H10.3 Seaton Road, Uppingham

Object

Representation ID: 4791

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Michael Reid

We would oppose a Travellers Site in Uppingham. Travellers Sites are normally placed in the Countryside separated from settled communities. There are good reasons on all sides for this. The Travellers prefer it too.

This very unwise proposal is to place a site within the environs of this small town and this is a recipe for long term problems which would be avoided with a more suitable site.

The argument that there might be available land is weak - there is no shortage of alternative, more rural, sites in the County.

Object

Representation ID: 4792

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Samantha Hathaway

Uppingham, being a small community is not suitable for a gypsy or traveller site, particularly backing up against residential housing, with limited access. -----Removed by the Council-----

Object

Representation ID: 4793

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Edd Moore

This site is totally inappropriate for a traveller site. The access would cause traffic concerns, it will devalue our property and many others in the local area, and we don’t have the infrastructure ----Removed by the Council---- to manage this type of development. The location is a wildlife haven which would also be lost.

Object

Representation ID: 4794

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Emma O'Brien

---Removed by the Council---
The site is unsuitable as there is poor access. There is no pavement and it is a blind bend.
The site is currently a haven for wildlife. This would be lost if the development was allowed to take place.
On a personal note I believe it would devalue my property.

Object

Representation ID: 4803

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Steven Matthews

Proposed site for traveller's on Seaton Road.
I strongly object to any proposal for traveller site so close to residential housing in Uppingham
----Removed by the Council----. I also own three other houses in Uppingham providing much needed private rental accommodation all of which will be impacted

Object

Representation ID: 4806

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr James Sanderson

This site is simply not suitable, adding another junction on seaton road is ludicrous as the road is already narrow at the top of the hill by the cricket fields and has 3 junctions in close proximity at the bottom of the hill.
I have concerns that if the site goes ahead the additional hard standing will cause issues. During heavy rainfall seaton road and ash close often have rivers of water flowing down hill . Leading to flooding at the bottom of the hill and bottom of ash close.
I believe better suited larger sites could be found locally

Object

Representation ID: 4807

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Natasha Muller

Putting a site for travellers in the middle of a residential area is ridiculous. The disruption to residents in making the land viable will be horrendous let alone once the site is occupied, the residents do not want this at all. Access to the site will hold traffic up, lorries and such travelling up and down whilst the site is prepared. Seaton Road has enough traffic going up and down it and a lot of those not at the correct speed ---Removed by the Council ---- house prices and residents will be affected.

Object

Representation ID: 4808

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nick Senior

The site is too close to housing and overlooked by residents of Hornbeam Lane. It will be visible from the Seaton Road. It will devalue the local property. It's currently a wildlife haven. A better location would be the new business development north of The Beeches where it can be thoughtfully incorporated into the plan with easier access to the main road, doctor, dentist and new shops.

Object

Representation ID: 4813

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jenny Burgess

I object to the traveller site being built in uppingham

Object

Representation ID: 4814

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Katie Woodward

I believe that the positioning of the proposed site is inappropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 4816

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Rheanne Wildman

I object the travellers site in Uppingham. So close to residential properties in such a small community proves an unsuitable location for this site. More rural plots with more space are better suited and can be found in other areas of the county. The limited access to this plot on foot and by car would bring more traffic concerns on such a narrow and dangerous road.

Object

Representation ID: 4817

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Vesna Palmer

there is no convenient access to schools, medical services, shops, and other community facilities, no safe and convenient vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access and adequate parking, and will result in a level of traffic generation which is inappropriate for roads in the area; impact on heritage assets, landscape character and/or sites/areas of nature conservation value including the internationally designated nature conservation site of Rutland Water ,
the site is visually intrusive and will have a detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers;

Object

Representation ID: 4818

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Clare Ellis

I strongly disagree with this being suitable for travellers site, due to the location being right between a residential area, the position of this is wrong the turning area to be bringing big caravans down would make a right mess of the verges. ---Removed by the Council ---

Object

Representation ID: 4819

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Sian Ryan

This site is inappropriately located in a confined and often vehicle congested area. It will cause problems for local access and movement of vehicles around that area, especially during any prep works.

Object

Representation ID: 4820

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Heather Almond

The proposed location is unsuitable and will cause a lot of problems especially for traffic using Seaton Road and for those accessing the houses that are already off Seaton Road.

Object

Representation ID: 4827

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Stephen Lambert

This proposed site is not appropriate.

- Any form of development on this land will visually intrusive to the existing adjacent residents.
- It would not be possible to provide adequate levels of privacy and residential amenity for occupiers.
- There would be an unreasonable impact on traffic and road safety. Seaton Road is already a concern.
- The land contain a number of trees and is used by wildlife. It would not be reasonable to destroy this for a very small traveller site.

It is my understanding that these sites are rarely located so close (inside) existing residential areas.

