. Ridge and Furrow possible spp-rich grassland, hedgerows, ponds, mature trees. Phase 1 Habitat Survey, badgers, GCN survey of on-site and nearby ponds required. Mitigation dependent on surveys. Overall, the habitats present within the boundary of Survey Area 1 are of low biodiversity value, with the exception of the boundary hedgerows (particularly those that are species rich). The grassland appears to have been used for grazing, with a very short sward height unsuitable for supporting wildlife. However, the boundary hedgerows, individual trees and woodland adjacent to the southern boundary are likely to support nesting birds, commuting and foraging bats, common reptiles (in areas of longer vegetation), invertebrates, small mammals and possibly roosting bats in trees with suitable features.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
The Landscape Sensitivity Study states the site is identified on the 1888-1913 map that it was once part of Barleythorpe Hall and has the potential to have in impact on the historic character and is important to the setting of Barleythorpe.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Listed Buildings in Barleythorpe (5502, 5503, 5504, 5505, 6510, 6511)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number):
C19th landscaped parkland (27102)
IA/Roman enclosure & trackway (27118)
Possible Iron Age enclosure (27117)
Ridge & furrow
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
Adjacent to Barleythorpe Historic Settlement Core (9502) with numerous Historic Buildings (e.g. 17065, 19655, 20504)
Prospect mound (MLE5023) 40m south.
Anglo-Saxon grub-house (MLE17746) 60m to south-east.
Late Neo site & prehistoric field systems to east of area (18644 & 21087)
To the S are med. Fishponds (5022)

Comments (ELE numbers): Large area. Desk-based assessment (11861) & geophysics (11880) indicate moderate potential for prehistoric & medieval archaeology.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, taking into account the completed site investigation (DBA and geophysical survey). Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
High- medium sensitivity.
The sensitivity of the study parcel and adjacent fields to the west lies in its strong rural, historic character and its importance to the setting of Barleythorpe. The grazed parkland-like character of the area is a distinctive landscape with features worthy of conservation that gives the landscape a strong sense of place. The B640 Main Road that forms a strong boundary to modern housing within Oakham’s Sustainable Urban Extension (SUE) set back behind an open space buffer beyond the road. In this respect housing development would be consistent with adjacent land uses; however, the study parcel is important to the setting of Barleythorpe, lying on its undeveloped northern edge and on an important approach / gateway into the village where land to the west of the B640 remains undeveloped. Designing any new housing development to mirror the sustainable urban extension to the east by setting it back from the road may help to reduce its visual impact, but not its landscape impact.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
No Objections in principal as the site is within flood zone 1. The site must use sustainable drainage such as localised soakaways, swales, ponds, permeable paving.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
This site was thoroughly assessed by the LHA as part of planning application reference 2022/0796/MAO. Whilst it is yet to be decided, by the planning inspectorate now due to non-determination, the LHA raised no objection subject to various conditions. Given this, the LHA would not object to this site being allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
As part of the LHA's assessment of planning application reference 2022/0796/MAO, the full impact of such development was assessed including the impact on the wider road network. As a result, significant off-site highway works were required to accommodate the development and mitigate it's impact.

Parish Council Comments
None

Consultation responses
Concerns relating to biodiversity flagged up through the planning applications need to be addressed

Availability
The site has been promoted through the call for sites process and is assessed as available for development.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
More than 100 dwellings, it is assumed that a build out rate of 50 dwellings per annum is achievable.

Overcoming constraints
Landscape Sensitivity - The site would have a high to medium impact of both the setting of Langham and Barleythorpe and the focal point of Mill Hill given the topography of the site.

Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Two access points will be required to service the site

The site is adjacent to a TPO, further assessment in terms of impact would be required in bringing the site forward for development.
The site is constrained by pylons.
Consideration of Oakham Road Oak Local Candidate Wildlife Site would also need consideration and biodiversity issues will need to be addressed through further studies (bird, bat and mammal)

Conclusion
The whole site is not considered suitable for allocation due to impact on landscape, biodiversity and Trees and woodland.

A smaller site may be suitable subject to development principles regarding mitigating the impact of development on Trees and hedgerows, landscape impact, particularly the approach to Barleythorpe and on ecology and archaeology

Site Information

ID
56

Name of site
Land off Brooke Road, Oakham

SHELAA Reference
OAK04

Gross Site Area
7.54

Net Site Area
4.52

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
136

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Immediately adjacent to Oakham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

1466m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
683m – Butter Cross and stocks

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
Oakham Uppingham Road Common Lime 361m and Deciduous woodland 248 m

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel OAK12

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
None

Primary schools
Green 242.75m – Brooke Hill Academy

Secondary schools
Green 663.71m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
N/A

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)
N/A

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Red

Suitability (2a)
Red for Grade 1/2 agricultural land but passes as it is Oakham. Well connected to existing built form with development opposite the site to the east and existing built form along the north western boundary. Small part of site is grade 2 BMV agricultural land - an agricultural land quality study will need to be undertaken to confirm classification. As most land around Oakham is BMV a decision will need to be made about which site or sites are least worst for allocation. This does not therefore rule the site out at this stage

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
largely level ground.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Multiple hedgerow trees are situated around the outer borders of this site, including Ash on the southern boundary, hawthorn/blackthorn on the eastern boundary and a small cluster of trees including an ash at the northern apex of the site. All healthy trees must be retained should development take place on this site. successional planting should also occur, so suitable trees can eventually replace the more mature specimens on site. As much mature hedgerow as possible should be retained around the site boundaries.

Biodiversity Study
Survey Area 8 is considered suitable for allocation, providing the boundary habitats are retained and enhanced to contribute to the wider network of green corridors, especially as this Area is located to the south of Oakham, close to other areas of open land and semi-natural habitats. • Badger survey • Any trees associated with the Survey Area that have potential to support roosting bats and that could be affected by any development either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level tree assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Bat activity surveys should be conducted to assess whether there are any important commuting routes for bats around the Area that need to be retained as dark corridors within any new development design (particularly along the woodland edge and hedgerow boundaries). • A lux lighting plan should be produced prior to determination of any planning applications to avoid lighting impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife. • Reptile surveys of suitable habitat, particularly close to the off-site woodland, hedgerows, tall ruderal vegetation and scrub. A precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to reptiles and amphibians (including GCN) during site clearance/ preparation works. This should include sequential cutting of vegetation to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles or amphibians prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. Vegetation clearance should take place outside of the bird breeding season (mid-February – August inclusive). • All existing building within Survey Area 8 should be subject to Potential Roost Assessments (PRAs) to confirm suitability for use by bats

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Site within Impact zone and 1.19 miles from Rutland Water (RAMSAR). Proposed developments of more than 50 dwellings within the impact zone require consultation with Natural England on likely risks.

The site is within a Swift Alert area and swift boxes will be required with any development. No Local Wildlife Sites will be impacted, but the existing mature trees and hedgerows should be retained and buffered from the development. Ok with badger mitigation if needed. BNG required

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
The site at ID56, is an open landscape the field system still reflects 18th century enclosure, indeed early enclosure may be traced in the landscape along Brook Road, where field boundaries may well follow remnants of ridge and furrow. It is therefore important to consider the significance of the landscape hereabouts and the approach to Oakham and the wider setting of the boundary to the Conservation Area where rural meets urban. Long range views could be harmed by development and dilute the relationship between the townscape and the countryside which has occurred organically and on a piecemeal basis. A large urban expansion can be particularly jarring to the wider historic environment. A heritage impact assessment would be required to weigh in the balance the loss of historic landscape and the loss of the openness that the rural character and connection that the countryside has with the approach to the townscape at Oakham from the approach along Brook Road.

In summary the area remains characterised, by the rural landscape that has experienced relatively little to no growth during the 20th century hence any development along the site at Brook Lane would have to consider the wider impacts of views surrounding the historic environment on approach to and from Oakham and how the significance of where townscape meets countryside is harmed.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Low risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 200m S of Oakham Conservation Area (478)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number):
A series of cropmarks (5616)
Prehistoric flint scatter (23635)
Anglo-Saxon pottery (25167)
Medieval pottery (23634)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
Further enclosures to the S. (23197 & 23918) and N. (19131)
50m S of an Iron Age pit alignment
Bounded to the NE by the Midland Railway (16080)
Comments (ELE numbers):
Moderate area. 2017 trial trenching identified prehistoric & Roman archaeology that may derive from manuring scatters. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Study parcel OAK12
The sensitivity of this study parcel and adjacent arable fields to the south and east lies in the openness of the landscape allowing extensive views in and out. In views from Brooke Road and Uppingham Road there is a high degree of intervisibility from where the soft green settlement edge provides a backdrop or filtered views into the study parcel, increasing susceptibility to development. The Oakham and Barleythorpe Neighbourhood Plan recognises the important views from Brooke Road; development is unlikely to significantly affect these views from elevated sections of Brooke Road due to the low-lying nature of the study parcel and surrounding fields. Valued views from the Leighfield Way recreational route along Brooke Road, where experience of the landscape is important. The study parcel has a clear relationship with the southern built extents of the town as defined by the PLD. New
development could provide an opportunity to create a more positive, softer edge to the town in this location and to increase wildlife / ecological / nature recovery / green infrastructure networks. Consideration must be given to the relationship of the settlement edge with the surrounding countryside where sensitivity increases as the landscape transitions from the Vale of Catmose

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
The LLFA would have no objections to the proposal of residential development at this location. The Site sits in Flood zone 1. The site would need to implement a SuDs drainage system.
North west of site subject to high risk for surface water flood risk. This affects small part of site fronting to Brooke Road and rear of properties on Dyrham Place. Former appraisal identified Oakham South Upstream catchment. Potential to exacerbate risk downstream.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The proposed development is for up to 200 dwellings served from Brooke Road. Brooke Road is the only access to this land due to the railway. An ideal solution would be to provide a bridge over the rail line and connection through to Uppingham Road, however this would not be possible currently due to the land required being outside of the proposed site. Previous assessments have been carried out of Brooke Road Railway Crossing and the subsequent impact of further development, which will inevitably result in increased closure and waiting times. The assessments concluded, at the time, a maximum of 200 dwellings could be built on the western side of the railway within affecting capacity. Since the assessment, 2 x developments have since been approved off Braunston Road (62 dwellings to the south currently being built and an outline for up to 100 dwellings to the north) and 1 x development (40 dwellings) on Brooke Road (east of the rail crossing). As such, a further 200 dwellings on this site, would use all of the remaining capacity, the results of which will be longer waiting times with drivers having to adjust their journey times accordingly. Whilst highway safety is a key consideration, capacity is not considered as an objectional matter (as set out in case law with appeal decision notices by the Planning Inspectorate) unless it causes a highway safety issue. The LHA do not believe that capacity being reached resulting in longer waiting times at the rail crossing will result in highway safety issues and as a result are likely to raise no objection on these grounds.

A full transport assessment would be required to assess the impact of this site. Brooke Road is known to suffer with on-road parking and traffic issues, which would be exacerbated by the proposed level of development. It is likely that a scheme of off-site highway improvements will be required as part of this development to mitigate its impact on the surrounding road network. It is unclear at this stage if an acceptable solution can be found for these off-site works given the constraints, so the LHA are cautious in this respect of allocating the site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Off-site highway works to address existing parking and traffic issues will be required, but it is not clear at this stage if these can be accommodated.

Parish Council Comments
Heavy clay, potential flood located close to railway line and high risk of flooding, locally traffic congestion is a problem. Hares, sparrows and bluetits on the site. Site is not suitable as unsustainable.

Consultation responses
site is wrong side of the railway and will increase congestion on narrow residential roads on either side of the level crossing. Parked cars along Brooke Road add to concerns about highways safety. Junction of Welland Way and Brooke Road. Field often floods and is waterlogged with two floods in two months. Hares in the field. Inadequate infrastructure.

Availability
Assumed to be available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
More than 100 dwellings, it is assumed that a build out rate of 50 dwellings per annum is achievable.

Overcoming constraints
Need to consider BMV Grade 2 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact.. Also biodiversity with surveys required.
Tree mitigation required.
Highway mitigation expected to be required.
surface water flooding issues to be addressed.

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation subject to development principles.

Site Information

ID
59

Name of site
Land off The Beeches, Uppingham

SHELAA Reference
UPP17

Gross Site Area
4.12

Net Site Area
2.47

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
74

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to the Uppingham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3576.25m – Wing Water Treatment Works, 4772m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1874.18m – Castle Hill motte and bailey, Beaumont Chase

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
220.69m – Uppingham, A47 Parish Boundary Ash 791.94m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within study parcel UPP4.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
Green 589.28m – Uppingham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
Green 681.01m – Uppingham School

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
N/A

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)
N/A

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
The site contains BMV Grade 2 but located in Uppingham and therefore passed stage 2a for further assessment. Allocations will be made through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
The site is characterised as gently sloping.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Broadleaf woodland and belt on the North-West boundaries of the site must be retained if development is permitted on this site. All hedgerows around the site should be retained, especially the more wild hedgerow on the southern border of the site.

Biodiversity Study
If the site is to be developed/ allocated it would be worth considering retaining as much of the historic LWS as possible to provide an on-going habitat resource for wildlife. The arable field to the north of the Site is considered to be a good location ecologically for development. • Update survey of the LWS part of which is located within the Survey Area to see if the LWS selection criteria are still met. • Bat activity surveys. • Ground level tree assessments (GLTA) of all standard trees within the Survey Area that are likely to be impacted by development. Further surveys maybe required if Potential Roost Features (PRF’s) are found. This could include emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Reptile surveys, with particular focus in the margins of the stream and in areas of longer grassland.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Site not within 50m of Built Heritage Asset. No significant impact likely.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): None
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 350m N of Uppingham Conservation Area (463)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Possible Iron Age site (27280) in SE quarter.
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Flint scatter to immediate north (21693). Just S of medieval and post-medieval pottery group (21692)

Comments (ELE numbers): Good sized area with known potential across E half. Negative evaluation across W half (7002).
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The sensitivity of this study parcel lies in its relatively exposed location on the eastern edge of the town, occupying a shallow, broad ridge of relatively flat open land. However, the study parcel’s weak rural sense of place provides an almost suburban, settlement edge character. Development would be a continuation of settlement pattern that has seen the growth of Uppingham to the north and east predominantly on the higher, flatter land and avoiding the steeper valley slopes. Development within the parcel would break the skyline but in time mitigation planting should help create a similar filtered settlement edge as existing.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None identified.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Contamination unlikely. Unlikely detrimental effect.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Any proposal would require a full transport assessment to assess the impact of the development, which will need to include all other allocated or approved sites at that time. Whilst The Beeches appears capable of taking a further 60-100 dwellings, there is a third party area of land between the site extent and the end of the public highway in The Beeches, so a ransom strip. There should also be consideration of a connection through the sites to the north. In summary, the LHA are likely to support the application subject to a satisfactory transport assessment, should the issue of the ransom strip be solvable and/or a connection through the site to the north.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Potential for significant off-site highway works when assessing the cumulative impact of this site with all others either allocated or approved.

Consultation responses

Availability
The site is identified by the promoter as being available in 1 to 5 years.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Potential ransom strip for highway access and potential for significant off-site highway works when assessing the cumulative impact of this site with all others either allocated or approved. Ecology, tree and archaeology mitigation measures required. Site is also BMV Grade 2 and an assessment of quality may be required.

Conclusion
Suitability will depend upon an assessment of the loss of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land across the town versus the need for development land and mitigation of impact on landscape sensitivity.

Note : Allocations will be made through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review

Site Information

ID
65

Name of site
Land at Mill Lane, Cottesmore

SHELAA Reference
COT13

Gross Site Area
6.34

Net Site Area
3.80

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
114

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to Cottesmore PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0604/MAF planning permission refused April 2023, the proposed development was contrary to the Cottesmore NP. Planning committee noted organic growth of 20 - 30 is more in keeping with Cottesmore than the level of growth proposed.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3448m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1409.39m – Village cross 50m south of Middle Farm

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
AMBER = <50m

Biodiversity
Priority habitat: distance 13.01m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within study parcel COTT1

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
AMBER = <50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
47.15m – St Nicholas C of E Primary

Secondary schools
6452.86m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable and has passed 2a screening.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
RED = Intersects or is adjacent

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
The site is within the gently falling Cottesmore plateau landscape area and is a relatively flat site.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Biodiversity Study
Survey Area 2 is considered to be a good location ecologically for the allocation of a new housing development as long as the boundary habitats are enhanced for wildlife. Individual trees, where these are assessed as being of ecological value, should also be retained and incorporated into the landscape design. • Individual trees that have potential to support roosting bats that could be affected by development proposals either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level tree assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • The small pond in the southwest of Survey Area 3 should be assessed for its suitability to support amphibians, particularly GCN. Surveys may be required if the pond is assessed as being suitable for this species. • The Survey Area should be assessed for reptile suitability, given its proximity to the allotments and area of scrub habitat. A precautionary Method Statement is recommended for vegetation clearance work to safeguard any amphibian, reptiles and/or hedgehogs that may be using the site.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Borders the conservation area. Listed building 40m to south. Consultation with Conservation Officer carried out due to site being within 50m A of Built Heritage Asset. Any impact could be mitigated.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Low risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Bounded to S by Cottesmore Conservation Area (467) which includes a number of Listed Buildings
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Gully identified during trenching with pot sherd that may be Roman
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
Historic Core (9357) in S. portion
Adjacent to Anglo-Saxon/med. Remains (9557)
60m NE of early Roman site (21742)
Roman gully identified during watching brief (28010)

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized area. 15 trial trenches were excavated in 2023 (7239) - all negative to the east of the footpath, single gully to the west. The area around the gully may require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The sensitivity of the area lies in its open location beyond a defined but visually soft boundary to the settlement as well as through its small area of intimate and enclosed meadow, perceived partly as a green incursion into the built framework of Cottesmore.
Its inherent character and visual value are more limited. The parcel is moderately important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and the airbase community at Kendrew Barracks and infrastructure to the north-east, although coalescence is not an immediate risk. The openness and low topographical profile of the arable fields which make up the majority of the parcel do not afford immediate natural or established screening potential. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to be prominent but in relatively near views from Rogues and Mill Lanes, but wider landscape impact less significant. Overall there study concludes that housing development would be of medium impact.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
This site has already been considered under application 2022/0604/MAF, which was refused by planning committee. Whilst this was the case, the LHA supported the application conditionally. Some off-site highway works would be required within Mill Lane as shown in the Section 278 plan, drawing ref 400 Rev C of the above-mentioned planning application, along with a carpark for parents to use whilst dropping off and picking up children from the local primary school on the southern side of Mill Lane. In summary the LHA would support the allocation of this site. Any future planning application would also need supporting by a transport assessment.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Localised off-site highway improvements will be required in line with the S278 plan, drawing ref 400 Rev C of planning application 2022/0604/MAF.

Parish Council Comments
Area has been known to flood. Site slightly further away from school than ID152 but still potential hazard from access.

Consultation responses
Scale of development Number of housing Dangerous access point on a narrow bend opposite the primary school. Would not be integrated with the rest of the village. Impact on indfrastrucutre – schools, doctors Increase in traffic on adjoining roads. Contrary to the NP Policy COT H8 “All future developments should be in general small scale with no individual developments exceeding 20 dwellings and making use of previously developed land” Recent Planning Refusal, April 2023 – 7 Reasons for refusal, what’s changed Flooding/drainage issues Public transport is limited. The planning committee concluded that a site of 20-30 dwellings would represent a more organic growth. Entrance and exit to the proposed site which is opposite to the primary school. The land here was quarried for iron stone and as result has high levels of radon gas which make it a health and safety risk unless measures are taken in the building design Environmental concerns include the site's status as a habitat for various species, including the near-threatened Curlews. Concerns about potential misclassification of agricultural land, Dangerous Mill Lane site access, road safety, drainage/increasing flooding, poor public transport, primary school oversubscribed The effect of the proposed development on the landscape and settlement character given the prominence of views of the site on the approach to the village as well as adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, which according to the Council’s assessment could not be avoided. Refused planning permission in April 2023 for seven separate reasons including the effect of the proposed development on the landscape and settlement character given the prominence of views of the site on the approach to the village as well as adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, which according to the Council’s assessment could not be avoided.

