Policy H1 – Sites proposed for residential development

Object

Representation ID: 4534

Received: 30/11/2023

Respondent: Mrs Chloe Surer

I object to see what little country side we have left, be destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 4593

Received: 03/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Anne O'Grady

Wildlife is too important. Plus far too much congestion and pressure on already inadequate medical and dental care.
The proposals are ill thought through and will not meet the town's needs.
A link road will take away further land.
Too little has been thought through for the community

Object

Representation ID: 4645

Received: 06/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Philip Lowe

I object because it’s a candidate wildlife site, insufficient infrastructure to support the development and transport infrastructure is poor.

Object

Representation ID: 4698

Received: 10/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Helen Anes

The quarry is a sanctuary for our town where we can go to feel removed from the hurry in life. It brings our community together and preserves a natural beauty and is a place that our family enjoys daily. Instead of development for housing, it should be preserved for recreation, and a place for all to enjoy. We do not have the infrastructure to support a housing development. The roads, schools and town would suffer with an overflow of more people, more cars and more demand for limited resources.

Object

Representation ID: 4763

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Gray

I find it kind of ironic that the average house price in Rutland is used as a justification to let developers plaster our county in houses that arguably we don’t need purely for profit. The reason why the average price is high is because it’s a nice rural county that hasn’t yet despite the councils best efforts been destroyed like so many others by over development.
It would be nice to see the council develop a bit of back bone and start pushing back against these centrally planned housing targets, it’s not what we want.

Object

Representation ID: 4773

Received: 11/12/2023

Respondent: Alistair Parker

1. The proposed development site allocations in Edith Weston do not encourage sustainable development as the village does not present any genuine travel mode choice (re SO2) and there will be no limit to the need to travel (NPPF).
2. The Plan fails to strategically address the proposals to, effectively, cumulatively triple the size of the Edith Weston village (SO2) with a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years) (NPPF)
3. The spatial distribution of LSC sites inappropriately allocates half the requirement to just one village (SS1 & H1)
4. Contrary to accepted practice, the housing need appears artificially inflated by the use of both a 10% of need buffer and a 27% of need as reserve sites together with a further ‘Opportunity Area’ assignment equating to a potential total of 4,263 dwellings or a surplus 47% allowance of the assessed need of 2,460 dwellings over 20 years.

Object

Representation ID: 4907

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The numbers of proposed new houses are incorrectly and confusingly stated; viz. a10% buffer on top of 2460 =2706 NOT 2705 as stated in the plan.
Table 4, page 82 says 1347 houses are needed but this presentation states 1375 are needed=discrepancy of 28.
The list of housing on pages 80/81 excluding part of Stamford North totals 725 yet the Oakham/Uppingham/largervillages numbers shown=652 Add 45 for smaller villages one still only sees a total of 697 =a discrepancy of 28. I must object until the numbers are definitively & accurately stated.

Object

Representation ID: 4990

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

WDH's response to Policies SS1 and H1 highlight that the spatial strategy should be refined to strengthen the plan's robustness. Given the need to support the County’s rural communities and address the existing affordability issues, the overall housing requirement should be at least 3,905 dwellings. Therefore, additional allocation sites should be identified, particularly within the larger villages to support their ongoing vitality. WDH's site at Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore (Reserve Site H1.a) is a suitable development site in the most sustainable 'larger village' settlement, and should therefore be allocated for development in this plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 5167

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Agree with approach

Object

Representation ID: 5231

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Linda Seamer

Where I live in Ryhall, we are surrounded on three sides by South Kesteven and only a mile from the border, and as such, Lincolnshire’s proposals for building must be taken into account when deliberating the issues in this part of Rutland.
I certainly think Ryhall should be excluded from any large scale house building because of the current proposals being considered in Stamford. Ryhall is only a mile from the Lincolnshire border and the building programme proposed as “Stamford North” will reach this boundary. In addition there is the controversial “Quarry Farm” development, situate in Rutland, but adjoining Stamford and part of the “Stamford North” site. It is sad to see this land being considered for building just because Rutland is under pressure to meet government house building quotas. There have been lots of valid objections to building on this large site.
With regards to Ryhall, it is important that the village preserves its identity as a very pleasant, self contained Rutland village, and the land between the village and Stamford must be kept as valuable open space. This stretch of the A6121 follows part of the Guash Valley with the Belmesthorpe Ridge running on the east side of the river, a pretty open aspect of attractive countryside.
The “Stamford North” and “Quarry Farm” are huge adjoining, interlinked proposed projects and would have a big impact on Ryhall being in such close proximity. Rutland is a unique county with some lovely villages, Ryhall being one of them, and for this reason I feel there should be no large scale developments earmarked or allowed in this area.

