H1.a Land North of Mill Lane Cottesmore

Object

Representation ID: 4530

Received: 30/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Neil Wills

This site was recently rejected following public consultation as being unsuitable for Cottesmore. The objections made, still apply. Why has this site been shown as still being an option. Pay attention to your council tax payers and residents.

Object

Representation ID: 4666

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs J Wills

This has only recently been rejected. Why is this again rearing its ugly head?
Too many houses with a dangerous access point on a narrow bend opposite the primary school. Would not be integrated with the rest of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 4668

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Field

Site outside PLD and as Local Plan states…….
* small scale development is the priority in our villages, the majority in larger villages are small sites under 30 homes - this is 90!
* priority given to brownfield sites, this is greenfield
*too large to be served by present infrastructure, doctors surgeries already overwhelmed, school numbers doubled, increase in traffic on adjoining roads.
* using this site is in no way ‘making a positive impact visually on the appearance and character of the county’ or ‘protecting and enhancing nature and heritage assets’ both quoted from the Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 4991

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

As set out in response to Policies SS1 and SS3, RCC should allocate the most suitable of the reserve sites within the larger settlements that have been identified in the LPPO. That includes Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore (Reserve Site H1.a), which is a suitable development site in the most sustainable larger village settlement, as reflected in RCC’s proposal to reserve the site for future development. WDH would appreciate the opportunity to work with RCC to discuss the opportunities for the residential development of the site in the forthcoming plan period to address the need for additional housing.

Object

Representation ID: 5249

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Neil Duerden

This plan for developing a site was presented to the residents of Cottesmore in 2023 and was rejected due to many factors, all of which still apply. I therefore do not understand why the proposal is still in the overall plan for Rutland, even though it is a reserve site.
I feel that any building development in Cottesmore will need the addition of infrastructure such as schools, medical facilities and road systems.

Object

Representation ID: 5250

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sue Holden

Thisis a resubmission of a plan for 90 houses on Mill Lane in Cottesmore. My reasons for objecting are:
The planned entrance is opposite the entrance of St Nicholas’ primary school. Safety of children will be compromised.
90 extra houses will mean at least 100 extra vehicles with associated congestion and air pollution.
Infrastructure will be overloaded, local surgeries are currently not accepting new patients. Local secondary schools already experience waiting lists. Dentists are struggling to cope, no NHS dentists available locally.
The field is often waterlogged, building on it will cause flooding elsewhere.
Public transport is limited.

Object

Representation ID: 5282

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Tracey Chadwick

The definition of a reserve site is ambiguous and something that is not clearly explained in the plan.
The site was rejected in April 23 on the following grounds which still stand today:
Development is in open countryside and does not meet exceptional reasons for development (Policy CS4 and SP6)
Adverse impact on landscape and settlement character (Policy CS19 and SP15)
During deliberation, the planning committee concluded that a site of 20-30 dwellings would represent a more organic growth. With Kendrew Barracks expanding a smaller site located within the PLD would be more appropriate, for example, Harrier Close.

Object

Representation ID: 5332

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Barker

This site was rejected by Rutland planning committee in 2023 due to the poor planning application of the developers, but also down to the number of houses proposed, 90. The flooding of the site is a major concern as is the entrance and exit to the proposed site which is opposite to the primary school. The amount of houses proposed yet again( even though it is on the reserved list) will have a great impact of the village infrastructure. This site is outside of planning boundary. A smaller site located else where in the village would be more suitable.

Object

Representation ID: 5337

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Mary Cate

Access is opposite school and is not safe
Too many dwellings for the village
Infrastructure in village will struggle to support this large development especially as the camp is expanding and given the sites already allocated

Object

Representation ID: 5442

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Mitchell

The size of this development is not appropriate for the size of the village and does not fit with the village plan. There are serious access concerns drainage is already an issue around mill lane. There are other site off rogues lanes which are more suitable

Object

Representation ID: 5444

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Mitchell

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

Object

Representation ID: 5448

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Mitchell

It's not clear to me what a reserve site is.

Object

Representation ID: 5449

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Mitchell

No development of this size should be considered without increasing the provision of services such as doctors, schooling and buses.

Object

Representation ID: 5450

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Mitchell

Safety concerns due to the proximity of the cess road to the school still remain a real concern which needs to be properly assessed over a longer period to be truly appreciated

Object

Representation ID: 5544

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Laidlerf

A small development 20-30 houses, not 90! Sites on Rogues Lane is a better choice.
This greenfield site should not be used instead of brownfield sites. Stop building on our countryside.
Ninety homes is too large considering present inadequate infrastructure, surgeries already overwhelmed, school numbers have increased, increase of traffic along local roads.
This site has been turn down for reasons including the access being dangerously close to the overcrowded school.
This site would not ‘make a positive impact visually on the appearance and character of the county’ or ‘protecting and enhancing nature and heritage assets’ quoted from the LocalPlan.

Support

Representation ID: 5586

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Strutt & Parker (on behalf of Exton Estate)

Agent: Strutt & Parker

RCC should allocate the most suitable of the reserve sites within the larger settlements that have been identified in the LPPO, including Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore (Reserve Site H1.a), which is a suitable development site in the most sustainable larger village settlement, as reflected in RCC’s proposal to reserve the site for future development.

Object

Representation ID: 5685

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Joanne Mills

Land is a green field site which lies outside the PLD. The site is in open countryside and does not meet exceptional reasons for developement therefore contrary to Policy CS4 and SP6. Previous planning application (April 2023) rejected due to the size of the development (93 homes). Proposed site is also contrary to the neighbourhood plan 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. It would also have an adverse impact on the landscape & settlement character of Cottesmore.