Availability
Site is considered available immediately.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
More than 100 dwellings, it is assumed that a build out rate of 50 dwellings per annum is achievable.

Overcoming constraints
Some off-site highway works would be required within Mill Lane.
Ecology, heritage and archaeology mitigation measures may be required.
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact.

Conclusion
The site is suitable for allocation subject to development principles.

Site Information

ID
66

Name of site
Land off New Road

SHELAA Reference
THI04

Gross Site Area
46.94

Net Site Area
n/a

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
No relationship to PLD but does not exclude due to the site being a minerals proposal.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

706m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2055m – Manorial settlement, 127m north west of St Mary’s Church

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
0m – Good quality semi improved grassland and 0.67m – Thistleton Roadside Verge Nature Reserve

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site area not covered by LSS

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
AMBER = < 50% intersects with Flood risk zone 2 or 3

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
None

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools

Secondary schools

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
None

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
The land would be temporarily lost during the operational life of the quarry however restoration to previous land use and condition is possible.

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)
N/a

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes, the boundary does contain a very small portion of Priority Habitat (0.03%) and is adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site, but could be mitigated against due to the scale of the site.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
None

Topography
Land is flat therefore topography unlikely to be an issue for operations.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Greetham Meadows SSSI is approximately 700m south of the site. Habitat surveys needed to inform potential loss. Bat activity, Badger and GCN surveys required with mitigation plan submitted up-front if needed. Verge along New Road is partly designated as a Local Wildlife Site for its botanical interest. This should be subject to an updated survey but must be retained and buffered from the development, which may impact on potential access. The restoration of this site post development would provide a rare opportunity to create calcareous grassland. BNG required. There are a range of locally designated Wildlife Verges around the site: Thistleton Roadside Verge Nature Reserve adjacent to the site boundary in the north-west, Hooby Lane Verge 70m to the south-west and Green Lane Track Verge around 800m to the north. Stretton Wood LWS and Ancient and Semi-Natural Woodland lie 1.6km to the east and West/East Morkery Woods Ancient Replanted Woodland is approximately 980m north-east. Hooby Lane Plantation broadleaved woodland is 170m to the south-east, adjacent to the existing quarry. The boundary trees and managed hedgerows should be retained and protected throughout the development wherever possible. To provide enhancement for biodiversity the site could be restored at medium or low level to either woodland providing links to Hooby Lane Plantation to the south, hay meadow or calcareous grassland.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Medium Risk

"Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity
MLE number"
300m S. of flint scatter (10540) & Iron Age ditch (17086)

Large area (46.9 ha). No known archaeological sites recorded within the proposed development area. Further site specific investigations would be required to accompany the planning application (desk-based assessment, further pre-determination archaeological investigation may be required to inform a planning decision and to develop any appropriate post determination mitigation strategy). A known or anticipated significant archaeological potential of local or regional importance, likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission. Pre-determination evaluation by desk based and appropriate field assessment recommended.

Landscape
The site is located within the Cottesmore Plateau character sub area of the Rutland Plateau/ The site may be visible from New Road to the west and Hooby Lane to the south, however there is existing hedgerow screening the site. The boundary trees and hedgerows should be retained wherever possible and protected throughout the development. Views of the site from the village of Stretton to the east are well screened.
The site is crossed by public footpath E129. The site is flat and currently has an arable use.
Further assessment accompanying the planning application would be needed to determine the potential to mitigate impacts of the extraction phase on landscape local to the site or enhance the landscape character of the are in the long term.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
A suitable drainage scheme will need to be implemented to ensure the proposed development does not impact any ordinary watercourses around the site. The site has a very small area on the northern boundary located within flood zone 2 and 3. Minerals working and processing are classified as less vulnerable, as per the flood risk vulnerability/compatibility tables the development is appropriate. Refer to the National Planning Policy Framework and Associated Technical Guidance - Sequential Test table.
As part of any quarrying dewatering and surface water drainage implications will need to be addressed as part of any planning application.
Consideration of surface water drainage and continued maintenance of existing surfaces and drainage systems will mitigate contamination risk. Further assessment would be required to accompany a planning application.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Scoping and screening for future mineral extraction would be necessary under The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment EIA) Regulations 2011. Assessments of the potential Environmental Impact, including an assessment on air quality, dust, noise and lighting, will be required for any future planning application for mineral extraction at this site.

The nearest sensitive receptor is Hooby Lodge on Stretton Road, approximately 200m from the boundary of the proposed area.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The LHA would have no objections to this proposed site for minerals, provided the site access has suitable visibility splays and access width. Any application on this site will need conditions to prevent HGVs from going into Thistleton. Further site specific investigations would be required to accompany the planning application.

Parish Council Comments
None

Consultation responses
None

Availability
Site available immediately.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
The site is located on agricultural land identified as Grade 3 (good to moderate quality) which would be temporarily lost during the operational life of the quarry, however restoration to previous land use and condition is possible. Verge along New Road is partly designated as a Local Wildlife Site which must be retained and buffered from the development. The public footpath that passes through the site may require temporary re-routing during extraction and subsequent restoration works. Where potentially adverse environmental impacts are likely to occur, appropriate mitigation measures must be identified to avoid and/or minimise impacts to an acceptable level. Where applicable a site-specific management plan should be developed to ensure the implementation and maintenance of such measures throughout construction, operation, decommissioning and restoration works.

Conclusion
Site is suitable for allocation for the extraction of limestone (building stone). The reserves will ensure a continuing supply of building stone is available for local builders and merchants. Geological investigations have confirmed the presence of high quality limestone which would be suitable for building stone purposes for use in new and historic buildings. There remains a strong market for building stone in Rutland with the operator of the operational building stone quarry nearby currently having to meet demand in Rutland by importing stone from outside the County. The site is located in the north of the County and is in proximity to Lincolnshire and Leicestershire boundaries. The mineral will predominately be used to support the building industry within Rutland however there is also potential for export due to the proximity of the site to neighbouring authorities

Site Information

ID
67

Name of site
Land south of Brooke Road (wider site)

SHELAA Reference
OAK07

Gross Site Area
21.68

Net Site Area
13.01

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
390

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
The site is adjacent to Oakham on one side and would be an extension to the south of the town beyond the existing character and form.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

1470.19m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
685.94m – Butter Cross and stocks

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within study parcel OAK12

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
51.92m – Brooke Hill Academy

Secondary schools
666.99m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Agricultural Land Grade 2 but located adjoining Oakham so has passed 2a

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Relatively flat

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Boundary habitats should be retained and enhanced to contribute to the wider network of green corridors • Badger survey • Any trees associated with the Survey Area that have potential to support roosting bats and that could be affected by any development either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level tree assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Bat activity surveys should be conducted to assess whether there are any important commuting routes for bats around the Area that need to be retained as dark corridors within any new development design (particularly along the woodland edge and hedgerow boundaries). • A lux lighting plan should be produced prior to determination of any planning applications to avoid lighting impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife. • Reptile surveys of suitable habitat, particularly close to the off-site woodland, hedgerows, tall ruderal vegetation and scrub. A precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to reptiles and amphibians (including GCN) during site clearance/ preparation works. This should include sequential cutting of vegetation to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles or amphibians prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. Vegetation clearance should take place outside of the bird breeding season (mid-February – August inclusive). • All existing building within Survey Area 8 should be subject to Potential Roost Assessments (PRAs) to confirm suitability for use by bats.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number):
IA Enclosures (23197 & 8)
A series of cropmarks (5616)
Prehistoric flint scatter (23635)
Bronze slag (10046)
Anglo-Saxon pottery (25167)
Medieval pottery (23634 & 25168)

Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): 250m SW of an Iron Age pit alignment and the Midland Railway (16080)
Comments (ELE numbers): Large area. Known archaeology (particularly to SW of area) identified by geophysics & fieldwalking (10283 & 11667).
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, taking into account the completed investigation (fieldwalking and geophysical survey). Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The study parcel comprises the inner parts of several arable fields lying between Brooke Road and the railway line. Flat, indistinct landform typical of the Vale of Catmose Landscape Character Area. Retains a rural character typical of the Vale of Catmose LCT, although boundary hedgerows are in poor condition. Brooke Road and the railway have a negative effect on sense of place but this is not as great as land to the east which is more affected by the A6003 and Uppingham Road. Few landscape features worthy of conservation; field boundaries should be enhanced to provide connectivity as wildlife corridors and elements of green infrastructure. Housing and Brooke Hill School lie adjacent to the west of Brooke Road. Housing also lies along the study parcel’s northern edge to the east of Brooke Road, and to the northeast at the recently completed housing development at Spinney Hill to the east of the railway line, off Uppingham Road. The study parcel has a clear relationship with the southern built extents of the town as defined by the PLD. Overall, a negative settlement edge in terms of its openness and abruptness with little screening or softening by vegetation. New development could provide an opportunity to create a more positive, softer edge to the town in this location, and considering the relationship of the settlement edge with the surrounding countryside where sensitivity increases as the landscape transitions from the Vale of Catmose LCT to High Rutland LCT. Employment development would be inconsistent with settlement pattern and adjacent land uses and thus inappropriate unless the area was allocated, designed and managed for such use. New development could provide an opportunity to create a more positive, softer edge to the town in this location and to increase wildlife / ecological / nature recovery / green infrastructure networks. Consideration must be given to the relationship of the settlement edge with the surrounding countryside where sensitivity increases as the landscape transitions from the Vale of Catmose LCT to High Rutland LCT; development should avoid encroaching up the slope.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
TBC

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
TBC

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The proposed development is for up to 470 dwellings served from Brooke Road. Brooke Road is the only access to this land due to the railway. An ideal solution would be to provide a bridge over the rail line and connection through to Uppingham Road, however this would not be possible currently due to the land required being outside of the proposed site. Previous assessments have been carried out of Brooke Road Railway Crossing and the subsequent impact of further development, which will inevitably result in increased closure and waiting times. The assessments concluded, at the time, a maximum of 200 dwellings could be built on the western side of the railway within affecting capacity. Since the assessment, 2 x developments have since been approved off Braunston Road (62 dwellings to the south currently being built and an outline for up to 100 dwellings to the north) and 1 x development (40 dwellings) on Brooke Road (east of the rail crossing). As such, a further 470 dwellings on this site, would use all of the remaining capacity, the results of which will be longer waiting times with drivers having to adjust their journey times accordingly. Whilst highway safety is a key consideration, capacity is not considered as an objectional matter (as set out in case law with appeal decision notices by the Planning Inspectorate) unless it causes a highway safety issue. The LHA do not believe that capacity being reached resulting in longer waiting times at the rail crossing will result in highway safety issues and as a result are likely to raise no objection on these grounds.

A full transport assessment would be required to assess the impact of this site. Brooke Road is known to suffer with on-road parking and traffic issues, which would be exacerbated by the proposed level of development. It is likely that a scheme of off-site highway improvements will be required as part of this development to mitigate its impact on the surrounding road network. It is unclear at this stage if an acceptable solution can be found for these off-site works given the constraints, so the LHA are cautious in this respect of allocating the site.

Parish Council Comments
Heavy clay – potential flood risk. Stream crosses land. Habitat for hares and sparrows, blue tits and Located close to woodland trust Would cause two designated ‘important views’ to be lost. [Figure 8 on Oakham and Barleythorpe Neighbourhood Plan Loss of important south-easterly views towards Rutland water. Views from ‘Rutland Round footpath will be much reduced High risk from surface level flooding. Pylons on site. Next to railway Local traffic at Brooke Road/ Welland Way is already seen as a problem. Level crossing means there are regularly long tailbacks bringing area to a standstill Oakham Town Council considers that this site does not deliver on any of the following points: • sustainability • suitability • deliverability

Consultation responses

Availability
Site is considered to be available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
More than 100 dwellings, it is assumed that a build out rate of 50 dwellings per annum is achievable.

Overcoming constraints
A full transport assessment would be required to assess the impact of this site. Brooke Road.
It is likely that a scheme of off-site highway improvements will be required as part of this development to mitigate its impact on the surrounding road network.
It is unclear at this stage if an acceptable solution can be found for these off-site works given the constraints, so the LHA are cautious in this respect of allocating the site.
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures will be required
Site is BMV Grade 2 and an assessment of land quality may be necessary

Conclusion
Site not suitable for allocation unless an acceptable highway solution can be found to support the quantum of development proposed.

Site Information

ID
76

Name of site
Land to the rear of Hilltop Cottage, Essendine Road, Ryhall

SHELAA Reference
RYH10

Gross Site Area
1.32

Net Site Area
1.06

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
32

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to the Ryhall PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
None

Comments: SSSI

1944.6m – Ryhall Pasture and Little Warren Verges

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1610m – Essendine Castle moated site

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel RHY1

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
877.34m – Ryhall C of E Primary

Secondary schools
3324.5m – School in Stamford

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Suitable for development, passed 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
On the eastern side of this site lies a belt of young/semi mature broadleaf trees. Located southern/centrally is a semi mature oak tree. These trees must be retained and incorporated into any development plans should development on this site be permitted.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none

Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 300m N. of Ryhall Conservation Area (480)

Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none

Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Adjacent to prehistoric field system (5688) and area of ?prehistoric gullies to the S. (18845)

Comments (ELE numbers): Small area with some indications of archaeology.
Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The sensitivity of this study parcel lies in its location along the northern edge of Ryhall where the edge of the Clay Woodlands LCA falls southwards from the Rutland Plateau to the valley of the River Gwash. The majority of the village of Ryhall lies within the lower lying valley landscape. The plateau slopes form an elevated rim to the village and thus the study parcel is sensitive to development that would affect the setting of the village in the landscape. Currently the well vegetated gardens of adjacent properties screen the study parcel, which is not prominent in the landscape, thus there may be some capacity to accommodate housing development on the lower ground adjacent to the current built-up northern edge of the village as defined by the PLD. Together with corner blocks of woodland, there is a degree of enclosure to the study parcel that could probably accommodate some housing development without affecting landscape character, for example on low lying open ground adjacent to Quarry House, Quarry Barn and Old Quarry. The rather scattered, random, low density settlement pattern along Essendine Road is well screened and could potentially accommodate similar new housing close to the settlement edge without affecting settlement pattern and character.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
St Ebbas Close is suitable to take the proposed level of development and the junction of St Ebbas Close with Essendine Road A6121 is suitable with adequate vehicle to vehicle visibility. As such, the LHA would support this site being allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
None

Parish Council Comments
OPPOSED This plot lies behind the small development that is St Eabba’s Close and might incur comment from those residents. The 6121 is an increasingly busy road and any further increase in joining traffic would exacerbate any highway problems. If the Mallard Pass Solar Farm is built, this will add further to traffic problems during the construction phase. A large development would also need closer scrutiny of Education and Medical requirements.

Consultation responses
The site has been scored 'red’ as Logical Extension to Settlement. However, the logical extension assessment states that if the site is edged on 1 or 2 sides then it is assessed as being ‘amber’. Furthermore, development has taken place to the south of the Site which has incrementally resulted in the village extending northwards. Moreover, the presence of the existing commercial premises, which is flanked by two residential properties, to the north, whilst separated from the Site by a wedged shaped field does mean there is a not inconsiderable built up area beyond the Site. The proposal Site would neatly ‘fill in’ the next logical northern extension of the village. It is therefore considered that the issues identified by the Council in their assessment as being ‘amber’ would not prohibit the allocation and eventual development of the site. Indeed, as set out above it is considered that the scoring needs to be adjusted to take into account factors which the Council have overlooked, and factual errors. All of these issues can be dealt with through the provision of additional information to a planning application

Availability
Available

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required.
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
Despite Parish Council concerns the site is considered suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
81

Name of site
Land north of Pennine Drive

SHELAA Reference
EDI06

Gross Site Area
4.71

Net Site Area
2.83

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
85

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to the Edith Weston PLD between Severn Crescent and Mendip Road.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0903/MAO - Outline application for up to 60 dwellings - refused 27.07.2023

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

533m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
525.66m – Village cross at junction of Well Cross and King Edward’s Way

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site has been assessed within the parcel EDW 6

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
982.95m – Edith Weston Primary

Secondary schools
7918.84m – Casterton Business & Enterprise College (Casterton Campus)

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable subject to further assessment and has passed stage 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Site is gradually undulating.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
The design of the development should retain and buffer the mature trees on site and the boundary hedgerows

Biodiversity Study
If this planning application area is to be allocated for development, it would be worth considering retaining and protecting the mature trees and hedgerows around the site as dark corridors to maintain their value as functional wildlife corridors for nocturnal species. The site is considered to be a good location ecologically for allocation as long as a number of surveys and protection measures are implemented: • Any trees around the perimeter of the site that have potential to support roosting bats that could be affected as part of the development either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level trees assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Bat activity surveys should be conducted to assess whether there are any important commuting routes for bats around the site that need to be retained as dark corridors within any new development design. • A lux lighting plan should be produced prior to determination to avoid lighting impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife. • No additional surveys are required for reptiles or GC; however, a precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to these species. This should include details of a sequential cutting regime for existing vegetation around the perimeters of the site to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles/GCN prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. • Wintering bird surveys to assess whether any other the species associated with Rutland water use the site is also recommended.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed. GCN surveys required and mitigation to be provided up front if needed. The design of the development should retain and buffer the mature trees on site and the boundary hedgerows.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): None
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 300m E of Edith Weston Conservation Area (468)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Area of probable ridge & furrow
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Adjacent to North Luffenham Airfield (15972)

Comments (ELE numbers):No known archaeology but large area. Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment. Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Site has been assessed within the parcel EDW 6. The sensitivity of this area lies in its location on the Rutland Plateau LCT rising from the Rutland Water Basin LCT, where the skyline can be susceptible to development. Chiltern Drive forms a conspicuous edge to the village on the skyline, although vegetation on the northern edge forms a backdrop and softens the view. The western part of the study parcel, between Normanton Road and Chiltern Drive lies within the Rutland Water Area, a locally valued landscape, and from where there may be some intervisibility with people engaged in outdoor recreation there, increasing susceptibility of this part of the parcel to development. Views from the Rutland Round recreational route that follows Wytchley Road are valued, especially so where Rutland Water is seen in the same view cone as the open arable fields to the north of the study parcel. New development within the eastern part of the parcel close to Severn Crescent may be in keeping with settlement pattern but would be more isolated from the village and extend built form too far out into the countryside. The central part of the parcel lies between Chiltern Drive and the other area of MoD housing on Severn Crescent, where new development could probably be accommodated in keeping with settlement form and pattern, with mitigation planting helping to provide a softer northern edge.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
This site has already been considered under planning application reference 2022/0903/MAO, which was refused. Whilst it was refused, the LHA did not raise objection. A 2m wide footway along the entire site frontage together with connections to the existing footways will be sort. Other off-site mitigation such as traffic calming was requested under the previous planning application, but the extent and detailed design was to be agreed.

Any future application would need a transport assessment to assess the impact of the development and identify any off-site mitigation required. A safe and suitable access can be achieved. The LHA would also seek a 2m wide footway along the entire site frontage and connections to the existing footway network.

In summary, the LHA would support this site being allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
This site has already been considered under planning application reference 2022/0903/MAO, which was refused. Whilst it was refused, the LHA did not raise objection. A 2m wide footway along the entire site frontage together with connections to the existing footways will be sort. Other off-site mitigation such as traffic calming was requested under the previous planning application, but the extent and detailed design was to be agreed.

Parish Council Comments
All proposed sites fall within the Impact Risk Zones of the SSSI sites of Rutland Water and/or Ketton Quarries All sites covered by the Red List for Birds (2021). Priority Species Lapwing.

Consultation responses
Totally disproportionate to the size of the existing village and the current infrastructure in place. The numbers exceed the housing assessment number of 21 and is not required. This site would go against many of the other policies within the proposed local plan, environment, transport, countryside protection etc Development of this land as a greenfield reserve site would be contrary to national policy and the strategic objectives of the draft Local Plan. This is particularly relevant given the context of a large brownfield site to the immediate south, which is known to be available during the plan period. Edith Weston is meeting housing needs and part of the wider strategic need already, so there is no need or justification for inclusion of this site.

Availability
Site is considered available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Mineral safeguarding area may require detailed assessment

Conclusion
No significant constraints to sites development, site suitable for allocation.

