H1.3 Land south of Stamford Road

Object

Representation ID: 4514

Received: 15/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Hartley

This land is not suitable for development, bordering a conservation area and providing important clear open space with views of Rutland Water. Unrestricted development in Oakham in recent years has filled in many of these types of greenfield agricultural spaces which make Rutland a special place to live and work. This is one of the few remaining such spaces and should be protected. Too much greenfield land is being developed. There are also serious highway and traffic capacity/ safety concerns with this number of houses accessing Stamford Road and Burley Park Way.

Object

Representation ID: 4518

Received: 21/11/2023

Respondent: Edwina King

This is a greenfield site used for grazing. It is on the edge of a Heritage site, is sensitive in terms of impact on designated heritage assets and has protected trees. The development would be reduced by the Cordon Sanitaire in place for the Sewage Treatment Works. It slopes away at the back of the site reducing the development. It is in full view from Burley on the Hill another Heritage site.

The extra traffic going down Stamford Road would have negative impact on the town, we would lose one of the last green fields entering Oakham.

Object

Representation ID: 4767

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Mark Hallam

We were under the impression that the current owners of the land, based in Bristol, where 66 houses have been proposed, initially stated that they had no intention to build houses on this site.

Whilst writing, it would be helpful if the infrastructure of Oakham and Rutland ie doctors, schools, parking etc could be satisfied prior to any further increase in population for the area.

Object

Representation ID: 4771

Received: 15/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Harrison

This 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.

The first hints of History and Heritage are trees of Catmose House Estate visible on approach this side of the road.

Special consideration should be preserving elements making positive contributions revealing significance of Oakham’s Heritage.

Special attention is required for desirability of preserving/enhancing character/appearance of the area expressed in the NPPF.

Would development here make positive contributions or are there more suitable sites for advisory Government targets? This site failed consultation criteria historically.

Object

Representation ID: 5334

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Cowgill

Any development would negatively impact the first views of Oakham when approaching from the east and directly abut a designated Conservation Area.
Furthermore, any development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of this area and certainly would have a general adverse impact on the surrounding townscape and landscape character of this important and historic part of Oakham. It therefore would not be in accordance with the criteria detailed in statement 3 of section 6.2 of the Adopted Interim Position Statement for Housing Development issued by Rutland County Council in January 2023.

Object

Representation ID: 5579

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Marian Markham

Rutland County Council must stop facilitating via Local Plan the default easy options of building on Greenfield land. These are food production fields, carbon sinks as soil which can hold organic matter and also water to help retard flooding. How does allocation of a Greenfield site for building on square with the rest of the Local Plan policies on carbon sinks, flooding etc?

Object

Representation ID: 5647

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Edwina King

I have objected previously but another reason for objecting is seeing the field today full of sheep grazing should not be destroyed for development when we have the large development at the co-op of 286 houses on the reserve list. This should have been put forward first and leave land which is already serving a good purpose.

Object

Representation ID: 5733

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Robert Guthrie

Development on this site has correctly been excluded from all previous local plans.
The development on it would significantly detract from, and be totally out of character with, probably the most attractive entrance to the town, characterised by the Conservation area of the Catmose Estate and Stamford Road.
Creating the most positive and attractive view for potential visitors to shops and facilities in the town centre benefits all shops, businesses and residents.
Further considerations include the cordon sanitaire surrounding the water treatment plan, traffic flow issues and the existence of numerous sites within Rutland with minimal contra indications for development.

Object

Representation ID: 5822

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Greenfield site, development should be avoided.

Object

Representation ID: 5915

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs LOUISE BARNETT

This parcel of land has never been included in any previous plans
The development of this land will have a negative impact on the approach to the historic town of Oakham - an issue that is frequently used by our planners to reject proposed developments. It is the main approach to Oakham for visitors and is one of the very few green field sites left surrounding Oakham Town Centre
The infrastructure is unable to cope with any additional housing without major financial investment

Object

Representation ID: 6035

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Kevin Perrett

Regardless of any government housing targets, Rutland Infrastructure and Support services should be expanded prior to housing developments.
It’s outside the Settlement boundaries proposed in the Final PLD document.
All Brownfield sites should be used first.
It is bordering a Conservation area causing an adverse impact on trees and wildlife therein.
66 homes is an overly dense housing development, not in keeping with surrounding established residential housing in this area.
Oakham is a historic rural market town, and the first view should not be a housing estate, it doesn’t give the impression the town deserves. Keep the sheep!

Support

Representation ID: 6325

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

It will be a shame to lose this site, but I think it is appropriate for development as within the Oakham bounds and convenient to walk into town for amenities (without building in further car-dependent development contributing to Oakham congestion and pollution).

Object

Representation ID: 6403

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

There seems to be too much expansion of Oakham to the south. Areas there tend to flood

Support

Representation ID: 6794

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Jennifer Brett

There is a large area of land bordered by the bypass and Stamford Road which, if built on, would have direct access to the by-pass, as does all the new building on that side of town.

Object

Representation ID: 7357

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The site area has been reduced from 2.7ha to 2.19ha in the north-eastern corner to account for a cordon sanitaire from the Oakham Sewage Treatment Works.

Correspondence received from Anglian Water dated 8 October 2020 confirms that the 350m cordon sanitaire was implemented based on the Environment Agency's H4 guidance issued in 2012. This guidance has however now been superseded by the Institute of Air Quality Management which adjusted the buffers for smaller Sewage Treatment Works. The correspondence with Anglian Water confirms that a 250m cordon sanitaire would suffice for the Oakham Sewage Treatment Works and therefore an updated buffer based on the latest guidance would no longer impact the developable area for ‘Land south of Stamford Road’.

It is requested that Policy H1 and Planned Limits of Development on the Interactive Policy Map is amended to reflect the original site area of 2.7ha and the policy text is adjusted to include the delivery a minimum of 80 dwellings at the site.

Support

Representation ID: 7375

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The SMV are supportive of this allocation and would like to work closely with the Council in progressing the Local Plan to secure an allocation and subsequently delivering this site.

Please see suggested alterations to the site area in rep 7357.

Object

Representation ID: 7600

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Heritage assessment required in relation to Conservation
Area at gateway to the town.

Object

Representation ID: 7722

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

The site assessment, scoring and overall housing numbers relating to this site are wholly inconsistent.

The site is allocated for 66 dwellings, this is based on the site area (minus cordon sanitaire) being 2.19 hectares and a predicted density of 30 dwellings per hectare.

An allocation for 66 dwellings is inappropriate in this location based on the findings within the assessment on “Local Ecology Designations”, “Heritage” and “Flood Risk”.

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.

Conclusion: The proposed allocation capacity is wholly unrealistic. Due to site constraints, the site is unlikely to deliver any more than 39 dwellings.