Object

Representation ID: 5269

Received: 24/12/2023

Respondent: Gary Gregg

I would wish to object to Policy H1 and the site allocations in this draft Plan. In particular, I would object to the allocation H1.4 (Officers Mess – 90 houses), reserve site H1.b (Pennine Drive – 84 houses) and policy SS5 with the St George’s Barracks Opportunity Area designation for 300-500 houses. All in, this represents a potential of 648-848 new dwellings in Edith Weston, all outside the Planned Limit of Development (PLD), in contrast to the present built-up area households of 380.

The Neighbourhood Plan evidence studies assess a Local Housing Need of 21 dwellings whilst the Council have advised 44 (net of completions as of Aug 2023). The built-up area population of the village (2021 – including the Barracks but excluding Normanton) is 582 which makes it the 14th largest village in the County (equal with Exton, table below). This contrasts to the Plan’s implied hierarchy ranking it as 10thbased on old parish boundaries. The ‘core village’ has only 373 households and the planned military estates have 118 on the western Derwent Drive and 90 on the eastern Pennine Road; all three have separate PLDs and were recently described as “a rooted community in the conservation area village and transient population in the peripheral MoD estates” (RCC Senior Planning Officer).

The H1.4 site allocation would increase the built village size by 36%, that plus the H1.b reserve site would increase it by 169% and, with the SGB designation, the existing built village of 582 (2021) would be expanded by a massive 366%. At that scale, this is hardly an ‘expansion’ but a new settlement as per the former proposed ‘garden village’. It is a new settlement policy quietly slipped in the draft Plan without much strategic justification and one, by itself, that meets 32% of need after Stamford North or all the need after the towns’ allocation. On its own, these allocations in one village represents 5 years of the entire County’s housing need (with 10% buffer).

Object

Representation ID: 5327

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Richardson and Cock Ltd

Agent: R Longstaff & Co LLP

We object to the Housing allocations policy, as a Call for Sites representation made on behalf of our client on 17th May 2023 at Manor Lane, Langham, has not been considered, and should be assessed, as we consider it suitable for allocating

Object

Representation ID: 5368

Received: 30/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Deag

I object to this policy. The fact that the Reserve Sites include space for 657 dwellings (page 81) shows that Rutland can meet its target for house building without using Quarry Farm (650 dwellings). Using these Reserve sites first will give time for planning developments at St. George's Barracks and Woolfox. Quarry Farm should be deleted from Policy H1.

Object

Representation ID: 5499

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Antony Squires

I object to the inclusion of Quarry Farm being included in the residential development plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5530

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Allen

It is unclear how the allocation of housing to the larger villages has been achieved, it appears disproportionate to the amenities and accessibility of the locations. Of the 184 dwellings to be allocated to the larger villages, only 6 are to be located in Empingham. This seems perverse, as Empingham is the only larger, better connected villages in the County.

The distribution of development allocations could reflect the disposition of amenities, recognising that these are better in some locations rather than others. The Dovecote site, east of Exton Road, Empingham should be included in the sites proposed for residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 5548

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Christine Ingram

Number of people: 2

We are concerned that the option of making up the house allocation for the area
- relies on green field sites as a default mechanism if there is a problem with fulfilling the plan.
- that flood plains have not been considered when allocation of developments around rivers and streams are used.
- brown field sites should be a priority.
- should also consider how many homes are presently being rented in in villages and towns - around 22% in Ryhall.

We feel that new properties should take into account the local living wage for the area.

Object

Representation ID: 5640

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Emily Payne

The Stamford North / Quarry Farm is a completely inappropriate place for housing. This goes against Rutland’s stated goals for environmental gain, as building here will destroy an area rich in biodiversity, with protected species and important woodlands and open area. It is also very prone to water logging. This is a greenfield site rich in environmental benefits to the area and it is not acceptable for housing to be built here.