Site Information

ID
82

Name of site
Whitwell Road South Empingham

SHELAA Reference
EMP03

Gross Site Area
1.18

Net Site Area
0.94

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
28

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Empingham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

649m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
205.71m – Moated site with fishponds and enclosures at Empingham

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel EMP6

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
899.39m – Empingham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
5706.42m – Casterton Business & Enterprise College (Casterton Campus)

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site has passed suitability screening stage 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Sloping site from Whitwell Road.The land rises from around 60m AOD up to 80m AOD at the A606 in the north and rises A gradually from east to west.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
The bypass tree belt is on the southern boundary of this site and must be retained to screen any potential development. On the north side of the site there is mature hedgerow and mature hedge line trees, including an excellent mature English oak. these trees must be retained and protected accordingly, should development occur.

Biodiversity Study
No ecological surveys of Survey Area 1 are considered necessary, however, BNG could be achieved through the creation of dense, native hedgerows that have a good species diversity along the boundaries of any new development. Development proposals should also include areas of semi-natural habitat within the design, again to maximise BNG when this becomes mandatory in November 2023. These features will provide habitat for a range of wildlife, including birds, invertebrates, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and bats. Figure 7 shows part of the Survey Area to be within an area known to support swifts, a Red Listed Bird of Conservation Concern. New residential development within Survey Area 1 should incorporate swift bricks or suitable nest boxes to provide additional nesting habitat for this declining species.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
The site is within a Natural England Impact Zone but is unlikely to have adverse impact on any national/international designated site meaning that Natural England consultation is not required. Badger surveys will be required. If present mitigation will be required upfront with the planning application. The site is within a Swift Alert area and swift boxes will be required with any development. The site has potential to be species-rich grassland. A Phase 1 habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats. The existing mature trees and hedgerows should be retained and buffered from the development. Likely ok with mitigation following the results of surveys. BNG required.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
The site lies outside of the Historic Environment comprising the Conservation Area and Listed Buildings and is located on the urban edge of the village of Empingham, however a designated heritage asset in close proximity to the site includes known earthworks associated with a Scheduled Monument moat, c.100m north. Any development proposal would be expected to ensure the development is in-keeping with the local historic character and distinctiveness of the village and development would be expected to safeguard designated heritage assets through mitigation.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number):
130m W. of Empingham Conservation Area (469)
200m N. of moated site with fishponds (57)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Within Historic Settlement Core (5171)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Adjacent to C20th cemetery (21534)
60m N of medieval village earthworks (5177)

Comments (ELE numbers): Within the Historic Settlement Core. Archaeological remains in the vicinity include medieval earthworks to south. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Site is considered within Parcel EMP 6 within the updated Landscape Sensitivity Study 2023. New small scale housing development within the study parcel could probably be accommodated close to the current PLD, in keeping with settlement form and pattern that retains the characteristic compact, regular, linear pattern of the village where development sits low in the landscape. It would avoid the rising ground to the north and, although located within the Gwash Valley, key characteristics of the LCA would not be significantly affected by sensitive housing development that includes mitigation planting to retain a soft western edge to the settlement and integration into the landscape. The church is a focal point in views from the A606 across the study parcel when entering the settlement from the west, increasing susceptibility to development that interrupts the view. Characteristic views out from the settlement to undeveloped ridges of higher ground on the skyline create an important backdrop to the village and should be retained by any new development within the study parcel. As well as the Landscape Sensitivity Study the site lies within the Rutland Water Area. Advise from the author of the RWAS has been sought. This concludes that "It is apparent that the trees within Cow Croft Spinney between the reservoir and Empingham have grown substantially since the RWA boundary was first drawn in 2001. On further review, re-drawing the RWA boundary around the spinney (see attached sketch) would retain filtered views to the village unlikely to be adversely affected by development within the area that could be removed from the RWA shown in the Reg 18 Plan, and where scenic quality including important views of the Church spire protruding above the village roof-scape and tree-tops would remain." Therefore it would be appropriate to amend the RWA in this location if the site were to be allocated.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
No constraints known however contamination possible.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
It is not clear if this site is intended for direct accesses for individual dwellings or one main access or a combination of the both. It is likely that an access of adequate geometry with appropriate visibility could be achieved and any direct accesses could be suitable again with visibility, but must have adequate turning within plots to ensure all vehicles can enter and leave the site in forward gear. The LHA would request a 2m wide footway from the site to connect to the existing footway infrastructure to the north with a suitable crossing point for both the bus stop and possibly an additional one at the eastern end of the site frontage. At this stage the type of crossing point/s is unknown. It is likely that the LHA will seek a change in the existing Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the existing 40mph to 30mph along the site frontage, and the repositioning of the gateway feature, the physical works of which will be will be carried out by the developer under a Section 278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

In summary the LHA would support this site being allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
There will be a localised impact and development will require access points, footway connections and changes to the existing traffic regulation order to move the 30/40mph change in speed limit and gateway feature further west.

Parish Council Comments
ID 82 to the south of Whitwell Road - believe that in the next eighteen years with a positive approach it would be possible to meet the need. The technical information relating to these sites is readily available. EPC's only observation/local input to make in respect of sites ID 82 is that the road verges to the A606 , particularly to the north side of the Whitwell Road, are reasonably wide and would provide the opportunity to significantly improve facilities for public transport e.g. bus stops Currently the best (and only) solution to the need for the Medical Centre to expand would involve using land not identified in the call for sites (i.e. extending site ID 82 west to Sykes Lane). WHITWELL PARISH MEETING - Impact on Rutland Water and Empingham. Entrance to Sykes Lane is a concern as is increased traffic in Empingham and Whitwell. Increase in Noise and pollution to both Empingham and Whitwell. Further development of Greenfield sites will increase pressure on neighbouring villages – the A606 is now busier than ever and further development will increase traffic – mitigation is required to reduce speed and traffic in Empingham and Whitwell.

Consultation responses
Scheduled Moated site with fishponds and enclosures at Empingham, c. 200m to south. Assessment of impact upon setting will be required, both visual and through changes to the character of the landscape and the historic context of the monuments. it is noted that the site is situated in Parcel EMP6 of the Landscape Sensitivity Study (2023). However, there appears to be minimal consideration given to key aspects of the study. Specifically, the study advises that housing development should "avoid the rising ground to the north" and it highlights that "The church is a focal point in views from the A606 across the study parcel". These recommendations seem to have been overlooked in the assessment of the site's landscape impact. The proposed reserved allocation, covering the northern half of Parcel EMP6, directly contradicts the findings of the Landscape Sensitivity Study. This allocation would significantly and irreparably impact the approach into Empingham from the A606, a viewpoint identified as crucial in the study. Such a development would disrupt the landscape as outlined in the study's recommendations.

Availability
Site is available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Ecology, heritage and archaeology mitigation. The bypass tree belt is on the southern boundary of this site and must be retained to screen any potential development. Existing trees to be retained.

Site for new GP surgery has been put forward adjacent to site ID 82 as a combined scheme. Development of this site should ensure delivery of GP surgery alongside housing.

Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact.

Site lies within the Rutland Water Area and therefore a change to this boundary would need to be made if the site were to be allocated.

Conclusion
The site is considered suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
85

Name of site
Land off Pickwell Lane, Whissendine

SHELAA Reference
WHI12

Gross Site Area
2.91

Net Site Area
2.33

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
70

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Whissendine PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3205m – Wymondham Rough

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1585m – Moor Lane moated site, Whissendine

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel WHI1 - Medium

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
327m – Whissendine C of E Primary

Secondary schools
5453m – Catmose College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Site rises gently from the road, however it is relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Although there are no trees situated on this site. there are trees in the gardens of neighboring houses which, if development was permitted on this site, should be protected accordingly. Hedgerows should be retained wherever possible.

Biodiversity Study
If Survey Area 4 is to be allocated for development, it would be worth considering retaining, protecting and enhancing the areas of woodland, swamp, tall ruderal and linear habitats such as hedgerows and the watercourse to maintain their value as functional wildlife corridors for a range of species. The area south of Oakham Road is considered to be a good location ecologically for allocation as long as a number of ecological surveys and protection measures are implemented: • Update survey of the LWS located along the watercourse on the eastern site boundary of Survey Area 4 to confirm its current biodiversity value. • Any trees around the perimeter of the site that have potential to support roosting bats and that could be affected by development proposals either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level trees assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Badger surveys. • Bat activity surveys should be conducted to assess whether there are any important commuting routes for bats around the Survey Area that need to be retained as dark corridors within any new development design. • A lux lighting plan should be produced prior to determination to avoid lighting impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife. • GCN population surveys of all ponds within 500m of Survey Area 4. • Reptile surveys, with particular focus on the good reptile habitat present north of Oakham Road, around the pond, edges of the woodland, swamp and ruderal habitats. A precautionary method statement may be required further reduce any risk of harm to these species. This should include sequential cutting of suitable vegetation to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. • Water vole surveys will be required as the watercourse has records of this species being present.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 125m S. of Listed windmill (5280)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Certain ridge & furrow
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): 100m S of Historic Core (8623)
75m S of Old Road (21588)

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized development. The setting for the windmill, a designated heritage asset, including the ridge and furrow should be considered.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment. Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The sensitivity of the area is limited to its open location beyond an abruptly defined boundary to the settlement. In most respects the parcel does not display landscape components, character or condition which offer clear landscape value, with the exception of its extensive ridge and furrow, important in very immediate views. Any landscape and visual value may be derived from its general openness and pockets of remaining pasture with more complete hedges to the south-east fringe. The parcel is not important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and other settlements. The openness and low profile from two roads into the village would afford open views across any future housing development and be seen in short and some medium views on approach. Low hedgerows and absence of hedgerow trees around the fields would not afford immediate natural or established screening potential, but new planting could be effective in longer views. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to be prominent but in relatively near views only, and wider landscape impact less significant. Minimal existing ecological value of the study parcel could be enhanced significantly by landscaping and integrated Green Infrastructure. Views to the landmark Windmill would be an important consideration, but this already has a built up visual context unlikely to be significantly harmed by new development.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
Site is in Flood Zone 1, no issues.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Any future application will need a transport statement or a transport assessment to assess the impact of the proposed development and identify any off-site highways works to mitigate the impact. It is not clear how this site could provide a safe and suitable access given the constraints within Pickwell Lane. Pickwell Lane is exceptionally narrow with space for only one vehicle, resulting in vehicles having to mount the verge or if available use a field access to pass one another. Significant lenghts of established hedgerow will be lost to form a suitable access with adequate visibility, which may be cause for concern with our Forestry Team. Any access/es would need to provide adequate turning to ensure all vehicles can enter and leave in forward gear. 2m wide footways will need to be provided connecting to the existing provision in Oakham Road. Due to the topography of Pickwell Lane, significant off-site highway works in the form of passing bays will be required, an assessment of which would need to be included with any future planning application. Intervisibility between suitable passing places must be provided, with widening on existing blind bends. Full width widening of Pickwell Lane would be required from any new access to the site down to Oakham Road. The widenings may require third party land, which may result in this site being unimplementable.

In summary, without a detailed assessment of Pickwell Lane, the LHA cannot advised if the required off-site highway mitigation is achievable, so would not recommend that this site is allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
An assessment is needed to identity any off-site mitigation, but as a minimum 2m wide footways connecting to the existing provision in Oakham Road and significant widening of Pickwell Lane between any new access and Oakham Road and to provide passing bays (with intervisibility) along the entire length of Pickwell Lane will be required. The LHA cannot confirm that these requirements are achievable without a detailed assessment, therefore would not recommend that this site is allocated.

Parish Council Comments
The site slopes significantly down to the south (towards Pickwell Lane). Adjacent landowners report issues with high volumes of surface water run off at times due to geology and slope. There is a windmill immediately southeast of this site. This is a listed building, Grade 2*, also a working windmill. As a working windmill it needs a turbulence free, air corridor. Any development on site with new buildings or dense stands of trees may create turbulence or block wind accessing the sails. The Whissendine Neighbourhood Plan includes a free-zone for the windmill that covers this site, because of the vulnerability of the mill to turbulence/wind blocking from the south. This site is very wet and probably not suitable for SUDS; due to the geology. Any development that is likely to increase run-off and this is likely to cause issues due to the steep fall towards Pickwell Lane. The stream due south of this site is Whissendine Brooke. The brook already overtops across Oakham Road after significant rainfall. Surface runoff from this site flows towards the brook at this point. The brook then continues to the centre of the village. Pickwell Lane is a meandering single track road without passing places or foot-way. It is primarily used by dog walkers, horse-riders and farm vehicles. There is an equestrian business at the western end so that equestrian traffic is common. There is a small caravan park to the south/west of this site that also uses Pickwell Lane for both vehicular and pedestrian movements. In 2021 Whissendine PC commissioned an independent ‘housing needs assessment’ (AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd). They concluded a housing need figure “of up to 72 dwelling between 2022 and 2036.….This is likely to be the upper limit of any housing requirement for Whissendine.” This predates grant of permission for 66 dwellings and pending applications for 2 additional sites. If the first two developments progress this could yield up to 84 dwellings, in which case development in the village will have exceeded need beyond 2036.

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
A transport statement or a transport assessment required to assess the impact of the proposed development and identify any off-site highways works to mitigate the impact.
Ecology and Archaeology mitigation and hedgerow mitigation. Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact.

Conclusion
It is not clear how this site could provide a safe and suitable access given the constraints within Pickwell Lane. Pickwell Lane is exceptionally narrow with space for only one vehicle, resulting in vehicles having to mount the verge or if available use a field access to pass one another. The LHA cannot confirm that these requirements are achievable without a detailed assessment, therefore would not recommend that this site is allocated.

Site is not suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
130

Name of site
Car Park 3 Rutland Showground

SHELAA Reference
OAK20

Gross Site Area
2.95 ha

Net Site Area
2.95

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Other

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space
6000 sqm

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Oakham PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

2922m – Burley and Rushpit Woods, 3057m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1669m – Oakham motte and bailey castle and medieval gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel OAK2 (Medium)

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
632m – Langham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
1146m – Catmose College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a. BMV Grade 2 but not excluded due to being Oakham.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Flat.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Biodiversity Study
Site not assessed in study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger and GCN survey needed with mitigation if present. A habitat survey should also be submitted to determine the quality of the habitats on site as the quality of the grassland is unknown. The design of the development should retain and buffer the mature trees on site and the boundary hedgerows. Survey needed before decision. BNG required.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
No Heritage or Built conservation objection or comments to make on the employment sites that have no identified heritage constraints and are outside of the historic environment. The no objection raised is notwithstanding any below ground Heritage comments.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
50m N of late Neolithic site (18644)and Iron Age/Roman field system
Adjacent to area of ridge & furrow to the S.

Comments (ELE numbers): Small area but geophysics has indicated archaeological potential.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, taking into account the results of the geophysical survey. Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The sensitivity of this area lies in its location beyond the A606 Oakham bypass that provides a strong landscape and visual boundary as defined by the current PLD. Housing and employment development would be divorced from the established settlement pattern in this way. Adjacent mixed housing and employment development to the south of the A606, however, would provide some consistency of settlement form. Retention and enhancement where possible of the shelterbelts and hedgerows would be an important part of mitigating landscape and visual impact of housing or employment development and as important elements of ecological / nature recovery / green infrastructure networks. The overall landscape sensitivity of study parcel OAK 2 to housing and employment development is given below with the assumption that development would not be precluded simply because of its location beyond the A606 bypass.
Landscape sensitivity to employment uses within the study parcel is likely to be similar to sensitivity to housing development.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A transport assessment would be required with any future planning application to assess the impact of this development and identify any mitigation required, the scope of which will need to be agreed with the LHA beforehand.

The type and location of the access will need to be in accordance with Design Manual For Roads and Bridges. The LHA are of the view that a safe and suitable access could be achieved off Burley Park Way A606, but may need to be more than a simple priority junction.

The existing car park access is not suitable to take additional traffic and should be closed off and removed as part of any proposals on this site, due to its impact on the roundabout traffic.

Pedestrian connectivity and public transport will be key considerations on this site.

The LHA would support this site being allocated on the basis that it is likely that an adequate access could be achieved and any off-site mitigation can be provided.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
An assessment of the impact on the wider road network will need to carried out when/if a planning application comes forward in the future. At this time, the extent of any off-site mitigation is unknown, but what will be vital is pedestrian connectivity and public transport at minimum.

Parish Council Comments

Consultation responses
Goes against the Green Seperation Zone and would impact on biodiversity. Langham should be protected as a conservation village. Grade 2 agricultural land. Increased traffic and road is unsuitable and there is potential impact of pedestrian safety. Concerns of coalescence. Concerns whether the showground can operate without this site.

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Traffic assessment required
Ecology and Archaeology mitigation measures
BMV assessment of land quality may be required due to Grade 2 BMV allocation.

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation for employment uses only

Site Information

ID
134

Name of site
Land to the West of Ashwell Road

SHELAA Reference
WHI13

Gross Site Area
4.44

Net Site Area
2.66

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
80

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Whissendine PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

6632m – Rutland Water/3133.41m – Wymondham Rough

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
981.59m – Moor Lane moated site, Whissendine

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
205.82m

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel WH7

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
539.62m – Whissendine C of E Primary

Secondary schools
4995.1m – Catmose College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable subject to further assessment and has passed stage 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Land falls smoothly and gently to the west and north-west from its eastern flank on Ashwell Road towards its western boundary

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Mature hedgerows and trees surround this site and should be protected should development on this site take place. There is also a cross section of outgrown mature hedgerow and established hedge line trees based centrally on the site. These trees should be be utilized and retained if possible to be an asset to any potential development.

Biodiversity Study
If Survey Area 3 is to be allocated for development, it would be worth considering retaining and protecting the hedgerows around the Site as dark corridors to maintain their value as functional wildlife corridors for nocturnal species. The site is considered to be a good location ecologically for the allocation of a new housing development as long as a number of surveys and protection measures are implemented: • Update survey of the LWS located west of Survey Area 3 to confirm its current biodiversity value. • Any trees around the perimeter of the site that have potential to support roosting bats that could be affected as part of the development either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level trees assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Bat activity surveys should be conducted to assess whether there are any important commuting routes for bats around the site that need to be retained as dark corridors within any new development design. • A lux lighting plan should be produced prior to determination to avoid lighting impacts on bats and other nocturnal wildlife. • GCN population surveys of all ponds within 500m of Survey Area 3. • No additional surveys are required for reptiles; however, a precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to these species. This should include sequential cutting of vegetation around the perimeters of the site to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 250m S. of Church (6328) & a number of listed buildings
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): W. portion includes medieval village earthworks (19913) & historic core (8623)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Adjacent to Grange Farm (22651)
Just N of moat-like earthwork (5880)

Comments (ELE numbers): Medium sized development. Desk based assessment to immediate S. concludes that there is some potential for medieval and prehistoric remains. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The medium sensitivity of the area arises principally from its lower prominence in the wider landscape and limited impact on heritage assets or community assets. It has a peripheral relationship to the historic built framework but would be adjacent to other relatively compact components of the village. Its shallow valley side topography suggest changes to the skyline may arise and affect the private views form residential property to the southern edge of the village. Scattered strong treescapes define a medium scale grain to the landscape parcel. In most other respects the parcel displays a combination of modest landscape features. It is not important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and other settlements and is not closely related to the historic core of Whissendine. Development would also be likely to further dilute historic settlement form by extending modern housing or employment development further up the slope and away from the east-west village axis along main street. Trees around the parcel would however some afford immediate natural or established screening potential, but new planting could be effective in reinforcing that. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to be off some prominence (particularly to its eastern parts) with wider landscape prominence than its western reaches. Modest existing ecological value of the site could be enhanced significantly by landscaping and integrated Green Infrastructure management.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None, site is Flood Zone 1.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Any future application will need a transport assessment to assess the impact of the proposed development and identify any off-site highways works to mitigate the impact. Public right of way E140 exists along the site frontage and along part of the northern boundary, which will need careful consideration when designing the scheme, particularly with any new access points. Any redundant existing vehicular accesses will need to be removed as part of any future planning application. It is likely that an adequate main access, direct accesses or both could be achieved off Ashwell Road, however this is likely to result in the loss of significant lengths of established hedgerow, which may be cause for concern with our Forestry Team. Any direct accesses would need to provide adequate turning within their plots to ensure all vehicles can enter and leave in forward gear. 2m wide footways will need to be provided connecting to the existing provision in Ashwell Road, Foxhill and Hortons Lane. It should be noted that Hortons Lane is NOT suitable as a vehicular access for any amount of development.

