H1.h South of Glebe Road,North Luffenham

Object

Representation ID: 4708

Received: 11/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Simon Browning

Planning permission for this site has previously been rejected (2021/1378/AGP 23-11-21) for many reasons. In summary building would impact adversely on the appreciation of adjacent conservation area. Any building in this position would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the open countryside. The proposed agricultural building would have a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the countryside in this location and conservation area contrary to policies CS129, CS21, &CS22 of Rutland core strategy SP7, SP15 &SP20 Site Allocations & Policies Development Plan. This is RCC's own position and therefore should be adhere to.

Object

Representation ID: 4860

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Bernard Glick

Glebe Road North Luffenham
Planning for this site has previously been rejected (2021/1378/AGP 23-11-21) and would do more harm than good to the village because:
1. Building would
a) adversely impact appreciation of adjacent conservation area.
b) be visible from vantage points within the village and public footpath to the detriment of the character/appearance of the open countryside.
2. Existing access via narrow lane with tight bend having telephone/electricity poles.
3. Other options considered for sequential selection should include Edith Weston with existing plans/Digby Drive with safer access.
4. Limited amenities - no shop and primary school oversubscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 4861

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Bull

Previous planning for this site was rejected (2021/1378/AGP 23/11/21). This is adjacent to a conservation area and building would adversely impact on the village. The housing would be visible from adjacent footpaths and village and would not contribute to the beautiful open aspect. The road is narrow with a 90 degree bend, unsuitable for increased traffic. The village school is over-subscribed and there are no shops or local amenities within the village. Other local options should first be considered, for example Edith Weston with existing plans and Digby Drive which has safer access for vehicles.

Object

Representation ID: 4896

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Sally Fellows

I live at the above address and would like to make you aware of my strong objection to any potential planning for the field opposite my home. I am aware that this site has already received an objection to such a request (2021/1378/AGP 23-11-21).

We moved to our current home in 2022 and chose to live here precisely because of our house being situated in a beautiful village, in a conservation area with open views across the valley in front. We moved from Overstone Northampton to escape the large building projects that were starting to impact our home there. Building in Glebe Road would negatively impact this beautiful village and conservation area.

It is my experience that the road access to this site would also be totally inappropriate. It is very narrow - two cars can hardly pass as it is - and there are tight bends at both ends. Currently, we notice damage on a daily basis to the grass kerbs where vehicles find it difficult to pass and this would be made significantly worse were more cars to travel along this route. As pedestrians we have to walk along this road and there are no footpaths, so we are very aware of the dangers without adding further regular traffic (not to mention lorries).

There are limited amenities in North Luffenham and the primary school is oversubscribed. Parking around the school as parents drop off is already dangerous and difficult for the current number of residents without adding to this.

We are aware that there are possible plans for building in Edith Weston, which seems far more suitable, given the better road and amenities.

I hope that we can count on the Council's continued support in protecting our village.

Object

Representation ID: 4898

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Judy Cade

Planning for this site has previously been rejected (2021/1378/AGP 23-11-21) and would do more harm than good to the village because:
1. Building would
a) adversely impact appreciation of adjacent conservation area.
b) be visible from vantage points within the village and public footpath to the detriment of the character/appearance of the open countryside.
2. Existing access via narrow lane with tight bend having telephone/electricity poles.
3. Other options considered for sequential selection should include Edith Weston with existing plans/Digby Drive with safer access.
4. Limited amenities - no shop and primary school oversubscribed.

Object

Representation ID: 5439

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Catherine McCreesh

* Glebe Road is narrow not easily accessible
* Development would be visible from vantage points within the village to the detriment of the appearance of the open countryside
*Previous planning application rejected
*Limited amenities in village
*Noise and pollution from proposed traffic, heavy plant destroying grass verges and causing damage to stone walls
* Nature conservation and the impact on protected species and habitats
*Impact on highway safety
*Other options should be considered for selection - Digby drive (safer access) - Edith Weston with existing plans

Object

Representation ID: 6410

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

There are better brownfield sites within North Luffenham which could be developed. Drainage south of Glebe road is already an issue without putting concrete etc in a field. Glebe road is also a narrow lane not best suited to more traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 6534

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

We support the proposed Reserve Housing Allocation for land to the south of Glebe Road, North Luffenham. We can confirm that the land is available and that a high quality , sustainable development of around ten dwellings can be delivered within five years of the adoption of the new Rutland County Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6552

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Land to the South of Glebe Road, North Luffenham, should be allocated. The mechanism for releasing reserve housing allocations should be different.

Object

Representation ID: 6581

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Richard Evans

Much of Glebe Rd is only single track including a 90 degree bend, including narrow adjoining roads
Significant harm to the character of the village including conservation area and views into the village from the south and across the valley
Loss of important green space
No demonstrable housing need in this village and even if there was proven need, there are more suitable sites in the village with less harm to the character eg Digby Drive. At the very least a sequential test should be undertaken and housing needs survey.

Object

Representation ID: 7721

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

An application for an agricultural building to store forage for animals grazing the adjacent pasture and storage of agricultural machinery was refused permission at reserve site H1h - Land South of Glebe Road, North Luffenham on 21 December 2021 (reference: 2021/1378/AGP). The application was refused due to its scale, materials and location in such a prominent location which would impact adversely on the appreciation of the adjacent conservation area and be visible from vantage points from within the village and from the adjacent public footpath, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the open countryside.