H1.11 Land off cemetery Road, Manston

Object

Representation ID: 4911

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The Table no.4 on page 82 states 153 houses are needed as a minimum after allowing for commitments & competitions yet this section on the contribution required from Larger Villages confusingly states 184 houses. This is a discrepancy of 31. This means that the Section 18 Consultation is invalid as the public are being asked to agree to inaccurate and contradictory information. What are we being asked to agree to 153 or 184?

Object

Representation ID: 5580

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, provide biodiversity, 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: 5795

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jill Booth

I would point out that Manton does not fit the criteria for 'larger village', having no facilities other that the Horse and Jockey pub. I therefore strongly object to the proposal to build extra houses on Cemetery Lane. This is a greenfield area and should remain so. Access to the site would also prove troublesome.

Object

Representation ID: 6166

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roger Quemby

The proposed development, would significantly increase the flow of traffic along and in and out of Cemetery Road, which is a narrow, lane extensively, used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists to access Rutland Water on the designated cycle path. This is a recognised tourist attraction bringing people into the area. The slope of the road allows cyclists of all ages to travel at significant speed down the hill and vehicular access (which is currently extremely low) would present a serious risk of collision and injury.

Object

Representation ID: 6367

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Ian Yallop

Manton is a designated a smaller service centre without facilities and additional development is inappropriate to the scale of the village.

Development would have a detrimental impact on the setting of the adjacent listed buildings, particularly Hill House (directly east of the proposed site).

Traffic conflicts and safety are a key issue with Cemetry Lane extensively used by cyclists and walkers.

Visual impact is a major concern as development on the north-western corner of Manton would create a coarser urban grain. Currently this area is characterised by larger, historic properties, set in an open landscape aspect.

Object

Representation ID: 6463

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

The map accessed through the Regulation 18 consultation website for this site is misleading. It appears to show that the site is within the PLD for Manton but in fact the PLD runs South of the site: the report on PLD's in the evidence base shows the existing PLD running south of site H1.11 (ie excluding the site) and does not make any recommendations for change. MPC requests that map within (or accessed by) the Regulation 18 Plan be corrected or the reason for the disparity between the evidence base and the Plan explained.


MPC objects to the inclusion of this site:
1 This is a greenfield site is outside the village PLD shown in the evidence base with no proposal for change.
2 Access to the site is difficult being from narrow rural lanes crossing the Rutland Water Circular track.
3 Development of the site would be detrimental to both the character of the village and the rural character of the Rutland Water multi-use track at this point.
4 Manton is a village with few facilities where sustainable development would not be possible.

Support

Representation ID: 6565

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Richard Evans

The housing need in villages like Manton is generally overlooked and this site makes sense in terms of rounding off the settlement boundary with no adverse harm to character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 6571

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Susan Shepherd

From every aspect this proposed development of 10 dwellings on this site seems inappropriate. The rationale for Manton to be defined as a larger village is not clear, this is a greenfield site overlooking the nature reserve , the increased traffic on the cycle route on Cemetery lane would be a safety hazard, and the location is surrounded by traditional buildings of a historic nature.

Object

Representation ID: 6901

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Richard Camp

The plan to develop 10 dwellings on the site appears to be an error or, if not, completely unrealistic. I have discussed this with the landowner. He indicates that the development of 10 dwellings here is a concept inserted in the Plan by Rutland County Council. He states that his aim is to develop around 3 dwellings on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 7290

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Gooding

Access to the site needs further consideration due to the restricted width and use of Cemetery Lane and St Mary’s Road by the pub.

Object

Representation ID: 7421

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr and Mrs . Triggel

Agent: Freeths LLP

- Draft Allocation H1.11 – Sites proposed for residential development: The draft allocation of ‘Land off Cemetery Road, Manton for up to 10 dwellings. The site is unsuitable for allocation, both in respect of a sustainable approach to the spatial strategy and site-specific sensitivity in terms of landscape, heritage and access constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 7605

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Non-designated heritage asset on site, further
assessment required

Object

Representation ID: 7716

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

This site has been allocated with an indicative capacity of 9 dwellings. However, the assessment contains unanswered questions that make the site undeliverable in its current form.

The Technical Consultation section of the assessment reveals that "full species records have not been completed" and a "consultation with the Conservation Officer has not been undertaken." Despite these gaps, the report acknowledges that the site is located within the Manton Conservation Area and notes the presence of several listed buildings in the vicinity of the site.

Further, in relation to access, the LHA confirm that, should a planning application come forwards on the site, it is unlikely to be supported by highways.

Despite the failure to carry out key ecological searches, consult the Conservation Officer and highways objecting to the proposed access, the site remains an allocation for 9 dwellings.

Conclusion: Unsuitable due to ecological, heritage and highways issues.