Parish Council Comments
The land is high land to the east of the village (the village is at the bottom of a bowl). This land slopes down from south to north, the site is domed so that the rear of the site slopes to the east and the front of the site slopes to the west. The land to the east of Ashwell Road is at higher altitude than the land on the west side of the road. The road is cut in and the land is on an embankment retained by a stonewall along the eastern side of the road. The difference in levels would mean any development on this site would overlook and dominate the existing dwellings to the west. Whissendine Parish Council encourages the retention of traditional permanent pasture at higher levels above the village as grassland acts as a ‘soak’ retarding the rate of runoff down into the village streams. This field has surface springs arising. Development on this site may worsen flooding in the centre of the village. This land is immediately adjacent to the farm yard and site with permission for poultry shed (16,000 bird capacity). When this shed (and the one behind Foxhill) have been populated in the summer months there have been complaints of very large populations of houseflies affecting this area of Ashwell Road Powerlines are overhead and run up the westside of the road. In 2021 Whissendine PC commissioned an independent ‘housing needs assessment’ (AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd). They concluded a housing need figure “of up to 72 dwelling between 2022 and 2036.….This is likely to be the upper limit of any housing requirement for Whissendine.” This predates grant of permission for 66 dwellings and pending applications for 2 additional sites. If the first two developments progress this could yield up to 84 dwellings, in which case development in the village will have exceeded need beyond 2036.

Consultation responses
disagree with the statement that the site is poorly related to the settlement. The subject site adjoins a high-density pattern of residential development to the north which is visible in the site’s backdrop along Ashwell Road. It has well developed natural features including mature field boundaries and a wide agricultural access track containing the site to the south, which could be further bolstered through structural landscaping. Whilst the development immediately to the west extending south from The Nook is more sporadic, it contains a number of buildings and a mature tree-belt which contain the subject site to the west. Overall, development of the subject site for housing would be well contained by existing built and natural features and would be clearly read as a logical extension to the settlement. To suggest otherwise, is inaccurate and contradicts the Council’s own assessment of the site found elsewhere in the emerging local plan’s evidence base.

Availability
Immediately

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Transport assessment required to determine how sites can be accessed. Hortons Lane is not suitable. Access is likely to result in loss of significant length of hedgerow which the Biodiversity Study recommends is retained for its ecological value.
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measure will be required. Mitigation for mature hedgerows and trees surround this site and should be protected should development on this site take place.

Conclusion
Although the site has medium landscape sensitivity, it visually protrudes into open countryside to the south of existing built form significantly and would result in development which is unsympathetic to the existing built form of the village.
As access is also a constraint it is considered that this site is not suitable for allocation.

Site Information

ID
136

Name of site
Land to the North East of Pit Lane, north of Forest Park Industrial Estate

SHELAA Reference
KET14

Gross Site Area
3.68ha

Net Site Area
3.68ha

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space
17000 sqm

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Ketton PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

148m – Ketton Quarries, 4062m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2286m – Site of manor house and gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
GREEN = Low/Low-Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Falls partly within parcel KET2 (Medium/low)

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
GREEN = Grade 4/5 or urban

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools

Secondary schools

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is suitable for further assessment

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
AMBER = <50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Site is flat.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
The mature hedgerows and trees should be buffered semi-natural vegetation.

Biodiversity Study
The following ecological surveys are recommended to inform any planning application for this site. BNG could be achieved through the creation and appropriate management of areas of semi-natural habitat within any scheme design (including site boundaries). The broadleaved plantation woodland should be incorporated into the scheme design, and boundary hedgerows should be retained and enhanced. Such areas could provide habitat for a range of wildlife, including birds, invertebrates, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and bats. • A Potential Roost Assessment (PRA) of the buildings located within the Survey Area should be conducted to confirm whether any are used by bats. Magic map (www.magic.defra.gov.uk) provided one record of a bat licence issued for common pipistrelle bats in 2017 for works to a property approximately 690m further along Pit Lane to the north. • Badger survey. • Reptile surveys of suitable habitat, including woodland edges and the base of hedgerows. A precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to these species during construction. This should include sequential cutting of vegetation to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles or amphibians prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. Timing of vegetation clearance works to avoid the bird besting season (mid-February – August inclusive) is also recommended for inclusion in this Method Statement or a similar document (for example, a Construction Ecological Management Plan, CEMP). • Bat activity surveys (including use of static detectors) to assess current level of use of the site by commuting and/or foraging bats. Lighting proposals will need to properly consider the results of these surveys. • Ground Level Tree Assessments of all trees to be felled or impacted as part of future planning proposals for Potential Roost Features for bats. Subsequent emergence/ climbing surveys may also be required. • Use of tree protection fencing to ensure woodlands, hedgerows and trees to be retained are properly protected from accidental damage during construction. Appropriate buffer strips around habitats of biodiversity value should be included as part of any development proposals, together with enhancement of hedgerows as appropriate to strengthen the wildlife corridors into the wider local area.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger surveys will be needed upfront with planning application.

A habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats on site. The roadside verge on Pit Lane has a potential Local Wildlife Site designation, based on older survey data that needs updating. This must be resurveyed and retained if still important. The mature hedgerows and trees should be buffered semi-natural vegetation. Buffers should be semi-natural and not incorporated into plot boundaries. The site is close to Ketton Quarry SSSI. Survey needed before making a decision. BNG required.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Adjacent to Ketton Conservation Area (7357) & numerous Listed Buildings within that.
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Adjacent to 1930'scement works (18951) & undated activity (9142), limestone quarry to W. (27526)

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized development. Trial trench (of only 2%) (5910) only identified amorphous features. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The sensitivity of this study parcel lies in its location on rising ground above the current northern built edge of Ketton that is of some importance to the setting of the settlement in the landscape. The location of buildings on the rising plateau to the north of the A6121 is a key characteristic of Ketton, where woodland forms an important backdrop. This pattern would continue with new housing development within the study parcel, but it would be important to ensure that new buildings do not present new features on the skyline, particularly in more distant views from higher ground to the south in which Ketton is perceived as sitting low in the landscape with surrounding higher countryside.
Similar sensitivity of the landscape to employment-based development as to housing development would be expected, due largely to the containment of views and adjacent land uses.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Pit Lane is not an adopted highway and therefore any internal road network would be private too. Any future planning application would need to be supported by a transport assessment, the scope of which must be agreed with the LHA. The transport assessment should assess the impact of the development and identify any off-site mitigation necessary.

The site edged red, as shown, does not abut the public highway, so a recommendation of refusal would be made if the site edged red did not abut the public highway, so any future planning application would need to include Pit Lane. It must be demonstrated that the site owner has a right of access or serve notice on the land owner of Pit Lane.

The road does form part of a public right of way (PROW) E121 and therefore consideration will need to be given to existing traffic, committed development and the overall impact on the Pit Lane / A6121 junction.

The LHA would welcome improvements within Pit Lane itself as the southeast section of carriageway is tight for two-way hgv traffic, which will be intensified as a result of this site. In addition, the LHA would welcome footway improvements in this area too, as they do not currently meet current standards of a minimum of 2m wide.

The LHA would support a planning application but a transport statement would be required to show existing, and future traffic on Pit Lane and junction improvements with the A6121 may be required.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Unknown until a transport assessment has been carried out to identify any off-site mitigation, but the LHA would welcome widening of the carriageway and footway at the southeast end of Pit Lane.

Parish Council Comments
Site slopes down to SE. New trees and hedges on the site would increase/improve biodiversity, whilst existing boundary trees and hedges are likely to be impacted. Existing houses on SW boundary could be surrounded by industrial units on 3 sides. Impact on view into village from the top of Pit Lane. Could be considerable impact in terms of noise, vibration, dust, pollution, odours and light pollution depending on the number and type of employment/industry. Potential significant impact on the 8 adjacent Pit Lane houses and Ketton Sports and Community Centre in terms of amenity. Surface water flow down Pit Lane which has no road drains until the junction with the High Street where the junction is maintained by RCC. Concerns regarding the capacity of the Aldgate pumping station. Concerns relating to High Street and Pit Lane relating to pedestrian safety issues. Outside PLD. Please add in any site specific observations which are relevant to the appraisal of this site Outside the Planned Limits of Development.KT13 This site should only be considered for development if Pit Lane is upgraded from a Bridleway to a road of adoptable standards. Currently Pit Lane has no road drains and all the run off flows down to the junction with the High Street. The junction is adopted and has drains and is maintained by RCC. Houses at the bottom of Pit Lane currently have sandbags at their entrances to prevent run off water flooding their front gardens and porches. The roundabout on Pit Lane to the N of the site (which gives access to the cement works) is not constructed to Highways standards and so vehicles and cyclists often go S straight down Pit Lane without using the roundabout. There is no safe way for pedestrians to cross the roundabout (which is necessary as there is only a footway on the N side of Pit Lane).

Consultation responses
Unsuitable roads and unsafe access. Only acceptable if highway was upgraded to accommodate all existing and proposed employment sites on this road.

Availability
Site is considered available

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation for employment uses provided that access to the public highway can be demonstrated

Site Information

ID
137

Name of site
Land to the North East of Pit Lane- east of Chater Business Estate

SHELAA Reference
KET15

Gross Site Area
4.27 ha

Net Site Area
4.27 ha

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space
15000 sqm

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
216.99m – Ketton but employment therefore not automatically excluded.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

122m – Ketton Quarries, 3630m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2523m – Site of manor house and gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Not covered within LSS

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
GREEN = Grade 4/5 or urban

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools

Secondary schools

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
No relationship to PLD, but employment site, so passes 2a for further assessment

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
The south-west boundary of this site is adorned by an avenue of mixed species trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There is also a small woodland to the north of the site. both of these areas must be protected and retained should development on this land be approved

Biodiversity Study
Site not assessed in study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger survey needed with mitigation if present, possibly bat activity surveys. A habitat survey should also be submitted to determine the quality of the habitats on site as the quality of the grassland is unknown. Due to the location adjacent to woodland a sensitive lighting plan must be in place. The design of the development should retain and buffer the mature trees on site and the boundary hedgerows. A significant buffer must be in place to the woodland. The site is very close to Ketton Quarry SSSI. The roadside verge along Pit Lane is a potential Local Wildlife Site, designated for its historical value. An updated survey will be needed to establish if the site still has interest and, if so, a mitigation plan will be required. Survey needed before decision. BNG required.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Adjacent to 1930'scement works (18951) & limestone quarries to W. (2754 & 27526)

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized development. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
This site does not fall within the limits of the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Pit Lane is not an adopted highway and therefore any internal road network would be private too. Any future planning application would need to be supported by a transport assessment, the scope of which must be agreed with the LHA. The transport assessment should assess the impact of the development and identify any off-site mitigation necessary.

The site edged red, as shown, does not abut the public highway, so a recommendation of refusal would be made if the site edged red did not abut the public highway, so any future planning application would need to include Pit Lane. It must be demonstrated that the site owner has a right of access or serve notice on the land owner of Pit Lane.

The road does form part of a public right of way (PROW) E121 and therefore consideration will need to be given to existing traffic, committed development and the overall impact on the Pit Lane / A6121 junction.

A 2m wide footway, possibly a 3m wide shared footway/cycleway, connection is likely to be required from within the site and to the existing infrastructure, particularly as the route is heavily used by industrial vehicles.

The LHA would welcome improvements within Pit Lane itself as the southeast section of carriageway is tight for two-way hgv traffic, which will be intensified as a result of this site. In addition, the LHA would welcome footway improvements in this area too, as they do not currently meet current standards of a minimum of 2m wide.

The LHA would support a planning application but a transport statement would be required to show existing, and future traffic on Pit Lane and junction improvements with the A6121 may be required.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Unknown until a transport assessment has been carried out to identify any off-site mitigation, but the LHA would require a 2m wide footway (possibly a 3m wide shared footway/cycleway) from within the site connecting to the existing infrastructure and would welcome widening of the carriageway and footway at the southeast end of Pit Lane.

Parish Council Comments
Site slopes down to SE. New trees and hedges on the site would increase/improve biodiversity, whilst existing boundary trees and hedges are likely to be impacted, especially those on Pit Lane. On high ground and would be prominent in the landscape. Run off down Pit Lane. Could be considerable impact of noise, vibration, dust, pollution, odours and light pollution depending on the number and type of employment/industry. Potential significant impact on the 2 adjacent Pit Lane houses, the Scout Hut and Grounds and Chater Business Units, in terms of amenity. Access onto Pit Lane which already has heavy HGV usage to and from Hanson Cement and other industries in Pit Lane. Pit Lane has no cycle path and only a footway along the N side. Cycle path on S side of High Street. Existing pedestrian safety issues on Pit Lane and High Street. Outside PLD. This site should only be considered for development if Pit Lane is upgraded from a Bridleway to a road of adoptable standards. Currently Pit Lane has no road drains and all the run off flows down to the junction with the High Street. The junction is adopted and has drains and is maintained by RCC. Houses at the bottom of Pit Lane currently have sandbags at their entrances to prevent run off water flooding their front gardens and porches. The roundabout on Pit Lane to the S of the site (which gives access to the cement works) is not constructed to Highways standards and so vehicles and cyclists often go S straight down Pit Lane without using the roundabout. There is no safe way for pedestrians to cross the roundabout (which is necessary as there is only a footway on the N side of Pit Lane).

Consultation responses
Unsuitable roads and unsafe access. Only acceptable if highway was upgraded to accommodate all existing and proposed employment sites on this road.

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Transport statement required which must demonstrate how a proposal would connect to the public highway. Pit Lane is an un-adopted road and therefore an applicant would need to demonstrate the are able to use it to access the site. LHA would welcome widening of the carriageway and footway at the southeast end of Pit Lane. Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures required. The south-west boundary of this site is adorned by an avenue of mixed species trees which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. There is also a small woodland to the north of the site. both of these areas must be protected and retained should development on this land be approved.

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation for employment uses provided that access to the public highway can be demonstrated

Site Information

ID
138

Name of site
Land to East and Rear of Uppingham Surgery

SHELAA Reference
UPP18

Gross Site Area
0.67

Net Site Area
0.67

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Vacant

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Within Uppingham PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3857m – Eye Brook Reservoir, 4748m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1509m – Castle Hill motte and bailey, Beaumont Chase

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
None

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Not subject to Landscape Sensitivity Study due to being within the PLD

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
443.83m – Uppingham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
746.45m – Uppingham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
GREEN = Within settlement or edged on 3 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Red for grade 2 agricultural land, but located in Uppingham and therefore passed stage 2a for further assessment.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Site is flat.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
No Objections, due to a lack of established trees on this site

Biodiversity Study
If the Survey Area is to be allocated for development in the local plan a number of ecological surveys are recommended. Overall, the Survey Area is considered to be a good location ecologically for development, however, consideration should be given to retaining, protecting and enhancing existing hedgerows and trees. • Ground level tree assessments (GLTA) of all standard trees within the Survey Area that are likely to be impacted by development. Further surveys maybe required if Potential Roost Features (PRF’s) are found. This could include emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • Bat activity surveys. • Reptile surveys, with particular focus around the bunds in the western most field. • Skylark survey.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): 100m E of flint scatters (21020 & 21112), pit circle (9644) & pit alignment (8484). SE of linear feature (22225). Further prehistoric activity c.300m N. (9638, 9641, 9907) & Anglo-Saxon inhumation site (9909)

Comments (ELE numbers): Small site but adjacent to site ID-191. Archaeological activity from prehistoric to Anglo-Saxon in the vicinity. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Not subject to Landscape Sensitivity Study due to being within the PLD

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A transport assessment will be required to support any future application for the proposed use to identify the impact and any mitigation required.

The site edged red does not appear to abut the public highway. Should an application come forward in this manner, the LHA would recommend refusal. Any future planning application should include all accesses that abut the public highway within the site edged red.

There would appear to be a previously construction road of some description, but it's suitability would have to reassessed.

On the whole, this site looks capable of having a safe and suitable access, therefore the LHA would support it being allocated on the basis that a transport assessment will be carried out and identify any off-site mitigation necessary.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
A transport assessment will be required to identify if any off-site highway works are required to mitigate the impact of the development.

Parish Council Comments
The emerging refreshed UNP proposes to allocate more than enough sites to meet the identified needs of the Town for the plan period which now corresponds to the new Local Plan period of 2022-2041 These allocations were made following a call for sites and a detailed site assessment using established good practice 111 Accessibility RAG Rating Distance to Town or Local Centre (km) 0.8-0.9 Distance to School (km) 1.0-1.1 (Uppingham C of E Primary School) Distance to GP/ Health Centre (km) 1.1-1.2 (Uppingham Surgery) Distance to Train Station (km) 9-10 (Oakham) Distance to Bus Stop (m) 300-400 Distance to Cycle Route (km) 10-15 Distance to Public Right of Way (km) 0.0-0.05 Infrastructure and On-Site Constraints RAG Rating On site constraints (e.g. electricity pylons and pipelines) None identified. Infrastructure Constraints School capacity needs assessing. Water resources constraints at Uppingham with particular concern with environmental water quality. Site submission states mains watersupply, mains sewerage , electrical supply are available. Gas supply not known. Planning Officer Comments & Conclusion Comments: UPP18 is currently a greenfield site in agricultural use. The site submission identifies a range of mixed usesincluding a proposal for a care home, the site is allocated for employment in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan. The site is identified as gently sloping and therefore has an amber RAG rating for topographical constraints. Site has not been assessed as part of the landscape sensitivity study (June 2023) as it lies within the PLD and is currently allocated. The development of the site would result in the loss of land allocated for employment land. There are no likely adverse impacts on national ecological designations but surveys including badger and hedgerow are required to identify any possible impacts on local wildlife. There are no trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders on or adjacent the site. The site is In the light of this the new Local Plan should respect the UNP assessments and allocations and should not propose further sites for housing development in Uppingham beyond those currently proposed in the UNP If, in the future, new sites are required then any future allocations should be left to the next review of the UNP.

Consultation responses

Availability
available for care home use

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Transport assessment should be carried out to identify any off-site mitigation necessary and demonstrate access to the public highway.
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures

Site forms part of the Uppingham Gate allocation which is allocated in the adopted plan for employment uses and in the Uppingham Neighbourhood plan for mixed uses.

Grade 2 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
The site is considered suitable for employment generating uses - it is not considered appropriate to allocate it for a care home

Site Information

ID
147

Name of site
Land South of Oakham Road, Greetham

SHELAA Reference
GRE02

Gross Site Area
1.22

Net Site Area
0.98

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Residential, Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
29

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to the Greetham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

5314m – Rutland Water/1684.2m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
304.11m – Manorial settlement, 127m north west of St Mary’s Church

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
GREEN = Low/Low-Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel GRE06

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
1168.46m – Cottesmore Primary

Secondary schools
8120.4m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Perceptibly flat and without distinctive landform features or variety.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Biodiversity Study
Any individual trees close to the boundary of this Survey Area should be surveyed for their suitability to support roosting bats. No other surveys are deemed necessary.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger survey needed with mitigation if present. A habitat survey should also be submitted to determine the quality of the habitats on site. The design of the development should retain and buffer the mature trees on site and the boundary hedgerows. Ok subject to mitigation and design. BNG required.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 100m SW of Greetham Conservation Area (472). 300m S of scheduled Manor Site (129)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): 100m SW of historic core (9360)
100m E of linear cropmarks (22514)

Comments (ELE numbers): Small site but on the edge of historic core and with further archaeology nearby. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Landscape Sensitivity Study parcel GRE6.
The sensitivity of the area is limited to its open, exposed location beyond a short and weakly defined boundary to the settlement where new development would relate poorly to the existing settlement form. In most other respects the parcel does not display landscape components, character or condition which offer clear landscape value. Any character and visual value may be derived from its general openness and as a gateway site to the village. The parcel is not important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and other settlements. The openness and low-lying profile from Greetham Road into the village would afford open views to the outer edges any future housing development and be seen in short and some medium views on approach from the west. The study parcel relates poorly to the historic character of the settlement and would continue its dilution, although much of this value has been eroded elsewhere on the fringe of Greetham. Low hedgerows and absence of significant hedgerow trees around the fields would not afford immediate natural or established screening potential, but new planting could be effective in longer views. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to be prominent but in relatively near views only, and wider landscape impact less significant. The western areas of the parcel within the arable field would be less well related to the form and scale of the settlement. Development across the north-east of the study parcel would present least overall landscape impact. Minimal existing ecological value of the study parcel could be enhanced by landscaping and integrated Green Infrastructure. Screening landscape planting would be necessary to outer areas of any development to soften wider prominence in the landscape.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The site should be served by a singular main access points, with no direct accesses from individual plots along the site frontage. The new junction should be designed to avoid Begy Gardens and North Brook Close and the existing Bus Stop. Vehicle to vehicle visibility splays with no obstruction over 600mm above ground level will be required from the new access, measuring 2.4 x 43m, any obstructions will need to be removed / relocated. A minimum of a 5m wide carriageway will be expected together with 6m kerb radii formed as a bellmouth at the point of access. 2m wide footways will be required to connect the development to the existing footways, with a means of crossing Greetham Road too. A development of this size would not require a transport assessment, but the LHA are likely to require a transport statement to address any local concerns. The internal road network will need to be suitable to accommodate a 11.5m long refuse truck together with any turning required. Possible passenger transport upgrades.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Minimal impact locally during construction to form both the vehicular and pedestrian access and any off-site highway works.

