H1.1 Tim Norton site

Support

Representation ID: 4515

Received: 15/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Hartley

Redevelopment of brownfield sites is to be commended and encouraged, especially when they are surrounded by residential housing already. This is far preferable to constant development of greenfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 4760

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nick Bryant

The proposed development at Tim Norton site is a concern due to the very obvious traffic issues. Exiting Long Row into Cold Overton Road is tricky at best especially when the crossing barriers are either down (traffic queued blocking exit from Long Row) or when the barriers have just lifted, too much traffic to exit Long Row. The site is also too close to the junction with CO Road to allow for safe entry/access into the site.

Support

Representation ID: 4963

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Ann Lewis

This site, being brownfield, is suitable for sensitive development. The level crossing and surrounding roads are a major problem which would be exacerbated by more cars but the type of development need not be housing. There could be businesses as there are further along Long Row. This would provide much needed employment for people living in Oakham. This should be actively encouraged by Town and County Council.

Support

Representation ID: 5478

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

I am surprised that only 19 dwellings are allocated. I would have thought that this is an ideal site for low rise 1 & 2 bed starter flats, easy access to transport for commuting, parking along the railway at the rear. Whilst improvements do need to be made to the Cold Overton road junction, I suspect that the overall traffic levels will reduce as there will not be constant traffic to Tim Norton.
And chop that ridiculous tree down!

Support

Representation ID: 5577

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Marian Markham

Redevelopment of town brownfield sites excellent.

Support

Representation ID: 5738

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jim Atack

Excellent opportunity for brownfield development. Ideal location for 50 social housing units made to PassivHaus standards

Support

Representation ID: 5820

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

The use of this brownfield site is to be encouraged, 19 houses seems on the low side, careful consideration should be given to access which could be an opportunity to remodel the existing junction of Coldoverton road

Support

Representation ID: 6324

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support this, but consideration should be given to traffic safety as this is a near-miss spot (particularly turning left from Cold Overton Road into Long Row).

Support

Representation ID: 6380

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Bill Deayton

An essential addition to this site given it's proximity to the train line would be acoustic fencing.

Support

Representation ID: 6400

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

Bringing housing into the town rather than expanding out seems sensible

Object

Representation ID: 6471

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Martin Lester

This site to the immediate southwest of the main level crossing is totally wrong due to the amount of traffic that queues in Cold Overton Road, West Road and Long Row.
The number of freight trains through Oakham are planned to increase on a yearly basis making this unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 6484

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Ramsay

I object to adding more traffic to an already difficult junction to navigate when the crossing barriers are down. It is almost impossible to exit Long Row / West Road to join Cold Overton Road at these times, yes we have the bypass but try getting out of one of those roads to try and turn left onto Barleythorpe Road to actually access it. Add to this traffic from Brooke Road development that try to bypass the blocked Brooke road crossing it will just add to the misery of people living on the "wrong side" of Oakham.

Object

Representation ID: 6554

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Gray

The access to railway crossing via Coldoverton Rd is already a major problem for anyone trying to access the town , any development feeding into Coldoverton Rd will only increase the problem. The problem with access to the crossing should be redressed before any future development on this side of the town is permitted.d

Object

Representation ID: 6792

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Jennifer Brett

I am very much against the proposals for house building on the Tim Norton site. Any additional housing on this side of town will exacerbate the huge difficulties already occuring at the railway crossing.
The increases in goods trains, which are happening now and in the future, are resulting in long waits at both crossings. Large queues build up, adding to the risks that Network Rail have already identified. Because of the traffic layout at the bottom of Cold Overton Road, it only requires about five vehicles to be queuing to travel into town, to make it impossible for anyone wishing to turn left onto the Melton Road. Residents on this side of Oakham are effectively already unable to travel to anywhere significant without making allowances for at least a ten minute delay. For much of the day they will effectively be 'trapped'. They have no easy access to the by-pass.
On the Tim Norton site, any access will presumably have to be onto Long Row, resulting in queues when there is a train due, in addition to the difficulties already experienced in getting out onto Cold Overton Road. Traffic may even choose to take the alternative route along West Road, currently a 20mph limit with parked cars.

Object

Representation ID: 6961

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The Site Allocations Assessment records that the site has access and parking concerns, but does not elaborate further. Furthermore, the site is located adjacent and clearly visible from Oakham’s conservation area and it is clear from the assessment that no heritage expertise have informed this site’s selection for a draft allocation. Though no mention is made of it within the Site allocations Assessment, the site is also located adjacent to a Grade II* listed building to the east and a Grade II listed building to the north. There has been no judgement as to whether the heritage constraints will impact upon site capacity or similarly make its development unacceptable. The assessment records the heritage impacts of the site as “Red” indicating a “significantadverse impact” that “cannot be mitigated.” The Environmental Health Officer identifies that contamination is likely and it is unclear from the assessment the extent for this and whether it is capable of being viably remediated. Similarly, no mention is made of the site’s existing use which is for employment purposes and whether the loss of such a use in a sustainable location to housing development is desirable noting the loss of jobs and value added to the local economy. Will the existing use, for example, relocate to premises nearby? In addition, the assessment notes that the site is available “immediately.” It is difficult to see this could be the case given that the site hosts an existing and ongoing commercial enterprise.