Object

Representation ID: 5701

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Ed Fancourt

Objection on ground of loss of biodiversity. Also flood mitigation as this area is important for soaking away rainfall. Also, the town of Stamford does not possess the necessary infrastructure for yet more housing on the northern side. Most major supermarkets are located on the opposite side of the town.
Also, the area proposed for development is extensively used for leisure and well being, being an area of considerable beauty and nature.

Object

Representation ID: 5768

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Patrick Juggins

This development will have far reaching environmental. Impacts to flooding, the increase of sewage on an already stretched system, to traffic and congestion with no suitable road developments, to put greater pressure on a massively inadequate and failing local health care service and loss of green space

Object

Representation ID: 5819

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Yvette Diaz-Munoz

It is a Local Candidate Wildlife site and it’s inclusion is in conflict with Rutland’s environmental strategy, especially its Nature Recovery Strategy (EN2), Biodiversity Action Plan and previous CS4 policy commitment to not build in open countryside.

It also over-relies on service and infrastructure provision in the neighbouring town of Stamford.

Object

Representation ID: 5987

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Sue Parslow

Stamford is not equipped to cope with more residents.
Local roads - from the narrow Little Casterton Road (lane) to the slip roads onto the A1
Green space must be protected and valued

Object

Representation ID: 6261

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Hartley

This development is not on a true brown field site and will affect a well established eco system and beautiful area currently supporting much wildlife and plant species . Other much more appropriate and truly brownfield sites located in Rutland should be considered for development.

Object

Representation ID: 6373

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Lewis

This policy needs to be more transparent on proposed housing numbers. It is not clear how the need for 2,460 new dwellings is being addressed.

Object

Representation ID: 6402

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Little Casterton Parish Council

There is much in this Local Plan that needs complete rethinking as it appears the only objective is to meet a housing quota by dumping the proposal on a local community area that cannot support it, as such we cannot support this aspect of the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6447

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

The projected population figures and resulting calculations of housing need should be revisited, as the figures do not appear to make a great deal of sense. The revised NPPF (Dec 2023) requires a 4YHLS to be demonstrated, as the Local Plan has now reached Reg 18

It would appear Rutland has an identified housing supply considerably in excess of need/NPPF requirements. It would appear a full and detailed review is needed to avoid the over development of this small, rural county

All site proposals, should consider cumulative impact, especially regarding the local road network

Object

Representation ID: 6490

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The numbers of new houses proposed require greater accuracy before this chapter can be accepted in toto.

The Plan states 2460 house are needed [123/year]but a proposed 10% ‘Buffer’ takes the total to 2706 [2705 shown in plan] equates to 135.3/annum.
Earlier commitments since 2018 only requires 1358 new houses.

Quarry Farm/Monarch Park contributes 650 reducing new sites to 708

However detailed numbers about where these houses will be located provided in Table 4 and pages 80/81 confusingly total 697 and 725 respectively.

The numbers don’t add up and clarity and exactitude are needed before this chapter can be accepted.

Object

Representation ID: 6516

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rachael Perkins

The development of open countryside will destroy biodiversity on an important environmental asset for Rutland and Stamford. The scale of the development will impact negatively on surrounding villages and Stamford itself with an unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and insufficient service provision, particularly education and healthcare. The practice of collecting local taxes in one area while massing the consumption of services elsewhere is damaging communities. Moreover, recent flooding events in the town will question a plan to cover a significant portion of Stamford in concrete. In sum this will not be beneficial for the community of Stamford.

Support

Representation ID: 6525

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

AH support the draft policy and have no suggested changes to the proposed wording.

The policy confirms the logic of the spatial strategy and ongoing cooperation/alignment with the SKDC Local Plan, both adopted and emerging.

Object

Representation ID: 6530

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Object to the lack of a housing allocation for North Luffenham and consider that the reserve site, South of Glebe Road, should be allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 6542

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

There is no justification not to provide new housing at Ketton by way of allocation. Our client, Manor Oak Homes, has two sites available that are immediately deliverable.