Parish Council Comments
Site subject to flooding, regularly. Building here will remove the green corridor between Greetham and Cottesmore. Adjacent to sewage works. There are existing complaints from adjacent development. Adjacent to busy roads. Poor bus service. No access to shops. Not ideal as would not be accepted as part of Greetham. Already sewerage issue at Begy Gardens. Dangerous access as road has significant volume of HGV’s and farm vehicles. No need in Greetham for any more houses. Planning permission for 33 more already approved in old quarry. Over last six years the number of houses has or will have increased by 32% with no increase in amenities or infra structure.

Consultation responses
The development of this land could present increased water flowoff, into existing natural and man made drainage causing capacity issues for the existing pipe network. This area regularly floods and there are concerns regarding development run-off from this proposed development, as it would drain into a culvert south of Main Street and then across the road into North Brook. Development is implied as being in Greetham, however this development is within the Cottesmore Parish boundary, but the impact of the development will be felt in Greetham, which is not sustainable as we do not have a shop, post office, or healthcare facility, and our bus service is poor. Priority should be given to the allocation of land by way of an extension of the permitted development at Greetham Quarry which does not comprise a green field site.

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Ecology and archaeology mitigation required.
Design of any development need to respect its location within the landscape.
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
151

Name of site
land at Railway Sidings, Burley Road, Cottesmore

SHELAA Reference
COT07

Gross Site Area
4.0019 ha

Net Site Area
4

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space
25000 sqf / 2322.58 sqm

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Cottesmore located 400m north of the site

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

2275m – Burley and Rushpit Woods

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
683m – Alstoe Moot and part of Alsthorpe deserted medieval village

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
0m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
not within study parcel area

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools

Secondary schools

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
None

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)
Most waste facilities are permanent hence restoration would not be applicable. However any temporary facilities on site would need to undergo appropriate restoration.

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)
Site proposed as a waste transfer station. No information have been provided in relation to throughputs.

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
None

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a. Red for outside PLD and for being adjacent/intersecting with priority habitat, but retained and passed to next stage for further assessment as waste site.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
GREEN = Brownfield

Topography

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments

Landscape

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments

Parish Council Comments
Some loss of trees/hedgerows, but there is potential to provide green link/walking from Burley Road to Exton Road. Difficult access past the Civic Amenity Site.

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
The proposed site could potentially support this requirement and fill the capacity gap however no information has been provided by the landowner in relation to management methods, size of the site or potential throughputs. The plan does not identify capacity needs for intermediate facilities as although these are required to support operational networks they do not contribute towards capacity for recycling/recovery/treatment of wastes. If the site was to operate in such a way as to contribute to the recycling of waste, the emerging policies would support the site coming forward via the development management process.

Conclusion
No information has been provided by the landowner in relation to the proposed waste management methods, size of the site or potential throughputs. Not suitable for allocation.

Site Information

ID
152

Name of site
Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore

SHELAA Reference
COT13

Gross Site Area
4.53

Net Site Area
2.72

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Residential

Indicative Number of dwellings
82

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Cottesmore PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0604/MAF - 93 no. dwellings, refused 25.04.2023.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

4608m – Rutland Water/3449.41m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1473.4m – Village cross 50m south of Middle Farm

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
AMBER = <50m

Biodiversity
Priority habitat: 13.15m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel COTT1 (Medium)

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
AMBER = <50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
47.88m – St Nicholas C of E Primary

Secondary schools
6486.67m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a. Some amber, no red

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
RED = Intersects or is adjacent

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Gently sloping arable fields, small broadleaved woodland and cemetery extension. Land falls gently from west to east with indistinct topography. Land slopes less perceptibly downwards from north to south such that it rises very gradually away from the settlement

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badgers have previously been recorded very close to the site (potentially within the boundary) and an updated badger survey and mitigation will be required. 2 trees on boundary hedgerows are candidate Local Wildlife Sites and these should be retained and buffered from the development. The last survey of the site found some interest in the grassland. An updated habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats. The existing mature trees and hedgerows should be retained and buffered from the development. Likely ok with mitigation following the results of surveys. BNG required.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Low risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Bounded to S by Cottesmore Conservation Area (467) which includes a number of Listed Buildings
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
Historic Core (9357) just overlaps small strip to S.
Adjacent to Anglo-Saxon/med. remains (9557)
60m NE of early Roman site (21742)
?Roman gully identified during watching brief in adjacent field to W. (28010)

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized area. 15 trial trenches were excavated in 2023 (7239) - all negative. Planning Recommendation - No comment (CLE6950)

Landscape
The sensitivity of the area lies in its open location beyond a defined but visually soft boundary to the settlement as well as through its small area of intimate and enclosed meadow, perceived partly as a green incursion into the built framework of Cottesmore. Its inherent character and visual value are more limited. The parcel is moderately important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and the airbase community at Kendrew Barracks and infrastructure to the north-east, although coalescence is not an immediate risk. The openness and low topographical profile of the arable fields which make up the majority of the parcel do not afford immediate natural or established screening potential. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to be prominent but in relatively near views from Rogues and Mill Lanes, but wider landscape impact less significant.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Parish Council Comments
Significant impact on village – major extension of village envelope Area has been subject to flooding The only access proposed is opposite the school and this we consider unsafe are already subject to a large scale planning application (by Cottesmore standards) of 95 houses. The Parish Council’s view on this proposal has been set out clearly in our response to this application.eg scale of the development means that is opportunity for new green infrastructure and open spaces – but these are far offset by the overall loss of significant countryside to the north of the village.

Consultation responses
Loss of open space with views of Rutland Water Highway and traffic capacity concerns Cordon Sanitaire in place for the Sewage Treatment Works. Site slopes away at the back of the site reducing the development. Prominent part of Oakham Conservation Area is significant due to landscape/character value of historic landscaping associated with Catmose House, giving a softening edge into town. Protected trees Negative impact the first views of Oakham when approaching from the east and directly abut a designated Conservation Area. The site's southern boundary is adjacent to the River Gwash, which is ranked as "Priority 1" in terms of its potential to worsen flooding issues downstream. So far, no details have been provided to the Council concerning mitigation for flooding its potential effects on the usable area of the site. It is highly probable that on-site flood attenuation measures will be necessary, which would further reduce the site's capacity. Historic England Heritage assessment required in relation to Conservation Area at gateway to the town.

Availability
Available

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Some off-site highway works would be required within Mill Lane
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures.
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
156

Name of site
Land at Stamford Road

SHELAA Reference
OAK08

Gross Site Area
3.9

Net Site Area
3.12

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
94

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Oakham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

435m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
717.42m – Oakham motte and bailey castle and medieval gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
1.15% overlap with Flood Zone 3

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
0m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
GREEN = Low/Low-Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel OAK8 - medium/low

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
AMBER = Site Intersects with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
AMBER = < 50% intersects with Flood risk zone 2 or 3

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
684.38m – English Martyrs Catholic Primary

Secondary schools
821.06m – Oakham School

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
AMBER = site is public open space/recreation facility but any loss can be mitigated against

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a however adjacent to priority habitat - deciduous woodland (0.02% overlap) mitigation measures will be required

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
RED = Intersects or is adjacent

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
A small field currently semi-improved grassland but previously under arable cultivation, falling gradually from Stamford Road in the north and then more steeply to a northern tributary of the River Gwash to the southeast. Overall, the study parcel has relatively indistinct landform.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Established Woodland on the southern border of the site, semi mature planting on the east side of the site and multiple established trees on the west side of the site. All of these trees must be retained and construction must be done in a manner sympathetic to trees if works on this site were to go ahead.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badgers and water voles recorded in proximity to the site; surveys will be needed upfront with planning application. Also GCN survey needed as ponds nearby. A habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats on site.
The watercourse and mature hedgerows should be buffered by a minimum of 10m of semi-natural vegetation. Buffers should be semi-natural and not incorporated into plot boundaries. Ok with badger mitigation if needed. BNG required

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
The significance of the landscape character hereabouts defines the connection between open countryside and townscape which remains distinctive and has largely been preserved albeit for Ribbon development along Stamford Road on approach to Oakham from the east. ThThe above sites fall in the Vale of Catmose, a broad shallow valley and to the east of the Vale of Catmose lies another plateau area which rises steeply from the Vale at its northern end. The southern part of the plateau forms a gently rolling landscape. The significance of the landscape character hereabouts defines the connection between open countryside and townscape which remains distinctive and has largely been preserved albeit for Ribbon development along Stamford Road on approach to Oakham from the east. The approach to Oakham from Brook Road to the South West remains relatively defined in its existing field patterns, the area as a whole maintains an open countryside, the area is virtually unaltered to its landscape from 1880’s ordnance survey mapping, albeit the result of modern development in recent years:

Indeed, the land off Stamford Road lies in the Vale of Catmose and is a landscape of rough pasture and remnants of ridge and furrow, the pastoral landscape benefits from trees and hedgerows, it remains predominantly open as an extension to Catmose Park which is set around the Lodge (now the Council Offices), the setting of which is ‘open’ beyond the ribbon development and when read in the context of the lodge, defines the connection between countryside and townscape, hence the approach to the Conservation Area from Stamford Road is a pleasant experience of open countryside bordering onto a market townscape of local vernacular. The area is wholly distinctive.

Pockets of Ancient woodland is a notable feature of the area, Particularly along Stamford Road and the former extent of these woodlands would need to be preserved and not altered by any development, in this respect the site at ID156 is likely to be constrained for development in the proximity of trees and the land surrounding Catmose, an important open landscape surrounding the Lodge, hence the significance of the Conservation Area in this location. Development may draw the eye away from the wider views of the Conservation Area or harm the wider ‘setting’ of the Heritage Asset, in which case the preference is that the site remains unaltered by development. A full Heritage Impact Assessment would be required. With development having occurred in the area it is all the more important to preserve the distinct openness along Stamford Road.

Indeed, the land off Stamford Road lies in the Vale of Catmose and is a landscape of rough pasture and remnants of ridge and furrow, the pastoral landscape benefits from trees and hedgerows, it remains predominantly open as an extension to Catmose Park which is set around the Lodge (now the Council Offices), the setting of which is ‘open’ beyond the ribbon development and when read in the context of the lodge, defines the connection between countryside and townscape, hence the approach to the Conservation Area from Stamford Road is a pleasant experience of open countryside bordering onto a market townscape of local vernacular. The area is wholly distinctive.

Pockets of Ancient woodland is a notable feature of the area, Particularly along Stamford Road and the former extent of these woodlands would need to be preserved and not altered by any development, in this respect the site at ID156 is likely to be constrained for development in the proximity of trees and the land surrounding Catmose, an important open landscape surrounding the Lodge, hence the significance of the Conservation Area in this location. Development may draw the eye away from the wider views of the Conservation Area or harm the wider ‘setting’ of the Heritage Asset, in which case the preference is that the site remains unaltered by development. A full Heritage Impact Assessment would be required. With development having occurred in the area it is all the more important to preserve the distinct openness along Stamford Road.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Bounded to W by Oakham Conservation Area (478)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Prehistoric pit alignment cropmark runs N/S across the area (5584)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Field to S. includes a large flint scatter (5153), possible Anglo-Saxon occupation (5155), possible Mesolithic/Bronze Age triple ditch. 100m N lies both Iron Age & Roman sites (8342 & 8343)

Comments (ELE numbers): Fieldwalking (11676 & 137) and assessment (7365) suggest this is a core area of ceremonial activity of Neolithic & Bronze Age.
Evaluation (4605) identified the pit alignment.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, taking into account the previous archaeological investigation (DBA, Fieldwalking and trial trenching). Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
OAK8.
The sensitivity of this study parcel lies in its location on an important gateway / approach into Oakham from the east which increases the study parcel’s susceptibility to development that would affect the relatively open view of the town’s soft green fringe.
Semi-natural screening to the east and south could reduce susceptibility and help assimilate housing development into the suburban landscape. Well-designed housing could probably be accommodated that respects the form and character of the town in this location, as an extension along Stamford Road, and which considers potential effects on the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area, paying particular attention to layout and detailed design including landscape mitigation measures alongside Stamford Road to enhance the settlement edge.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
None raised

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The proposed development sits on the edge of Oakham bound by Stamford Road and the A6003. The site could be accessed from Stamford Road, but the location of access needs careful consideration to avoid conflict with Sculthorpe Close opposite and the junction of A6003 with A606. Given this location and high volume of traffic, the LHA will request any design to be supported by a Stage 1 Safety Audit. Furthermore, if there are any direct accesses, these will require turning on-plot to ensure all vehicles can enter and leave in forward gear. A Transport Assessment will be required for the site to assess it's impact on the surrounding road network and identify any mitigation required. Pedestrian and cycle upgrades to a 3m wide facility along the Stamford Road site frontage is likely to be requested, but there may be other forms of mitigation required depending on the outcome of the transport assessment. Passenger transport provision will also need to be reviewed at the time of any future planning application, which may result in the need for additional or upgraded public transport facilities.

In summary, the LHA believe that the site can be developed in terms of 'access' and therefore recommend that this site is allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
At this stage, off-site highways infrastructure requirements are not know, however the LHA are likely to seek a 3m wide shared footway/cycleway facility along the Stamford Road frontage plus potentially public transport improvements at a minimum.

Parish Council Comments
None from Oakham Town Council. HAMBLETON PARISH MEETING - Housing would involve the loss of quality agricultural land and would have a negative impact on the landscape and damage the character of this edge of Oakham. Additional housing on all or any of the identified pieces of land would increase traffic on the A 606, increasing the road safety risks at the turning where the road to/from Hambleton joins the A 606; this is already a difficult turning for (i) vehicles from Hambleton turning right towards Stamford; and (ii) vehicles coming from the Oakham direction and facing oncoming traffic whilst waiting for a gap to turn right off the A 606.

Consultation responses
Historic England would require an HIA to consider the gateway to conservation area. Site slopes towards the river which may reduce developable area. Details about potential to worsen flood risk downstream and onsite flood attenuation measures may be required. Prominent part of Oakham conservation area and landscape character value associated with Catmose House.

Availability
Assumed to be available

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Transport Assessment and Stage 1 Safety Aduit of potential access on Stamford Road
Possible flood risk downstream, SUDs will be required
landscape setting and heritage issues (possible HIA required).
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Tree mitigation required. Trees must be retained and construction must be done in a manner sympathetic to trees if works on this site were to go ahead.

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
191

Name of site
Uppingham Gate

SHELAA Reference
UPP02

Gross Site Area
5.89

Net Site Area
3.54

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Vacant

Indicative Number of dwellings
106

Indicative Floor Space
2,200m2 of Class E offices or light industrial and 1,300m2 of food retail

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Within Uppingham PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

4617m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1589.92m – Castle Hill motte and bailey, Beaumont Chase

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
100.07m – Uppingham, A47 Parish Boundary Ash LWS

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site within PLD and already allocated, so not assessed.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
AMBER = Site Intersects with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
RED = Loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
473.02m – Uppingham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
754.79m – Uppingham School

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
GREEN = Within settlement or edged on 3 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a. Red for agricultural land, but located in Uppingham and therefore passed stage 2a for further assessment; red for loss of employment land allocation if not allocated for employment uses. The site is adjacent the built up area of Uppingham. The site whilst promoted for part residential and part employment land, it has been assessed as entirely for employment land with an indicative capacity of 6.8 hectares. The loss of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land needs to be carefully considered, however this site has been allocated for employment land in the current adopted plan and there is no reason why it should not remain allocated for development. There are no other significant constraints which cannot be mitigated.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
gently sloping

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger surveys will be required. If present mitigation will be required upfront with the planning application. A habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats on site. The existing hedgerows and mature trees should be retained and buffered from the development. Ok subject to surveys and mitigation. BNG required.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
E. boundary adjacent to flint scatter (1693) & medieval manuring scatter (21692).
N of Iron Age site (27280)
Further prehistoric activity c.300m N. (9638, 9641, 9907) & Anglo-Saxon inhumation site (9909)

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate to larger sized area. Fieldwalking in surrounding fields to the E (9213) and geophysics to the S (11953) suggest likelihood of archaeological remains. Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment. Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Site within PLD and has not been assessed as part of the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
No fluvial flood risk. Some low risk for surface water flooding to the north western part of site. The site is within flood zone 1. A full flood risk strategy will be required due to the size of the site and a sustainable drainage scheme submitted.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A full transport statement will be required to assess the impact of this development along with all other allocated or undeveloped approved to assess their impact on the surrounding road network and identify any mitigation required. Any severe impact must be fully mitigated. Off-site highway works must be designed to ensure there is no tailbacks on to the A47. The site will be accessed by Northgate, not a direct access off the A47. It is likely that the impact from this site and others will be severe, so off-site mitigation is likely to be further afield than just the junction of Northgate with Ayston Road. It may transpire that the network is not capable of accommodating this and/or other developments, due to the size and type of developments. The LHA have also provided detailed comments as part of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan process, which reflect the points made here. Safe and convenient pedestrian connectivity is fundamental together with public transport provision.

In summary, the LHA cannot provide 100% assurance that this site is developable or what mitigation is required without further detailed analysis from the developer. It is currently unknown if the surrounding road network can accommodate the impact of such a development. Therefore, the LHA would urge caution on allocating this site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
The impact on the wider road network is unknown without the benefit of a fully detailed assessment, however it is envisaged that off-site highway mitigation will be very significant. That is assuming the local road network can accommodate the impact from such a development.

Consultation responses
Site should be allocated for mixed use development (as stated in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan)

Availability
Available now

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
More than 100 dwellings, it is assumed that a build out rate of 50 dwellings per annum is achievable.

Overcoming constraints
Full flood risk strategy will be required for the site
Site to be accessed from Northgate
Full transport statement required to assess the impact of this development along with all other allocated or undeveloped approved to assess their impact on the surrounding road network and identify any mitigation required.
Off-site highway works must be designed to ensure there is no tailbacks on to the A47.
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures.
Grade 2 BMV - requires assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
Site considered suitable to retain as an employment allocation

Site Information

ID
209

Name of site
Land north of Pennine Drive

SHELAA Reference
EDI07

Gross Site Area
4.73

Net Site Area
2.83

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
84

Indicative Floor Space
N/A

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Edith Weston PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0903/MAO - Outline application for up to 60 dwellings - refused 27.07.2023

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

532m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
525.66m – Village cross at junction of Well Cross and King Edward’s Way

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
400.51m – North Luffenham airfield and 453.67m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel EDW6

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
982.95m – Edith Weston Primary

Secondary schools
7918.95m – Casterton College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable subject to further assessment and has passed stage 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Gently sloping

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
It would be worth considering retaining and protecting the mature trees and hedgerows around the site.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed. GCN surveys required and mitigation to be provided up front if needed.
The design of the development should retain and buffer the mature trees on site and the boundary hedgerows. Ok subject to mitigation. BNG required.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 300m E of Edith Weston Conservation Area (468)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Probable ridge & furrow across site
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
Adjacent to North Luffenham Airfield (15972)
Certain ridge & furrow field to NE

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized area. Water pipeline trenching did not indicate archaeological features but likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Availability
Site is considered available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Conclusion
No significant constraints to sites development, other than agricultural land quality.
Site suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
1693

Name of site
Land South of Empingham Road

SHELAA Reference
KET09

Gross Site Area
5.74

Net Site Area
3.44

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
103

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Ketton PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3887m – Rutland Water, 441.35m – Ketton Quarries

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1071.59m – Roman villa complex, north of Cuckoo Farm Lodge

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1.