Object

Representation ID: 7147

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Jacqueline Towl

Any development on Long Row should be without any provision for cars at all. Secure cycle/ motor wheelchair storage would be much better. Public transport by train or bus is very close at hand.
I believe it is to be on Tim Norton's land, if it is the old buildings on Cold Overton Road/ Long Row, it would tidy it all up, but any motor vehicles (Fuel or Electric), would be a definite NO NO.
The junction of Long Row with Cold Overton Road is a pinch point as are all of the junctions in this area when one or more trains are due. We have very long freight trains and the crossing can be closed for more than 10 minutes. Vehicles trying to use the by pass cannot access Barleythorpe road to get onto the bypass. This all very much needs a yellow box painting on it allow for left hand turning.

Object

Representation ID: 7330

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The Site Allocations Assessment records that the site has access and parking concerns, but does not elaborate further. Furthermore, the site is located adjacent and clearly visible from Oakham’s conservation area and it is clear from the assessment that no heritage expertise have informed this site’s selection for a draft allocation.
Though no mention is made of it within the Site allocations Assessment, the site is also located adjacent to a Grade II* listed building to the east and a Grade II listed building to the north. There has been no judgement as to whether the heritage constraints will impact upon site capacity or similarly make its development unacceptable. The assessment nonetheless records the heritage impacts of developing the site site as “Red” indicating a “significant adverse impact” that “cannot be mitigated.”
The Environmental Health Officer identifies that contamination is likely and it is unclear from the assessment the extent for this and whether it is capable of being viably remediated.

Object

Representation ID: 7712

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

This site provides an indicative capacity of 19 dwellings and lies on the western side of the railway line that dissects Oakham. If allocated, this would further reduce any capacity at the proposed allocation on Brooke Road, Oakham.

The assessment of this site underscores inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies present in the overall site assessments. Notably, for this site, the assessment states that there are "no designated heritage assets on site or within the vicinity of the site."

This conclusion overlooks significant heritage assets in close proximity to the site. The Grade II Listed Oakham Level Crossing Footbridge is directly adjacent to the site's northern boundary, and the Grade II* Listed Hayne House is located directly opposite the site to the east. Additionally, the Grade II Listed Oakham Level Crossing Signal Box is situated merely 20 meters to the north of the site.

Conclusion: The site is unsuitable as the heritage implications of the proposed allocation have not been properly considered or assessed.

Object

Representation ID: 8011

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr PJRS Hill and Pikerace Limited

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

The Site Allocations Assessment records that the site has
access and parking concerns, but does not elaborate further. Furthermore, the site is located adjacent and clearly visible from Oakham’s conservation area and it is clear from the assessment that no heritage expertise has informed this site’s selection for a draft allocation.

Though no mention is made of it within the Site allocations Assessment, the site is also located adjacent to a Grade II* listed building to the east and a Grade II listed building to the north. There has been no judgement as to whether the heritage constraints will impact upon site capacity or similarly make its development unacceptable. The assessment nonetheless records the heritage impacts of developing the site as “Red” indicating a
“significant adverse impact” that “cannot be mitigated.”
The Environmental Health Officer identifies that contamination is likely and it is unclear from the assessment the extent for this and whether it is capable of being viably remediated.

Similarly, no mention is made of the site’s existing use which is for employment purposes and whether the loss of such a use in a sustainable location to housing development is desirable noting the loss of jobs and value added to the local economy.

In addition, the assessment notes that the site is available “immediately.” It is difficult to see this could be the case given that the site hosts an existing and ongoing commercial enterprise. It is also considered that there may be access issues associated with intervening third-party land that preclude development taking place unless resolved.

Object

Representation ID: 8019

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Messrs J, P & P Turner; Scott & Scott (Ayston) Limited; Peterborough Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

The Site Allocations Assessment records that the site has access and parking concerns.

The site is located adjacent and clearly visible from Oakham’s Conservation Area. The site is also located adjacent to a Grade II* listed building to the east and a Grade II listed building to the north. There has been no judgement as to whether the heritage constraints will impact upon site capacity or similarly make its development unacceptable despite recording “Red” indicating a “significant adverse impact” that “cannot be mitigated.”

The EHO identifies that contamination is likely. It is unclear from the assessment the extent for this and whether it is capable of being viably remediated.

Is the loss of employment land desirable noting the loss of jobs and value added to the local economy. Will the existing use relocate to premises nearby?

The assessment notes that the site is available “immediately.” Given that the site hosts an existing and ongoing commercial enterprise, how is this so? It is also considered that there may be access issues associated with intervening third-party land that preclude development taking place unless resolved.