Object

Representation ID: 4828

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Mireille Mutimer-Rudd

Having lived in Uppingham for 46years, it is only just clinging on to being a beautiful, charming town with much history & heritage!
The mere notion of placing a traveller site within any area of the town, is utterly baffling. There is insufficient infrastructure for anymore homes (caravan or traditional). The site is not only a wildlife habitat, but on an already risky road.
I'm also unconvinced the Travelling Community would equally want to be viewed / monitored so closely, by established traditional neighbourhoods.
Ultimately, this proposal would bring absolutely nothing positive to Uppingham ---Removed by the Council ----

Object

Representation ID: 4829

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Dylan Daw

The land is not suitable and could cause tensions with the residents of blackthorn close and hornbeam lane

Object

Representation ID: 4831

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Philip Marston

---Removed by the Council--- This a definite blight the community of Uppingham community and should not even be considered by any reasonable individual. Your own policy states that 'the site is not visually intrusive and will not have a detrimental effect on the amenities of adjacent occupiers'. This area is residential.

Object

Representation ID: 4832

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr David Wildman

This site is unsuitable for housing, why would it be suitable for a travellers community. The land is too sloped and unsafe to place plots. Adding another junction to an already busy and narrow road would cause more traffic concerns and become dangerous to children living in the surrounding housing. I understand that some of the trees on this site have been put forward for conservation.

Object

Representation ID: 4840

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Sellicks

No reasonable access to schools, medical services, shops, community facilities;
Notwell located and does not provide safe convenient vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access or adequate parking, and will result in a level of traffic generation which is inappropriate for roads in the area;
Negative impact it would have on heritage assets, landscape character and/or areas of nature conservation is enormous;
Itwill not provide adequate on-site facilities for parking, storage, play and residential amenity;
Itwill be visually intrusive and will have a detrimental effect on amenities of adjacent occupiers;
Itdoes not provide adequate levels of privacy and residential amenity for occupiers;

Object

Representation ID: 4843

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Justin Bell

This site is totally unacceptable, access is poor, no adequate parking available, no paths for pedestrians or cyclists, the amenities on site are basic and services none existent.

Object

Representation ID: 4857

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr K Whitehead

This application is within 500yards of a planning application for 12 flats that was turned down by the C C on the basis that it was not suitable due to traffic entering and leaving the site. With the current draft plan the number of vehicles leaving and entering from the same road are a larger number than the previous planning application mentioned.

Object

Representation ID: 4862

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Leivers

I object to the proposal to develop ---Removed by the Council--- on Lapland at Seaton Road Uppingham.
My wife and I came to Uppingham to improve our lifestyles in our old age. ---Removed by the Council---
Traffic is a problem major problem now. This development will only make matters worse. It is an accident waiting to happen.
House owners around the site and further afield deserve better.
The whole of Uppingham will be adversely affected.

---Removed by the Council---

Object

Representation ID: 4863

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Peter Muller

The proposed site is not viable, access to it is dangerous and too steep, the amount of Lorrie’s needing access to make the site liveable would cause major disruption to residents and liable to cause accidents.Traffic comes up and down the hill at horrific speeds and there are no calming measures something residents have been asking for over a number of years. If the site wasn’t viable for flats then it clearly isn’t a viable living site for anything, it houses lots of nature and wildlife we already cut too many trees down leave it as it is

Object

Representation ID: 4884

Received: 23/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Peter Clements

Access is likely to be dangerous, involving a tight turn for large vehicles from Seaton Rd; it would also be tricky for large caravans to negotiate the roundabout at the top of Seaton Rd. Additionally, there are already three junctions close together on Seaton Rd near the proposed site; adding a further entrance would make this patch of road more hazardous. The proposed site is very close to existing housing on both sides of Seaton Rd and there could be issues with noise. Presumably a number of well-established trees would be lost, damaging wildlife habitats.

Object

Representation ID: 4897

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Helen Jezequel

The cost of developing the site ie clearance, providing hard standing, toilet and washing facilities, storage, security and landscaping will not be cost effective. The allocation of 3 caravans surely means that pitch fees are unlikely to ever recover the costs.
The proposed site is small and is completely surrounded by a well established and well cared for residential part of Uppingham.
Due to the number of people living adjacent or nearby the site the likelihood of problems developing is high, should a traveller site be placed here.
Uppingham is a characterful small market town which is highly regarded, pleasant place to live. Living next to, or driving past a traveller site would negatively impact the town.
A location being considered as a traveller site should be cost effective and impact as few people as possible. It should blend in sympathetically to its environment. It’s my view that the proposed area in Seaton road does not meet these requirements .

Object

Representation ID: 4929

Received: 29/12/2023

Respondent: Nick Townsend

Its proximity to existing housing makes the site inappropriate as a location for gypsies and travellers. It would lead to constant issues between local residents and the occupiers of the plots to the detriment of both. The site would be suitable for Affordable Housing so desperately needed in Uppingham. The SHELAA concludes that the site is not suitable for housing because of its agricultural value which is clearly an incorrect evaluation. Local Plan policy is that all residential sites in Uppingham should be allocated through the Neighbourhood Plan so the site should be considered in the next Neigbourhood Plan review.

Object

Representation ID: 4937

Received: 29/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Nina Hern

I object to the travellers site proposal in Seaton Road. It is an established residential area and is not appropriate for non permanent dwellings. I am concerned regarding the entrance to the site, Seaton Road is extremely busy and would mean extra pressure at busy times.

Object

Representation ID: 4973

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scarrott

The proposed site is completely unsuitable for the gypsy/traveller community. It is far too close to existing and established properties and will destabalise the community. Additionally, it is currently a wildlife haven and should be protected from any development.