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
AMBER = <50m

Biodiversity
2m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel KET1 - Medium

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
602.38m – Ketton C of E Primary

Secondary schools
5691.73m – Casterton Business & Enterprise College (Casterton Campus)

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable subject to further assessment and has passed stage 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
The study parcel lies on land rising gradually northwards and westwards from the Chater Valley on to the Ketton Plateau.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Biodiversity Study
The arable and poor semi-improved grassland habitats are considered suitable for development. The following surveys should be undertaken to inform any planning application for Survey Area 2: • UKHab survey of the site and assessment of the current condition of the potential/ historic LWSs against the site selection criteria, to confirm whether the areas meet the standard for designation. Hedgerow surveys should assess the value of all linear features in terms of the Hedgerow Regulations 1997. • Badger survey. • Reptile surveys of suitable habitat, including woodland edges and the base of hedgerows. A precautionary method statement should be produced to further reduce any risk of harm to these species during construction. This should include sequential cutting of vegetation to make these habitats unsuitable for foraging reptiles or amphibians prior to pre-commencement/ site preparation works. Timing of vegetation clearance works to avoid the bird besting season (mid-February – August inclusive) is also recommended for inclusion in this Method Statement or a similar document (for example, a Construction Ecological Management Plan, CEMP). • Bat activity surveys (including use of static detectors) to assess current level of use of the site by commuting and/or foraging bats. Lighting proposals will need to properly consider the results of these surveys. • Ground Level Tree Assessments of all trees to be felled or impacted as part of future planning proposals for Potential Roost Features for bats. Subsequent emergence/ climbing surveys may also be required. • Use of tree protection fencing to ensure woodlands and trees to be retained are properly protected from accidental damage during construction. Appropriate buffer strips around habitats of biodiversity value should be included as part of any development proposals, together with enhancement of hedgerows as appropriate to strengthen the wildlife corridors into the wider local area.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none

Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 450m W of Ketton Conservation Area (7357)

Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none

Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
100m W of C19th cemetery (26430)
200m S of Bronze Age barrow (5422)

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate size of development, with evidence of funerary activity in the vicinity. Previous geophysics survey to S. (11604) only identified former ridge & furrow. Trial trenching to the north (6450) did not identify features.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission. permission.

Landscape
LSS parcel KET1
The sensitivity of this study parcel lies in its location on rising ground above the settlement that is of some importance to its landscape setting. The location of buildings on the rising plateau to the north of the A6121 is a key characteristic of Ketton, where woodland forms an important backdrop. This pattern would continue with new housing development within the study parcel, but it would be important to ensure that new buildings do not present new features on the skyline, particularly in more distant views from higher ground to the south in which Ketton is perceived as sitting low in the landscape with surrounding higher countryside. The approach / gateway into Ketton from the west on the A6121 has a distinctive appearance and sense of place that any new housing development would need to respect.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Any future planning application will need to supported by a full transport assessment, scope to be agreed with the LHA, to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding road network and identify any mitigation required. It is likely the LHA will seek widening of the existing carriageway from Northwick Road to the northwest extent of the site frontage, plus provision of a 2m wide footway connection and a pram crossing, and the repositioning of the 30/60mph speed limit change / gateway feature following the approval of an associated traffic regulation order (all paid for by the developer), as a minimum. The development of this site is likely to result in the loss of a considerable amount of existing hedgerows and possibly some trees in order to provide a suitable access with adequate visibility.

In summary, the LHA believe a safe and suitable access could be formed, however significant off-site highway works are likely, which are achievable and considered reasonable given the proposed dwelling numbers. Given this, the LHA would support this site being allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
There will be significant localised off-site highway works required (access, footway connection, repositioning of 30/60mph change & gateway feature after approval of traffic regulation order), plus possibly other works which are unknown at this stage. A full assessment will need to be submitted with any future planning application to identify any other mitigation works required further afield.

Parish Council Comments
Slopes down steeply to SE. Access would be from steep hill into the village. NW boundary of site is 150m from an historic windmill. It would be very prominent in the landscape. Will extend the village out to the NW. Visible because elevated. NW boundary is 200m from proposed quarry extension (Field 14) – 300m is quoted as minimum distance between a quarry and homes) 174 Steeply downhill and narrow access road to A6121. Significant impact on current residents of Wytchley Road and Bartles Hollow in terms of shadowing and overlooking as the site is on much higher ground. Question the capacity of the Aldgate pumping station to cope with more sewage from the village. Access onto Empingham Road at the steepest point, just below a blind summit no the NW, with traffic at the National Speed limit. No footway on either side or cycle path on the Empingham Road at this point. More houses - therefore more cars and delivery vans will be funnelled into the village along the already busy A6121High Street with its narrow pavements and parking issues. Existing quarrying produces ground vibrations in extant housing to the SE, and the NW boundary of this site is 200m from proposed quarry extension (Field 14).Recommended min distance between quarrying and residential is 300m. Outside the Planned Limits of Development.

Consultation responses
The key constraint identified in the SHLAA which apparently precludes the site from allocation – its landscape impact – is entirely unfounded and clearly warrants further assessment. This conclusion does not appear to reflect the scale and orientation of the scheme put forward towards the Call for Sites which seeks to use only approximately 60% of the site at its north eastern end (so closest to Empingham Road) of a layout shaped to reflect the adjacent pattern of development to the south east and the contour of the slope. Indeed, the summary of the site included in the SHLAA identifies that only 3.5ha of the 5.7ha site would be used – observations clearly not taken into account when undertaking the qualitative site analysis. The likely developable area, identified by the illustrative masterplan prepared by RG+P and submitted towards the call for sites, comprises the element of the land adjacent to a combination of the existing residential area at Wytchley Road and land that now has planning permission for 75 dwellings off Park Road, the application to which was only dismissed on the grounds of conflict with the development plan and not on landscape grounds. Like the Park Road scheme it is proposed that the developable area of our client’s land falls entirely below the 70m contour. On this basis we maintain that a further residential development of approximately 75 dwellings can be delivered on this site without any significant impact on its wider setting or views from the surrounding countryside. Beyond the proposed developable area, the site comprises an additional 1.9ha of land at its western end (its upper slopes) which may allow for the delivery of additional landscaped open space. This element of the potential development would soften the setting of the western edge of the village.

Availability
Immediately available

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Transport Assessment required and likely significant off site highway works
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Mineral safeguarding area may require detailed assessment

Conclusion
No significant constraints to sites development, other than agricultural land quality.
Site suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
2427

Name of site
Land at Main Street, Market Overton

SHELAA Reference
MAR04

Gross Site Area
1.91

Net Site Area
1.53

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Vacant

Indicative Number of dwellings
46

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Market Overton PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/1193/MAO - Up to 27 no. dwellings, refused 19.03.2024.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

6912m – Rutland Water, 2375.06m – Cribb’s Lodge Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1053.17m – Village cross 50m south of Middle Farm

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1.

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
GREEN = Low/Low-Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel MO4 - Medium/Low

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
2323.19m – Cottesmore Primary

Secondary schools
8019.71m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
AMBER = <50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Very gently undulating semi-enclosed landform lying south of Pinfold Lane and north of Main Street with very limited change in elevation across the parcel.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Due to a belt of TPO'd trees on the south east border of the site, if works were to take place on this site, an alternative entrance would need to be created.

Biodiversity Study
Survey Area 3 is considered to be a good location ecologically for the allocation of a new housing development as long as the woodland and hedgerows are enhanced for wildlife. Individual trees, where these are assessed as being of ecological value, should also be retained and incorporated into the landscape design. • Individual trees that have potential to support roosting bats that could be affected by development proposals either directly or indirectly (e.g. through lighting impacts) should be further surveyed. This includes ground level tree assessments and if considered necessary, emergence surveys and/or tree climbing surveys. • A Habitat Suitability Index assessment of the large off-site pond should be undertaken to confirm its suitability for breeding GCN and to inform any planning application for this site. • Reptile surveys within areas of suitable habitat. A Method Statement is recommended to ensure no individuals are harmed during clearance of these areas.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger surveys will be required. If present mitigation will be required upfront with the planning application. GCN known within the vicinity, further survey and mitigation required. The site is potentially species-rich grassland. A habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats on site. The existing mature trees and hedgerows should be retained and buffered from the development. Further survey needed before making a decision. BNG required. Comments for planning application 2020/0056/MAO will be relevant.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 100m E of Market Overton Conservation Area (475)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number):
Iron Age/Roman in S portion of area (16735)
Rare Mesolithic flint assemblage also recorded (16737)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
Anglo-Saxon pottery recovered just to south of area (16736)
100m W of additional Roman site (5516)

Comments (ELE numbers): Evaluative trial trenches excavated in 2023.
Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The Landscape Sensitivity Study parcel MO4 considers the area the site lies within. The parcel is not important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and other settlements, but does separate the settlement from The Lodge, although intervisibility is strong between the two. Although enclosure is generally not strong, the more significant established trees belts are found across the southern fringe of the parcel north of Main Street. Its more screened nature from Main Street would help limit prominence of new development therein with only the outer edges of any future housing development and be seen mainly in short views from existing dwellings and users of Pinfold Lane. Users of The Lodge would be affected by development within the parcel by reducing its existing green buffer to all sides. Tree belt screening to the south and east fringe of the built edge of Market Overton could be enhanced to soften the impact of new development across the west of the parcel on existing receptors. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to contained in the landscape and have few wider landscape impacts. Low existing ecological value across the study parcel should be enhanced through development by modest additional landscaping and integrated Green Infrastructure. Overall the Landscape Sensitivity Study considers this area to have medium to low sensitivity in this location. Overall the area is considered to have medium to low sensitivity landscape impact.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A previous application has been considered for this site, reference 2022/1193/MAO, which was refused, but not on highway grounds. Throughout the planning application process, the LHA were not provided with sufficient information to determine if an adequate access could be achieved. A site visit with the Forrestry Officer revealed that there would be the lose of some established large trees, which was of great concern to the Forrestry Officer. We understand that the trees have since been TPO'd. In the event these trees could be lost and sufficient visibility provided, the LHA are of the view that a suitable access could be created from Main Street. The LHA would welcome pedestrian connectivity through to The Finches/The Limes, but would not support a vehicular access connection. A strict Construction Traffic Management plan would need to be in place and followed to ensure construction vehicles do not use Bowling Green Lane, as it is totally unsuitable for construction vehicles or deliveries.

Should access be resolved, a 2m wide footway will be required from the site to connect to the existing footway provision to the west.

During the above-mentioned site visit it became clear that the access road leading into the site would require a no dig construction adjacent to a row of TPO'd trees along the eastern boundary. We noted the ground levels within the site, where the access road and footway would be situated, were much higher than the surrounding areas, which would lead to significant overlooking of the neighboring properties on Walker Close.

In summary, the LHA are of the view that a safe and suitable access could be achieved off Main Street, however there appear to be a number of other issues raised as a result that would need further consideration. Given this, we would be cautious about allocating this site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
Footway connections from the site to The Limes/The Finches and along Main Street to the west.

Parish Council Comments
None.

Consultation responses
The village does not have the infrastructure to support 20 new dwellings The field where planning is envisaged is open to water accumulation The access from Main Street will be a traffic hazard Lack of public transport will increase the traffic through the village Increased risk of flooding in neighbouring dwellings The land is capable of accommodating up to 27 dwellings, as demonstrated in the current application 2022/1193/MAO. There are no infrastructure restrictions on the land and can be developed once planning permission is granted.

Availability
Within 5 years

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
TPO trees immediately adjacent to the site may limit location and design of access
A strict Construction Traffic Management plan would need to be in place and followed to ensure construction vehicles do not use Bowling Green Lane, as it is totally unsuitable for construction vehicles or deliveries.
Significant off site highway works may be necessary
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Mineral safeguarding area may require detailed assessment

Conclusion
Some constraints to sites development, however it is considered these can be mitigated.
Site suitable for allocation.

Site Information

ID
2471

Name of site
LAND AT LANGHAM (East of Melton Road and north of Manor Lane

SHELAA Reference
LAN14

Gross Site Area
4.46

Net Site Area
2.68

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
80

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to Langham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

4336m – Rutland Water, 4023.14m – Burley and Rushpit Woods

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2952.18m – Oakham motte and bailey castle and medieval gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
The site falls within parcel LANG1. (Medium)

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
463.1m – Langham C of E Primary

Secondary schools
2263.09m – Catmose College

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a. Suitable for further technical assessment at stage 2b.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
RED = Intersects or is adjacent

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Site is relatively flat with a gentle gradient north. The gradient may impact on known surface water issues within Langham.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Biodiversity Study
Site not assessed in study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): S. Border adjacent to Langham Conservation Area (7358)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): -
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
S. Border adjacent to Langham historic core (10420)
W. bordered with turnpike road (20656).

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized area adjacent to conservation area. Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
LSS parcel LANG1.
The sensitivity of the area is limited to its very open location beyond a clearly defined boundary to the settlement, beyond which development would breach historic street pattern. In most respects the parcel does not display landscape components, character or condition which offer clear landscape value. Any landscape and visual value may be derived from its general openness and pockets of remaining pasture with more complete hedges. The parcel is not important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and other settlements. The openness and low profile from two roads into the village would afford open views across any future housing development and be seen in short and some medium depth views on approach. Critical views of any new development to the west of the parcel, on approaches on the A606 over open arable land, would however tend to be seen against the backdrop of existing 20th century housing. Low hedgerows and absence of hedgerow trees around the fields would not afford immediate natural or established screening potential, but new planting could be effective in longer views. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to be prominent but in relatively near views only, and wider landscape impact less significant. Minimal existing ecological value of the study parcel could be enhanced significantly by landscaping and integrated Green Infrastructure.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
Potential surface water impacts.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The proposal will require a full transport assessment, scope to be agreed with the LHA, to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding road network and to identify any mitigation needed. Given the length of the frontages, it is considered that a suitable access or accesses can be achieved. If access is to be placed on Manor Lane, widening of the existing carriageway is likely to be required. If access is off the A606, it will need to be positioned to avoid Ranksborough Lane and the layby at the northern end of the site. 2m wide footways will be required from within the site connecting to those existing off-site. Provision for bus stop infrastructure is likely to be required together with other public transport considerations. There will be no direct accesses permitted on to the A606. A review of visibility at the junction of Manor Lane with the A606 will be required if any accesses are to be formed on Manor Lane.

The formation of access/es and their respective visibility splays is/are likely to result in the loss of a significant amount of established hedgerows, which may be a concern for ecology and forestry colleagues.

In summary, the LHA are of the view that suitable and safe access can be provided for the site and therefore support the allocation of this site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
The impact on the wider road network is unknown at this time, but will need to be identified in a transport assessment that should be submitted with any future planning application. At minimum, 2m wide footways will need to connect the site to the existing footway network together with suitable and safe pedestrian crossing points. It is likely that bus stop infrastructure will be requested to promote sustainable transport.

Parish Council Comments
Site is outside PLD in open countryside with protected view to Langham Grade 1 listed church. See LNP 2022-2041, Policy RS1 Landscape Character & RS2 Development in the Countryside, and 6 Cultural Heritage p. 45, 6b.

Consultation responses

Availability
Site is considered to be available.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Full transport assessment to assess the impact of the development on the surrounding road network and to identify any mitigation needed.
Public right of way on site
Surface water impacts need confirmation.
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Mineral safeguarding area may require detailed assessment

Conclusion
Flat open site which is not in keeping with the character and settlement form. PROW on site and surface flood risk concerns
Site not considered suitable for allocation

Site Information

ID
2536

Name of site
Land off Ashwell Road, Whissendine, Oakham

SHELAA Reference
WHI14

Gross Site Area
4.09

Net Site Area
2.45

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
74

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Whissendine PLD

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

6633m – Rutland Water, 3143.92m – Wymondham Rough

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
981.79m – Moor Lane moated site, Whissendine

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel WH7 - Medium

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
575.82m – Whissendine C of E Primary

Secondary schools
4995.37m – Catmose College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
AMBER = Permissive footpaths/Public rights of way affected – requiring mitigation.

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable subject to further assessment and has passed stage 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Gradually dipping sweep of pastural farmland falling across the southern edge of the village towards the Whissendine Brook. Land falls smoothly and gently to the west and north-west from its eastern flank on Ashwell Road towards its western boundary defined by the well-treed lower slopes of the Brook’s valley.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 300m S of Listed Church (5886)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number):
Western portion of are within the Whissendine historic core (8623) and medieval village earthworks (19913)
Certain ridge & furrow across the site

Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
To immediate W. lies a Saxo-Norman site and C14/15th cruck farm building.
Moat-like earthworks to S. (5880)
Cropmarks in the vicinity that suggest prehistoric activity.

Comments (ELE numbers): Known archaeology on area and in surrounds.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
LSS parcel WH7.
The medium sensitivity of the area arises principally from its lower prominence in the wider landscape and limited impact on heritage assets or community assets. It has a peripheral relationship to the historic built framework but would be adjacent to other relatively compact components of the village. Its shallow valley side topography suggest changes to the skyline may arise and affect the private views form residential property to the southern edge of the village. Scattered strong treescapes define a medium scale grain to the landscape parcel. In most other respects the parcel displays a combination of modest landscape features. It is not important in maintaining a visual separation between the village and other settlements and is not closely related to the historic core of Whissendine. Development would also be likely to further dilute historic settlement form by extending modern housing or employment development further up the slope and away from the east-west village axis along main street. Trees around the parcel would however some afford immediate natural or established screening potential, but new planting could be effective in reinforcing that. Development within the parcel would be therefore likely to be off some prominence (particularly to its eastern parts) with wider landscape prominence than its western reaches. Modest existing ecological value of the site could be enhanced significantly by landscaping and integrated Green Infrastructure management.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Any future application will need a transport assessment to assess the impact of the proposed development and identify any off-site highways works to mitigate the impact. Public right of way E140 exists along the site frontage and along part of the northern boundary, which will need careful consideration when designing the scheme, particularly with any new access points. Any redundant existing vehicular accesses will need to be removed as part of any future planning application. It is likely that an adequate main access, direct accesses or both could be achieved, however this is likely to result in the loss of significant lengths of established hedgerow, which may be cause for concern with our Forestry Team. Any direct accesses would need to provide adequate turning within their plots to ensure all vehicles can enter and leave in forward gear. 2m wide footways will need to be provided connecting to the existing provision in Ashwell Road and Foxhill.

Availability
Within 5 years

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Transport assessment required to determine how sites can be accessed. Hortons Lane is not suitable. Access is likely to result in loss of significant length of hedgerow which the Biodiversity Study recommends is retained for its ecological value.
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measure will be required.
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
Although the site has medium landscape sensitivity, it visually protrudes into open countryside to the south of existing built form significantly and would result in development which is unsympathetic to the existing built form of the village. As access is also a constraint it is considered that this site is not suitable for allocation.

Site Information

ID
2646

Name of site
Land West of Steadfold Lane, Ketton, Stamford, PE9 3ST

SHELAA Reference
KET16

Gross Site Area
3.54

Net Site Area
N/A

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space
80,000 - 150,000 Sq ft

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
No relationship with Ketton PLD but not immediate exclusion due to being Employment.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

4610m – Rutland Water; SSSI: 878.61m – Ketton Quarries

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2353.02m – Site of manor house and gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
AMBER = <50m

Biodiversity
Priority habitat: 37.36m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Not assessed in LSS.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
1207.12m – Ketton C of E Primary

Secondary schools
3954.84m – Casterton College

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
None

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
AMBER = Potential access

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a. Proposed for employment uses. Located away from the PLD and has not been assessed for landscape sensitivity. No significant constraints. May be suitable for employment uses if no other more suitable site is available

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Site not covered under the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
There would be a significant lose of existing mature vegetation, hedgerow and trees from along the Steadfold Lane frontage due to the need for an industrial access which would not be advised.