Object

Representation ID: 5728

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Hart

the term 'Reserve site ' is not clearly explained.
Planning permission for this site was unanimously rejected in April 23
Development is in open countryside and does not meet exceptional reasons for development (Policy CS4 and SP6)
Adverse impact on landscape and settlement character (Policy CS19 and SP15)
the planning committee concluded that a site of 20-30 dwellings would represent a more acceptabl growth. With Kendrew Barracks expanding a smaller site located within the PLD would be more appropriate, for example, Rouges lane or Harrier Close.

Object

Representation ID: 5773

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr J Robinson

I object to the proposed "reserve" site at Mill Lane Cottesmore as it is outside the PLD and is a greenfield site. Recent development application in April 2023 was rejected which I continue to support the outcome from RCC. The site would also have a detrimental impact on the open countryside therefore contrary to Policy CS4 and SP6.

Object

Representation ID: 5883

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Clive Justice

Entrance to development opposite primary school is inappropriate

Development too large for the village

School already oversubscribed. Lack of infrastructure to support such a large development ie NHS doctors and dentists

Original proposals for housing lacked Net zero technologies ie Solar, air pumps and sufficient car charging points

Endangered species including curlews are regularly observed on the proposed site

Object

Representation ID: 5916

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Lynn Wigginton

What exactly is meant by "A reserve site?"
The plan only accessible to people with internet access is not very inclusive and at a time of year that is vert busy for people
The approach to the village will have a detrimental impact on the character and not in keeping
Kendrew Barracks is currently growing and adding to the population of the village
A greenfield site should not be built on
In summary I object to COT 15 being considered as part of the local pan

Object

Representation ID: 5925

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Alan Wigginton

All the recent objections still apply, it should not be considered. Far too many houses in an area close to a busy school on a narrow bend that has issues with traffic and parking. Small scale developments to blend in organically such as Harrier Close or Rogues Lane. Infrastructure overloaded, schools, drs, dentists already struggling to cope. This is a greenfield site that constantly floods, as does Mill Lane which is a real problem. the site is outside the PLD. The size would be a carbuncle on the approach to the village and not in keeping!

Object

Representation ID: 5945

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Cilla Shoupe

The location of the site is inappropriate as it is directly opposite a primary school and the amount of additional traffic would be hazardous and I have concerns about a blind corner near the site entrance. It is a greenfield site and is located outside the planned limits of development. Full planning permission was rejected in April 23 due to inappropriate size for the village, outside the PLD and having detrimental impact on nearby residents. This is still the case. A more appropriate site should be used for development in Cottesmore such as Rogues Lane or Harrier Close.

Object

Representation ID: 6000

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Chadwick

The same site recently had planning permission rejected as the planning officers concluded it was an inappropriate size and location for growth in Cottesmore. It is located directly opposite primary school which is already busy with traffic at key times. The site is outside of the PLD and will significantly add to the population of the village which is already growing due to expansion at Kendrew Barracks. There are limitless employment opportunity, meaning more people needing to commute to work by car as there are poor public transport link. A more suitable site such as Harrier Close should be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 6005

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jasen Barker

This is a greenfield site. This site has been rejected before by the Rutland planning committee last year due to the number of housing proposed. The village cannot cope with that amount of housing. The infrastructure of the village cannot cope. Its ridiculous that this site should be considered again due the amount of objections of the village residences over the years. Surely this should be taken note of. The site is unsuitable due to the location of it being opposite the local primary school and how narrow the road is on mill lane to accommodate large amount of traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 6512

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Martin Copeman

Application already declined in 2023 for several reasons. A brownfield site should not be considered for environmental reasons. Moreover, the village infrastructure simply cannot support such a large development. Dangerous Mill Lane site access, road safety, drainage/increasing flooding, poor public transport, primary school oversubscribed remain key objections. All the numerous previous objections still apply. Frankly, it beggars belief that this site is included in the draft plan even for supposed reserve allocation, having already had planning permission recently refused. Other local sites such as extending Harrier Close or the likes of Ashwell Prison site would be far more appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 6544

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Martin Copeman

My objection only just submitted read, "A brownfield site should not be considered for environmental reasons"....this of course is a typo in my haste to submit and should have stated " A GREENFIELD site".

Object

Representation ID: 6627

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Julia Copeman

One has to question why this greenfield site is included in the plan at all, planning permission having been refused for 90 William Davis Homes just months ago. All of the objections plus the several reasons for refusal still apply. A 90+ housing estate is extremely excessive and would almost triple the village population adding further to the strains on the inadequate village storm drains/sewerage, heavy traffic/road safety, especially with dangerous site access around the primary school (fully subscribed!) and the Mill Lane/B668 junction. More appropriate sites for much smaller developments/in-fill are possible in the village and immediate locality.

Object

Representation ID: 6965

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore has been identified as a reserve site for 90 dwellings. This is in spite of the fact proposed development of this site for around this number was refused planning permission in April 2023 for seven separate reasons. Amongst the concerns raised, was 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.

Identification of this site as a reserve site for 90 dwellings is therefore not well-founded, given that it is unlikely to be able to support this scale of development without generating a materially adverse impact.

Object

Representation ID: 7333

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Proposed development of this site for 93 dwellings was 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. Identification of this site as a reserve site for 90 dwellings is therefore not well-founded, given that it is unlikely to be able to support this scale of development without generating a materially adverse impact.
This proposed Reserve Site is inappropriate both in terms of scale for the settlement of Cottesmore and for the reasons given by the Council less than a year ago for refusing the grant planning permission why a planning application.