H1.f Land between Meadow Lane

Object

Representation ID: 4847

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Valerie Porter

Totally unsuitable area as access to the housing would be dangerous as meadow lane is far too narrow and the access to busy A6121 would not cope with the extra cars. The land floods and is an archeological site. Ryhall does not have the infrastructure to accommodate this proposal, larger developments need to be concentrated on the outskirts of towns which have the infrastructure already in place

Object

Representation ID: 4913

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

Ryhall Parish Council strongly opposed to any development on this agricultural land, which I endorse.
It would contradict the National Planning Policy Framework and materially and negatively impact the identity of Ryhall as a rural village. Southward extension of the village of this magnitude would reduce the buffer with the northward expansion of Stamford [see the Stamford North Plan].
It would also reduce the green space between Ryhall and the neighbouring hamlet of Belmesthorpe to the detriment of each's identity. It would negatively impact existing residences in Meadow Lane and present safety problems accessing the Belmesthorpe Lane and A6121.

Object

Representation ID: 5585

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: 5908

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Laura Upson

The land for this proposed development is not acceptable multiple reasons. 1. the land floods and as we are currently seeing, the flooding events are getting are more common. Building this close to the watercourse will push flooding into the existing neighbourhoods through a change from earth to hardstanding. 2. the roads are not fit to cope with the additional cars generated by a development of this size. This includes the road leading to the bridge and access via Meadow Lane. 3. this land has been protected previously. 4. infill development only (in Ryhall) was approved by the parish council.

Object

Representation ID: 6061

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Tracey Miles

I object to this proposal as this is on a greenfield site. Adding 80 houses to a village of approx 600 houses would change the characteristics of the village. To also note :
Access is down a small residential cul de sac.
Impact on wildlife flora fauna.
Area is a flood plain as recently seen from the effects of storm henck.
There have been significant archaeological findings in this area.

We should be developing on brownfield sites rather than greenfield.

Object

Representation ID: 6440

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Adele Stainsby

Another loss of green open space.
Loss of prime agricultural land, threatening food security.
Increased traffic movements on an already busy road, with a dangerous junction.
Loss of wildlife habitat.
This area floods during rainy weather and will cause yet more flooding issues if built on.

Lack of infrastructure to support additional population is a concern. Only doctors surgery already oversubscribed!

Rutland County Council need to take this site out!

Object

Representation ID: 6481

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

Planning application for development on this site is already with RCC; it cannot be a reserve site. Ryhall Parish Council and the majority of Ryhall residents have strongly opposed this development. It would adversely the village's character by reducing the open countryside buffer with nearby Stamford which is set to extend to the county border as part of Lincolnshire's Stamford North Plan. If proceeded, its single access route will create adverse traffic movements blighting existing Meadow Lane residents, create emergency access difficulties and dangers on Belmesthorpe Lane. The local sewage works could not cope with its waste and surface drainage.

Object

Representation ID: 6498

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Paul Huddleston

This is part of an section that has twice been declared an Area of Local landscape Value: in 1995 and 2006. The reasons behind that decision are as valid as ever in 2024. The area is invaluable green space creating a buffer between development on the Rutland Way estate and Belmesthorpe Road and maintain a key separation for the villages of Ryhall and Belmesthorpe. The Government Inspector had stated the area is “fundamental to the character of the whole area comprising the two villages and the intervening open space”.

Object

Representation ID: 6513

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Linda Davies

Different house development numbers stated. Inaccurate information causes mistrust of information communicated and decision making by County Councillors.
Detrimental Impact on village residents due to Greenfield site loss; Irreparable loss of landscape / view to urbanisation, causation for mental well-being loss; wildlife freedom, habitat (+ stream), food resource loss; Use / accessibility for walkers, joggers, dog - walkers, riders loss; Traffic increase/ road accesses- hedgerow loss; increased danger to pedestrians; "rat-runs" traffic impediments/ delays.
Loss of food productive land.
Plan proposes 150 Brownfield (B) ; 250 Greenfield (G) + 650 Quarry Farm (G)+Reserves 629(G) sites! Unacceptable!

Object

Representation ID: 6642

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rick Wilson

I feel that this site is inappropriate due to its proximity to the river. Very recent flooding is evidence that this location is very likely to suffer in the future. It will also place extra burden on local traffic, both during the construction phase and when complete. The twin roundabouts nearby are a frequent accident site, due to the nature of the layout - the much-increased traffic levels at such a tricky junction will inevitably cause more. During recent land surveys for this plot, I believe that there were significant archaeological finds that alone should be sufficient to stop this.

Object

Representation ID: 6644

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew John Beamish

Yet another site proposed for development which swallows up more agricultural land, which I do not condone
It contradicts National Planning Policy Framework and materially and negatively impacts the identity of another rural rural village.
Southward extension of the village of this magnitude would reduce the buffer with the northward expansion of Stamford
How will Stamford let alone the village cope with this and Stamford North on resources such as Doctors, Schools and Roads.

Object

Representation ID: 6671

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Lesley Hayes

This land is not suitable for development because it will increase flooding in the immediate vicinity.
At this moment in time 3rd January 2024 this land is flooded. the site is just a field at the moment and rain is allowed to soak into the field, if 80 dwellings were to be constructed they in turn would become flooded as would the property in the immediate vicinity. There is also the River Gwash running near by which is likely to be subjected to flooding.

Object

Representation ID: 7016

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Chapman

This area is unsuitable for development due to the access issues to the housing. Meadow Lane is not wide enough to accept larger numbers of traffic and the impact on the main A6121 around the turning for Ryhall would be horrendous. Cars speed down the hill now and mini roundabouts would not be sufficient to control the extra traffic.Belmesthorpe Lane ( at the rear of the proposed devlopment ) is not suitable either as it is nowhere near wide enough to accept extra traffic.

The proposed land floods regularly now ( see photos attached) and is a flood plain for a reason. The land off Meadow Lane has been proposed & REFUSED many times previously and every time the flood plain has been the mitigating factor.

Currently Ryhall does not have the infrastructure to cope with this type of development and therefore any future developments need to be concentrated on the outskirts of Stamford instead of ruining our village life

Object

Representation ID: 7621

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

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.

Object

Representation ID: 7910

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

Reserve Site H1.f Meadow Lane, Belmesthorpe Road, Ryhall - Object
Greenfield Site, Archaeological and Flood Risk. NPPF 142/153

Ryhall Parish Council have already submitted a substantial objection to the development of this site. Furthermore, we understand an application for development on this land has already been submitted so we are at a loss to understand how it can be regarded as a ‘reserve’ site if it is already under consideration as an active proposal.