Biodiversity Study
Site not assessed in study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 250m NE of Ketton Conservation Area (7357)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): none
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number):
100m N of barrow cemetery (5387) and further probable barrows (8546-8552)
Roman site to east (5396)
Field to west has probable ridge & furrow

Comments (ELE numbers): Moderate sized area within an archaeologically rich landscape and in close proximity to prehistoric funerary actvity.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Site not covered under the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A full transport assessment will be required to support any future planning application to assess the impact of such a development and identify what mitigation is required. Given the industrial nature of the development Steadfold Lane is not considered suitable in its current form and will need to be upgraded and widened to accommodate two hgv's passing one another within it. A 3m wide footway/cycleway will be required from the site to connect to the existing facilities on Stamford Road, including the provision of a suitable crossing point. Public transport infrastructure may need improving to encourage sustainable travel to and from the site. There will be a significant lose of existing mature vegetation, hedgerow and trees from along the Steadfold Lane frontage due to the need for an industrial access and 4.5 x 215m vehicle to vehicle visibility splays, which is likely to be a concern to ecology and forestry colleagues.

In summary, the LHA are of the view that an adequate access can be achieved, but there will be significant off-site highway works required to mitigate the impact of the development. Given this, the LHA would support the allocation of this site, subject to the policy team reviewing ecology and forestry comments alongside our own.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
There is likely to be a significant impact between the site and Stamford Road, which will require rebuilding and widening of the existing carriageway and provision of a 3m wide shared footway/cycleway at minimum. The full impact will need to be assessed as part of a future planning application in the form of a transport assessment.

Parish Council Comments
Site slopes steeply down to S. New trees and hedges on the site would increase/improve biodiversity, whilst existing boundary trees and hedges are likely to be impacted. It would begin the ‘creep’ of Ketton’s built up area towards the E and N, along the A6121 and Steadfold Lane. Due to its steeply increasing elevation any development would dominate the row of houses along Stamford Road, immediately to the SE, and the landscape character of the entrance to the village. Due to the steep incline and the area’s geology, surface water run off could add to the flooding that already occurs at the front of the Stamford Road houses, and create flooding at the junction of Steadfold Lane and the A6121 (where the National Speed limit starts). Could be considerable impact on the residents of the Stamford Road houses in terms of noise, vibration, dust, pollution, odours and light pollution depending on the number and type of employment/industry. Potential significant impact on the amenity of the houses along Stamford Road. Concerns regarding the capacity of the Aldgate pumping station. Concerns regarding the suitability of Steadfold Lane as access. Outside PLD.

Consultation responses
Site not consulted on.

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
A full transport assessment will be required to assess the impact of development and identify what mitigation is required.
Given the industrial nature of the development Steadfold Lane is not considered suitable in its current form and will need to be upgraded and widened to accommodate two hgv's passing one another within it. This will have significant impact on existing hedgerow and ecology
Located away from the PLD and has not been assessed for landscape sensitivity. Consideration will need to be given to impact of development on landscape in this location
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Mineral safeguarding area may require detailed assessment

Conclusion
Proposed for employment uses. Located away from the PLD and has not been assessed for landscape sensitivity.
Significant highway constraints which are likely to impact on hedgerows and ecology.

Range of significant constraints means site is not suitable for employment uses unless no other more suitable site is available

Site Information

ID
2851

Name of site
St Georges Officer's Mess

SHELAA Reference
EDI03

Gross Site Area
3.89

Net Site Area
3.11

Type of site
Brownfield (Previously Developed Land)

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Residential, Vacant, Other

Indicative Number of dwellings
93

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Site is adjacent to Edith Weston PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
Planning application 2023/0822/OUT Committee decision to approve subject to S106 April 2024

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

424m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
116.66m – Village cross at junction of Well Cross and King Edward’s Way

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
206.67m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel EDW7.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
AMBER = <50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
451.39m – Edith Weston Primary

Secondary schools
7597.93m – Oakham School

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect a heritage asset and/or the setting of a heritage asset)

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a. Site is considered suitable and goes to stage 2b.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
GREEN = Brownfield

Topography
Gently sloping site north to south. The generally flat landform is not particularly distinctive or of value.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
There are multiple High quality established trees around this site, including a row of mature limes bordering the Manton Road and Edith Weston Road, three cherries on the north east side of the site and a copse of sycamore trees towards the south east of the site. All healthy trees on this site should be retained, and if a development were to go ahead, it must be planned around the site's existing trees.

Biodiversity Study
Site not assessed in study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Site within Impact zone and at nearest point 495m from Rutland Water (Ramsar). As the development is likely to be more than 10 houses and outside an existing settlement/urban area, consultation with Natural England is required on likely risks. Bat and badger surveys will be required, with any necessary mitigation submitted up front. A habitat survey should also be submitted to determine the quality of the habitats on site. The design of the development should retain and buffer the mature trees on site and the boundary hedgerows. Likely ok subject to the results of surveys and mitigation. BNG required. Comments on current application 2023/0822/OUT will be relevant. Features: Known species rich grassland, buildings, hedgerows, hardstanding. Surveys required include Phase 1 Habitat, Bats (buildings) and A Badger. Mitigation includes retention of hedges with 5m buffer zone of natural vegetation. Other mitigation pending surveys

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
Borders conservation area to north. Listed building at north west corner of the site and further listed buildings 100m north. Consultation with Conservation Officer carried out due to site being within 50m of Built Heritage Asset. Impact on heritage assets can be mitigated and enhancements to the setting of the listed building could be possible through re‐use of the site.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number):
1864 School House at NW corner (5639) + further listed buildings to north
The C19th Grange is just NE of the site (5238)
North edge bounded by Conservation Area (468)
c100m S of Village Cross SM (160)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number):
1940's Officers Mess/barracks/tower (24142)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): Northern edge bounded by Historic Core (9650)
adjacent to Village Earthworks (5145)
The 1940's Airfield lies >100m to the SE (15972)
Further to the south are ?Iron Age double ditch system which run towards the site (5560)

Comments (ELE numbers): Known archaeological remains on site (Airfield buildings) and within vicinity.
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment and a historic buildings appraisal, with particular consideration given to the WW2 and Cold War military infrastructure. Where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Essentially a brownfield area that can accommodate new housing and / or employment development without affecting landscape character. Retention of existing vegetation, especially mature trees, would help to screen or soften the impact of new development and provide instant maturity. The sensitivity of this study parcel lies in its location on the Ketton Plateau and the relationship of the edges of the barracks with the surrounding landscape and views to and from the Undulating Mixed Farmlands LCA and the lower lying Chater Valley to the south and west. Detailed design should ensure separation between the area and the main village core, which is an important function. New buildings should be located away from sensitive edges to minimise visual impact from surrounding views and to avoid susceptible skylines. Distant views out to Rutland Water and surrounding high ground could be protected as part of any new development scheme.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
Low risk of fluvial flooding.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)
Contaminated land possible. Contamination site risk assessment needed and remediation and monitoring schemes may also be necessary. No other detrimental environmental impacts identified.

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
This site has already been assessed in great detail by the LHA under planning reference 2023/0822/OUT, with the LHA raising no objections. Whilst not yet formally approved, the application has been heard at planning committee with a resolution to approve the application recently.

Given the above, the LHA would fully support this site being allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
As this site has already gone through the planning process, under reference 2023/0822/OUT, with no objection from the LHA, the off-site highway works required consists of 2m wide footways connecting to the existing provision, various pram crossing locations and a zebra crossing near the northwest corner of the site on Manton Road.

Consultation responses

Availability
Site is considered to be available for development.

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
All healthy trees on this site should be retained, and if a development were to go ahead, it must be planned around the site's existing trees.
Mitigation of impact on heritage assets (listed building and conservation area adjacent to site)
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Mineral safeguarding area may require detailed assessment
Contamination site risk assessment needed and remediation and monitoring schemes may also be necessary.

Conclusion
Suitable for allocation
This site now has outline planning permission subject to a S.106
Planning reference: 2023/0822

Site Information

ID
4508

Name of site
Land at Pit Lane, Ketton

SHELAA Reference
KET26

Gross Site Area
0.9

Net Site Area
0.9

Type of site
Brownfield (Previously Developed Land)

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Employment/Commercial

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space
0.9ha

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Within PLD of Ketton

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
2022/0897/FUL - Approved for B2 (General Industrial)

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

264m – Ketton Quarries

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2234m – Site of manor house and gardens

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site is within Ketton PLD

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
None

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
RED = Loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools

Secondary schools

Topography
None

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
GREEN = Within settlement or edged on 3 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
GREEN = No impact on archaeological site

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site has planning permission for B2 uses and is within PLD and suitable for further assessment for employment uses

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
AMBER = <50m

Previously Developed Land
GREEN = Brownfield

Topography
Relatively flat.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Badger surveys will be required. If present mitigation will be required upfront with the planning application. The existing hedgerows and mature trees should be retained and buffered from the development. Ok subject to surveys and mitigation. BNG required.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Low risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): Adjacent to Ketton Conservation Area (7357) & numerous Listed Buildings within that.
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Trial trenching in 2001 showed undated amorphous features (9142)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): E. boundary is Portland Cement Company works (18951). Undated quarry pits to south (27119)

Comments (ELE numbers): Small area. 7 trial trenches in adjacent area 2001 did not show any archaeological features (5910). Advice provided - No/Limited Impact or Significance

Landscape
Site is within PLD and therefore outside the area covered by the Landscape Sensitivity Study.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The site was previously allocated and now has planning consent for B2 (General Industrial) use under reference 2022/0897/FUL, which the LHA were supportive of. Off-site highway improvements were requested including widening of the site access and provision of a footway to connect to the existing footway in Pitt Lane. These details are shown on the approved plan, 1416 02D Proposed Site Plan.

The LHA are not sure if this site needs to be allocated as the site has planning approval for the proposed use, however if the policy team do still wish to allocate it, the LHA would not raise any objection.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
The impact on the wider road network was considered under planning approval reference 2022/0897/FUL, the results of which were provision of a footway connection to the existing footway in Pitt Lane and widening of the existing access, in accordance with the details shown on the approved plan, 1416 02D Proposed Site Plan.

Parish Council Comments
None.

Consultation responses
Unsuitable roads and unsafe access. Only acceptable if highway was upgraded to accommodate all existing and proposed employment sites on this road. Concern with regards to Pit Lane area for the quantum of development being considered and the potential impact it could have on biodiversity.

Availability
Immediately

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Site has planning permission for B2 uses

Conclusion
Suitable for allocation

Site has planning permission for B2 uses and is within PLD and suitable for further assessment for employment uses

Site Information

ID
4510

Name of site
Land off Melton Road, Whissendine

SHELAA Reference
WHI07

Gross Site Area
0.68

Net Site Area
0.65

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
20

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to the PLD of Whissendine

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission
Refused - 2022/0529/MAF - Residential development with associated works and access from Melton Road.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

3085m – Wymondham Rough

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1774m – Moor Lane moated site, Whissendine

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Falls within parcel WHI1

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
513m – Whissendine C of E Primary

Secondary schools
5866m – Catmose College

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is considered suitable subject to further assessment and has passed stage 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Relatively flat.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Biodiversity Study
If Survey Area 5 is to be allocated/ developed it would be worth considering enhancing the area within the boundary of the historic LWS to the south and also retaining and protecting all existing hedgerows to help provide habitat for wildlife and maintain functional wildlife corridors. The Survey Area is considered to be a good location ecologically for allocation. • Update survey of the LWS located south of Survey Area 5 to confirm its current biodiversity value and status as a GCN breeding pond. • Bat activity surveys to include static monitoring.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
The site lies approximately 200 metres west of the Grade II* Listed Windmill, known as Whissendine Windmill. Therefore, the ‘setting’ of the Windmill would be compromised by an allocated site for development to the west. Indeed, the Windmill remains a well preserved seven-storey stone tower, which is operational today, it defines the settlement architecturally, historically, and distinctively - as a landmark building. The other important non-designated Heritage Asset is the Ridge and Furrow that still survives in the proximity of the application site. The settlement does not benefit from a Conservation Area, nevertheless the historic associations with the windmill and the surrounding landscape defines the importance of the land to the west and its relationship with the windmill and so it remains considerably more important to preserve this ‘setting’ and thus must not be compromised by any development.

The NPPF provides a definition of ‘significance’ for Heritage policy. This states that Heritage significance comprises ‘The value of a Heritage Asset to this and future generations because of its Heritage interest. That interest may be archaeological, architectural, artistic, or historic’.

The significance of the Windmill and the landscape is of high significance, given that the Windmill defines the distinctiveness of the settlement and the Ridge and Furrow is also of significance, overall, this ‘setting’ must not be harmed by any new development whatsoever.

Hence there is an objection to the site allocation, as it is considered that the site must specifically remain undeveloped given the character of the ‘setting’ to the Windmill with the open landscape to the west, which identifies the importance of the historic agricultural economy and landscape character hereabouts.

When considering the impact of a site designation on the significance of a designated Heritage Asset, - being the grade 2 * Windmill, then section 16 of the NPPF recognises assets as an irreplaceable resource, and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations, (para.195). Furthermore plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. (Para. 196). Therefore, the threat of development on this parcel of land would inevitably ‘harm’ the significance of the heritage asset and therefore the site would not be a forthcoming option where the Windmill and the Ridge and Furrow would be substantially compromised.
The NPPF identifies that harm should be outweighed by public benefit, however at it is considered the public benefits would not outweigh the substantial harm associated with the loss of the ‘setting’. The ‘setting’ of designated and non-designated Heritage Assets shall remain preserved as required by paragraph 206 and 209 of the NPPF.

There are concerns on Heritage grounds, such that the present site is not considered to be suitable for an allocation given the setting of the designated and the non-designated heritage assets hereabouts. The Local Planning Authority has the statutory duty section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their ‘setting’ or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess. Therefore the site could not be taken forward where development would fail to preserve the ‘setting’ of the listed building.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium risk

Designated Heritage Assets on site (DLE number): none
Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity (DLE number): 200m W of Whissendine windmill (5280)
Known Archaeological Remains on Site (MLE number): Old Road, west of windmill, runs through N. portion of area (1588)
Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number): 150m W of historic core (8623)

Comments (ELE numbers): Small area but setting implications for Whissendine windmill

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
This site was considered fully under planning application reference 2022/0529/MAF. Whilst the application was refused, the LHA raised no objection subject to conditions. The access requirements however would result in the loss of most of the established hedgerow, which was a concern to other colleagues and was one of the reasons for refusal.

The LHA would support allocation of this site in terms of highways.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
None

Parish Council Comments
There is a windmill immediately due east of this site. This is a listed building, Grade 2*, also a working windmill. As a working windmill it needs a turbulence free, air corridor. Any development on site with new buildings or dense stands of trees may create turbulence or block wind accessing the sails. This site is very wet and probably not suitable for SUDS; due to the geology. Should any development rely on discharge to the adjacent watercourse this is likely to increase the risk of flooding in the centre of the village. The stream adjacent to this site flows west and north through Stapleford Road area. There is outline permission for up to 66 houses on land that drains into this stream, and an application pending for a further development of up to 73 that would also rely on the same stream. The cumulative effect of increased discharge is likely to cause the stream, in the flood plain north of the village, to overtop more rapidly and more frequently at times of heavy flow. Overtopping is regular as the flow is slowed by the Melton Mowbray flood defence scheme downstream, Overtopping causes a ‘water dam’ by slowing the flow further still, thus Whissendine Brook cannot discharge and the water backs up causing flooding to the centre of the village. The Sports Club adjacent to this site can hold events on the playing fields, including use of marquees, and can rent out the club building for parties…these events are likely to be audible on this site. In 2021 Whissendine PC commissioned an independent ‘housing needs assessment’ (AECOM Infrastructure and Environment UK Ltd). They concluded a housing need figure “of up to 72 dwelling between 2022 and 2036.….This is likely to be the upper limit of any housing requirement for Whissendine.” This predates grant of permission for 66 dwellings and pending applications for 2 additional sites. If the first two developments progress this could yield up to 84 dwellings, in which case development in the village will have exceeded need beyond 2036.

Consultation responses

Availability
Immediately

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Proximity to listed building and scheduled monument and ridge and furrow may require detailed assessment through a Heritage Impact Assessment mitigation of impact on setting is unlikely.
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact

Conclusion
Not suitable for allocation due to heritage constraints

Site Information

ID
6605

Name of site
Land at Wireless Hill, South Luffenham, Oakham Rutland, LE15 8NF

SHELAA Reference
NEW11

Gross Site Area
6.48

Net Site Area
6.48 gross area

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space
51536

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Not adjacent to a PLD but surrounds an existing industrial estate therefore not excluded at this stage.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

0m – Luffenham Heath Golf Course 0.05% Overlap

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1307m – Roman villa complex, north of Cuckoo Farm Lodge

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
0m – Deciduous woodland 0.05% Overlap

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site not covered by LSS

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
N/A

Secondary schools
N/A

Topography
None

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
AMBER = site is public open space/recreation facility but any loss can be mitigated against

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a. The site is adjacent to existing employment and whilst it has0.05% overlap, the scale of the site means this could be easily mitigated against.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
None.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Leyland Cypress Row on North west side of current site, Semi Mature broadleaf belt to North East side. these should both be retained and worked around if possible in order to meet BNG regs, especially the Broadleaf belt, which has potential to grow into a pleasant green boundary.

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium Risk

"Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity(DLE number)": 450m E. of South Luffenham Conservation Area (481)
"Known Archaeological Remains on Site(MLE number)": None
"Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity(MLE number)": 200m W of Iron Age enclosure cropmark (5718) and further cropmarks to S. (5720)
200m E of historic core (10437)

"Comments(ELE numbers)": Large area. Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Not assessed in LSS.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
It is assumed that as the description refers to an expansion of the existing site, the existing access will be used. Depending on the content of the expanded area, any future planning application may need to be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment. Depending on the content of the expanded area, the LHA will review the need for pedestrian connectivity to South Luffenham, as there is currently no provision for this. Given the well established existing use on the site to be expanded and the standard of Wireless Hill, the LHA would support the allocation of this site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
It is not clear at this time what the proposal will consist of and therefore what impact this will have on the wider road network. An assessment of this will be made at the time of any future planning application, which may need a Transport Statement or Assessment, which would review this further. The LHA have commented on the possible need for pedestrian infrastructure to South Luffenham to encourage sustainable travel locally.

Parish Council Comments
Our main concern would be taking further Agricultural Grade 3 Land out of agricultural use. Also the heavy traffic approaching and leaving the site to and from the west on the A47 comes through the village as the junction with Wireless Hill and the A47 is not suitable to take this additional heavy HGV traffic. This junction has been commented on by SLPC on numerous times over many years.

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation providing mitigation against Priority Habitat.

Site Information

ID
8030

Name of site
Land South of Whitwell Road adjacent to site H1.C

SHELAA Reference
NEW10

Gross Site Area
0.39

Net Site Area
0.39 gross area

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
0

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Adjacent to Empingham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

600m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
287m – Moated site with fishponds and enclosures at Empingham

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Part of the site falls within study parcel EMP6

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
N/A

Secondary schools
N/A

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
None

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
Sloping site from Whitwell Road.The land rises from around 60m AOD up to 80m AOD at the A606 in the north and rises A gradually from east to west.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
No established trees present on site, although the mature hedgerows should be retained where possible.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
The site is within a Natural England Impact Zone and may have adverse impact on any national/international designated site meaning that Natural England consultation is required. Badger surveys will be required. If present mitigation will be required upfront with the planning application. The site is within a Swift Alert area and swift boxes will be required with any development. The site has potential to be species-rich grassland. A habitat survey of the site will be required to establish the presence (or otherwise) of any important habitats. The existing mature trees and hedgerows should be retained and buffered from the development. Possible species rich grassland, hedgerows & mature tree. Surveys required include Phase 1 survey. Recommended mitigation includes retention of hedges with 5m buffer zone natural vegetation; retain and buffer mature tree. Other mitigation pending surveys.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium Risk

"Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity(DLE number)": 250m W. of Empingham Conservation Area (469) 250m NW of scheduled moated site (57)
"Known Archaeological Remains on Site(MLE number)": None
"Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity(MLE number)": Adjacent to Historic Settlement Core (5171) Adjacent to C20th cemetery (21534)
60m N of medieval village earthworks (5177)

"Comments(ELE numbers)": Near the Historic Settlement Core. Archaeological remains in the vicinity include medieval earthworks to south.
Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
The Site sits in Flood zone 1. The site would need to implement a SuDs drainage system

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A Transport Statement or Assessment is likely to be required, depending on the gross floor area. It is likely that an access of adequate geometry with appropriate visibility could be achieved. The type of access, i.e. priority, ghost island will need to be determined within the TS or TA. Parking, turning and loading/unloading will need to provided in accordance with the minimum standards set out within the local plan, current at that time. All vehicles must be able to enter and leave the site in forward gear. A 2m wide footway from the site to connect to the existing footway infrastructure to the east including crossing points for both the bus stop and possibly an additional one at the edge of the current village envelope will be required. At this stage the type of crossing point/s is unknown. It is likely that the LHA will seek a change in the existing Traffic Regulation Order to reduce the existing 40mph to 30mph along the site frontage, and the repositioning of the gateway feature, the physical works of which will need to be carried out by the developer under a Section 278 agreement under the Highways Act 1980.

In summary the LHA would support this site being allocated for the purpose of a medical centre.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
The full impact on the wider road network is not known at this time. Any future application will need to be supported by a Transport Statement/Assessment to identify any mitigation, but as a minimum the proposal must include footway connectivity and the access may need to be a ghost island right turn style opposed to a standard priority junction. Also the LHA are likely to request the repositioning of the 30/40mph change in speed limit and gateway feature to the western boundary of the site.

Parish Council Comments
Currently the best (and only) solution to the need for the Medical Centre to expand would involve using land not identified in the call for sites (i.e. extending site ID 82 west to Sykes Lane).

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Ecology and archaeology mitigation
Site proposed for a new GP surgery attached to small housing site on Site ID82. Would need to ensure delivery of GP surgery alongside housing Site lies within the Rutland Water Area and therefore a change to this boundary would need to be made if the site were to be allocated

Conclusion
Not suitable for allocation as the site is within the Rutland Water Area however the proposed use of Medical Centre is to be included within allocation of site ID 82.

Site Information

ID
8033

Name of site
Woolfox Employment

SHELAA Reference
NEW10

Gross Site Area
21.2

Net Site Area
employment site - gross

Type of site
Mixed

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture, Other

Indicative Number of dwellings
N/A

Indicative Floor Space
2,787 sqm (up to 30,000 sqft) Use classes B1, B2 and Class E

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Capable of delivering a new stand alone development.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

1520m – Bloody Oaks Quarry SSSI and 1037m – Woolfox Quarry RIGS

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1035m – Horn deserted medieval village and moated site

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
Not a residential site

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
AMBER = Within an SSSI IRZ for the type and scale of development likely to be proposed

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
0m – Rutland County golf-club (A1) verge - north priority habitat 61m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
LSS report does not cover the site

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
N/A

Secondary schools
N/A

Topography
GREEN = Relatively flat with no topographical constraints to development

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
AMBER = Impact on the wider road network requiring mitigation

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site passes 2a. Subject to access, mineral safeguarding and mitigation of biodiversity impact.
Is Grade 3 agricultural land and in a mineral safeguarding area and a mineral Area of Search. Adjacent to a local wildlife site and potential impact on priority habitat. site also crossed by medium impact surface water flooding.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
AMBER = Partially Brownfield

Topography
largely flat - former airfield

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
A belt of outgrown hedgerow and self set trees borders this site from the A1 and old great north road. though of poor arboricultural form, this green infrastructure will provide excellent development screening and, given there seems to already be access routes into this site, all border hedges and trees should be retained.

Biodiversity Study
Report does not consider this site in detail

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
Bloody Oaks Quarry SSSI - comprises one of the best remaining examples of limestone grassland in Leicestershire and is representative of grassland developed on soft limestones in Central and Eastern England. Boundary is adjacent to Rutland golf club A1 verge LWS and within 61m of priority habitat - deciduous woodland

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
The site does not appear to have any historic designation within the limits of the shaded area identified. Although it was historically in use as a former WW1 airfield, the remaining features of the landscape hereabouts should be valued as a Non-designated Heritage Asset - worthy of retention. Any future proposals on the site must take into consideration the retention of features within the landscape associated with WW1, in line with the significance afforded to Non-designated Heritage Assets under para. 209 of the NPPF, (2023).

To the south west of the shaded site is the Horn deserted medieval village and moated site and therefore any proposal for the land would also have to take into regard the setting of this Scheduled Monument as an asset of the highest significance as required by para. 206 of the NPPF, (2023)

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage Potential: Medium Risk

"Designated Heritage Assets within vicinity(DLE number)": 1km NE of scheduled DMV (56)
"Known Archaeological Remains on Site(MLE number)": Wholly within Woolfox Lodge WWII Airfield (15978) & 1960's missile site (15979)
"Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity(MLE number)": 200m SE of possible enclosure (21789) 300m W of DMV (5217)
"Comments(ELE numbers)": Possible ditch-like features identified by geophysical survey (9308). A fieldwalking survey identified some prehistoric flints (9682).
Any application should be accompanied with an archaeological assessment, where the assessment reveals the presence of archaeological remains, it is likely there will be a requirement for appropriate mitigation to be secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
Site is not adjacent to a settlement with a PLD and has not therefore been considered in the Landscape Sensitivity Study

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
Site appears to be affected by medium and low risk surface water flooding.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
A transport assessment will be required with any future planning application to assess the impact of the development and identify any mitigation necessary. The site is located in an ideal location, close to and within easy access of the A1 (southbound). Grantham Lane to the south and Stretton interchange to the north provide locations to change to and from the A1 (northbound). National Highways who are responsible for the A1, will also have to review any proposal as this will impact their road. The site frontage is of sufficient length to provide a suitable industrial sized access. Given the location there are no pedestrian/cyclist facilities locally, nor any villages within easy walking/cycling distance, so it is unlikely that staff or visitors would walk or cycle to the facility. However, their is a public right of way, E165, which could be used, so a footway/cycleway connection from the site to Hardwick Farm Lane may be considered necessary depending on the outcome of the Transport Assessment and the view of the LHA at the time. This is considered an ideal location for the proposed development, therefore the LHA would support this site being allocated.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
The impact is currently unknown, however a transport assessment will be required as part of any future planning application, which will need to assess the impact on the wider road network and identify any mitigation required. National Highways will need to assess the impact on the A1 itself. It is likely, given the location of the site, that any impact will be relatively minimal. Locally, a footway/cycleway from the site the Hardwick Farm Lane may be required depending on the outcome of the transport assessment and the view of the LHA at the time.

Parish Council Comments
Greetham Parish Council welcome the site as it is favourable as it brings employment to the area.

Consultation responses
Not included in Reg 18 consultation

Availability
Immediately

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Full Transport Assessment will be required and off site mitigation may be necessary, however site is ideally located for employment uses
Ecology and archaeology mitigation measures may be required
Grade 3 BMV - may require assessment of land quality to determine likely impact
Mineral safeguarding area may require detailed assessment

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation.

Site Information

ID
8037

Name of site
Site A, Glaston Road, Wing

SHELAA Reference
NEW5

Gross Site Area
0.36

Net Site Area
0.34

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
10

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Within 5 years

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
One field away from PLD, owner also owns said field and is proposing public open space

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

236m – Wing Water Treatment Works

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
35m – Maze 220m south east of St Peter and St Paul’s Church

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
Yes

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis
Site is included as an allocation in Wing NP.

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
AMBER = Medium

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within parcel WIN2

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
AMBER = <50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
RED = Grade 1 or 2

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
3629m – Edith Weston Primary

Secondary schools
4382m – Uppingham School

Topography
None

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
None

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
None

Impact on wider road network
None

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site is included as an allocation in Wing NP.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography

Trees: Tree Officer Comments

Biodiversity Study

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments

Landscape

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments

Parish Council Comments

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints

Conclusion
Site is included as an allocation in Wing NP.

Site Information

ID
8039

Name of site
Land off Braunston Road, Oakham

SHELAA Reference
NEW4

Gross Site Area
1

Net Site Area
0.8

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture, Other

Indicative Number of dwellings
24

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
Immediately

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
Yes

Comments: Relationship to settlement
Partly within Oakham PLD.

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

2429m – Rutland Water

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
1200m – Butter Cross and stocks

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity

Landscape sensitivity
RED = Medium-High/High

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site falls within study parcel OAK13

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
GREEN = Grade 4/5 or urban

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
GREEN = Not within an SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
GREEN = Does not intersect with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
283m – Catmose Primary

Secondary schools
950m – Catmose College

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
AMBER = Edged on 1-2 sides

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site in an area of high landscape sensitivity and assessed as red. However as site is located in Oakham it is considered suitable for further assessment

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
Due to the narrow parcel of land giving entrance to the site from the Braunston road being inhabited by present trees, development on this land would likely cause damage or destruction to the trees on this entrance, therefore making the site difficult to support from an arboricultural perspective.

Biodiversity Study
Site not covered by a study area

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
Heritage potential: Medium Risk

"Known Archaeological Remains within vicinity (MLE number)" 150m E of post-medieval enclosure (25804)250m NW of e. C20th rifle range (23199)
350m SE of Iron Age enclosure (5627)

"Comments (ELE numbers)" Trial trenching to the N. (12278) identified an enclosure with Iron Age pot + quern stone.
Likely to require appropriate mitigation secured by condition upon any future planning permission.

Landscape
The study parcel comprises the Woodland Trust’s Brooke Hill Wood, Gorse Field, Harris Grove and Ball’s Meadow that provides an important area of public access land. Woodland is designated a Site of Local Nature Importance. Diverse habitats, rich in wildlife. Woodland glades and flower meadows provide diverse wildlife havens. It lies at the transition of where the flat Vale of Catmose LCT begins to rise to High Rutland LCT and is a distinctive landform on the edge of the town. Also sensitive in terms of landscape pattern, landcover & scale, and views out to high ground and focal points of interest. Views from visitors to the public access woodland and walkers on the Leighfield Way recreational route that follows Brooke Road are visual receptors most susceptible to change. In general, provides a facility valued by the local community as an important area of open space that should remain open as a semi-natural recreational facility and to preserve the form and character of the town. The small, square, flat paddock lying at the northern tip of the study parcel could possibly accommodate housing development off Irwell Close without affecting the public
access area

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
Whilst there is no detailed information, our assessment of the width of land for access appears to be adequate to provide the required 5.5m wide shared access. Visibility splays of 2.4 x 43m would appear to achievable, but will result in the removal of some existing foliage, including potential pruning back of the hedge to the east of the site, which appears to be overgrowing the highway verge. Any existing ditch will need culverting with the existing headwall needing repositioning/replacement. The driveway will need to remain private as it would not serve sufficient public utility. Refuse collection will need to take place from the back of the public highway, so a demarcated hard standing area large enough to accommodate 2 wheely bins per dwelling will be required next to the highway and not within the shared access. Turning for a fire truck will be required internally within the site and all rooms of all dwellings must be within a maximum of 45m hose distance. The access will need to be designed to ensure no private surface water can flow on to the public highway. The first 5m of the shared surface must be hard surfaced. Any redundant section of the existing access will need to be removed as part of the dropped kerb application for the new/widened access.

In summary, the LHA are of the view that all the requirements for access can be achieved, therefore the LHA would support the allocation of this site for a maximum of 10 dwellings.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
None

Parish Council Comments
No response given.

Consultation responses

Availability
immediately

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
Less than 100 dwellings- will be built out within five years

Overcoming constraints
Highway access by private drive with limit of 10 dwellings
Ecology and archeology mitigation may be required

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation for max 10 dwellings

Site Information

ID
8040

Name of site
Five Counties Area 1, Greetham

SHELAA Reference
NEW3

Gross Site Area
0.9

Net Site Area
0.9

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
n/a

Indicative Floor Space
n/a

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
None

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
GT and TS site therefore not excluded at this stage

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
None

Comments: Planning Permission
2023/1250/FUL - Approval for 7 travelling Showpeople sites - Site boundary cropped to avoid this.

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

699m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2257m – Manorial settlement, 127m north west of St Mary’s Church

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
AMBER = <50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
RED = Includes or is adjacent

Biodiversity
1m – Greetham Wood and adjacent habitats - 0m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site not covered by Landscape Sensitivity Report.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
3386m – Cottesmore Primary

Secondary schools
7956m – Casterton Business & Enterprise College (Casterton Campus)

Topography
None

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Passes 2a and is suitable for further assessment.

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
RED = Greenfield

Topography
None.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
No objections due to a general lack of trees on the site, although sufficient measures should be taken to avoid harm to the small woodland on the south-east border of this site.

Biodiversity Study
Site not covered by a study area

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
None.

Landscape
Site not covered by LSS

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The area abuts the existing site and that which had planning consent under reference 2022/1326/FUL and 2023/1250/FUL, but does not abut the public highway, so access to the area of land will be via the existing access on Greetham Inn Lane. The existing access off Greetham Inn Lane, Greetham Inn Lane itself and the junction of Greetham Inn Lane are adequate to accommodate the level of traffic associated with this proposal. Therefore the LHA would support this site being allocated as an extension to the existing travelling showpersons site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
None

Parish Council Comments

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Surface Water flood risk may require mitigation
Ecology mitigation measures may be necessary given proximity to BAP woodland

Conclusion
Site suitable for extension of existing Travelling Show Person site

Site Information

ID
8041

Name of site
Five Counties Area 2, Greetham

SHELAA Reference
NEW2

Gross Site Area
1.19

Net Site Area
1.19 ga

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings
n/a

Indicative Floor Space
n/a

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
None

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
GT and TS site therefore not excluded at this stage

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

780m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2244m – Manorial settlement, 127m north west of St Mary’s Church

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
AMBER = <50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
AMBER = <50m

Biodiversity
3m – Greetham Wood and adj habitats - 1m – Deciduous woodland

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site not covered by Landscape Sensitivity Report.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
GREEN = No areas of surface water flood risk are present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
3384m – Cottesmore Primary

Secondary schools
7865m – Casterton Business & Enterprise College (Casterton Campus)

Topography
AMBER = Gentle undulation/slope – so moderate topographical constraints would need mitigation adding to viability issues

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
AMBER = Some impact which could be mitigated (e.g. affect an archaeological site and/or the setting)

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
GREEN = No flood risk or minimal downstream flood risk

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
Site suitable for further assessment

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
None

Topography
None.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
There is woodland situated to the south and east of this site. Care should be taken to ensure no harm comes to any of these trees should development be undertaken here.

Biodiversity Study
None.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
None.

Landscape
None.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The area is remote from the existing travelling showpersons site, but abuts site ref 8040, so is reliant on site ref 8040 being allocated too for access. There is no connection with the public highway, so access will be via the existing site access off Greetham Inn Lane and site ref 8040.
It is noted that there are also extant consents for land to the northeast of this site, reference 2022/1326/FUL and 2023/1250/FUL. The existing access off Greetham Inn Lane, Greetham Inn Lane itself and the junction of Greetham Inn Lane are adequate to accommodate the level of traffic associated with this proposal. Therefore the LHA would support this site being allocated as an extension to the existing travelling showpersons site.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
None

Parish Council Comments

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Ecology mitigation measures may be necessary given proximity to BAP woodland
Highway access is dependent upon extending the existing access road from sites with planning permission 2022/1326/FUL and 2023/1250/FUL off Greetham Inn Lane.

Conclusion
Site suitable for allocation but as a 2nd or 3rd choice

Site Information

ID
8042

Name of site
Five Counties Area 3, Greetham

SHELAA Reference
NEW1

Gross Site Area
1.95

Net Site Area
1.95 ga

Type of site
Greenfield

Current land use/character of site (Please mark all that apply)
Agriculture

Indicative Number of dwellings

Indicative Floor Space

Please indicate the approximate timescale for availability:
None

Location Map

Stage 1

Is site located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Larger Village, or capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement?
No

Comments: Relationship to settlement
GT and TS site therefore not excluded at this stage

Planning permission in place for housing which is not yet implemented in full and is included in the Five Year Land Supply Monitoring Report
No

Comments: Planning Permission

Is the site wholly or predominately within a SSSI or European Nature Conservation Site (SPA/RAMSAR)?
No

Comments: SSSI

499m – Greetham Meadows

Does the site wholly or predominately contain a Scheduled Monument?
No

Comments: Scheduled Monument
2090m – Manorial settlement, 127m north west of St Mary’s Church

Is residential site lying wholly or mostly (more than 50%) within Flood Zone 3.
No

Comments: Flood zone 3
Flood Zone 1

Is site excluded from further analysis?
No

Reasons for exclusion from further analysis

Stage 2a

SSSI Impact Risk Zones
GREEN = Not within an SSSI IRZ

Proximity to a Local Wildlife Site
AMBER = <50m

Proximity to a BAP priority habitat
GREEN = >50m

Biodiversity
36m – Greetham, Lay-by Hedgerow

Landscape sensitivity
n/a = site not covered

Landscape Sensitivity Comments
Site not covered by Landscape Sensitivity Report.

Proximity to a Registered Park or Garden
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a Scheduled Monument
GREEN = >50m

Proximity to a listed building
GREEN = >50m

Tree Preservation Orders
GREEN = Site does not intersect with TPO

Agricultural land quality
AMBER = Grade 3

Fluvial flood risk
GREEN = Flood risk zone 1

Surface water flood risk
AMBER = Areas of high or medium surface water flood risk is present in the site

Groundwater Source Protection Zones (SPZs)
AMBER = Within a Zone 2 or 3 SPZ

Open space
GREEN = No loss of public open space

Minerals
AMBER = Intersects with a Minerals Safeguarding Area

Employment site
GREEN = No loss of allocated employment site

Primary schools
3183m – Cottesmore Primary

Secondary schools
8176m – Casterton Business & Enterprise College (Casterton Campus)

Topography
None

Biodiversity – Local Designations
GREEN = Less significant or negligible impacts on Local Wildlife Sites, protected species and Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) priority habitats

Settlement Planned Limits of Development
RED = No relationship

Heritage Assets
GREEN = No impact on heritage asset or setting

Archaeology
None

Green Infrastructure
GREEN = Not a public open space/recreation facility - so no loss/impact

Important Open Space
GREEN = Not designated

Water Conservation and Management – Flood Risk
AMBER = Moderate flood risk or possible/potential risk to downstream locations.

Restoration and after use (Minerals sites only)

Waste Management (Minerals sites only)

Access
GREEN = No access concerns

Impact on wider road network
GREEN = No significant impact on the wider road network

Rights of way
GREEN = No public rights of way affected

Suitable?
Amber

Suitability (2a)
suitable for further assessment

Does the site pass the stage 2a screening process?
Yes

Stage 2b

Proximity to a Conservation Area
GREEN = >50m

Previously Developed Land
None

Topography
None.

Trees: Tree Officer Comments
None.

Biodiversity Study
None.

Ecology Designations: Principal Ecologist Comments
None.

Heritage: Conservation Officer Comments
None.

Archaeology: Principal Archaeologist Comments
None.

Landscape
None.

Flood Risk: LLFA Comments
None.

Environmental Health & Contamination: Environment Health Team Comments (if required)

Highways: Highway Officer Comments
The site abuts the existing travelling showpersons site and Greetham Road (B668). The existing access off Greetham Inn Lane, Greetham Inn Lane itself and the junction of Greetham Inn Lane are adequate to accommodate the level of traffic associated with this proposal. The LHA would not support however a new access on Greetham Road (B668). Therefore the LHA would support this site being allocated as an extension to the existing travelling showpersons site using the existing site access from Greetham Inn Lane.

Impact on wider road network: Highway Officer Comments
None

Parish Council Comments

Consultation responses

Availability

Acheivability- The build out rate assumption for the site is:
None

Overcoming constraints
Access only acceptable as an extension to the existing travelling showpersons site using the existing site access from Greetham Inn Lane. No access from Greetham Road (B668).

Surface water flood risk may require investigation and mitigation measures
Ecology mitigation measures may be necessary

Conclusion
Site suitable for extension of existing Travelling Show Person site

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.