Policy H2 – Cross-boundary development opportunity – Stamford North

Object

Representation ID: 4535

Received: 30/11/2023

Respondent: Mrs Chloe Surer

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

Object

Representation ID: 4547

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kieran Wade

Anyone at Rutland Council Council who cares one bit about the environment or other people should be against this proposal.

Object

Representation ID: 4549

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Carys Vaughan

The development sits in open countryside and will destroy biodiversity on what is an important environmental asset for Rutland. The scale of the development will impact negatively on surrounding Rutland villages and Stamford itself with an unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and insufficient service provision, particularly healthcare. It conflicts with Rutland’s vision for sustainable communities.

Object

Representation ID: 4561

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Corby

As per objection re Quarry farm/Monarch Park. There is also a Scheduled Monument and an SSSI on the Great North Road, opposite the proposed development. The masterplan as outlined below should make clear that no development will be permitted within the cLWS, and in addition should contain conditions to ensure full conservation status.

Object

Representation ID: 4581

Received: 02/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Bridget Queiros

This development will destroy open countryside with significant biodiversity that is an important environmental site on the edge of Stamford and Rutland. It's scale will have a major impact on Great and Little Casterton, Tickencote and Ryhall as well as North Stamford itself which already suffers from significant traffic congestion at peak hours on the dangerously short exits to and from the A1. There are insufficient services provided, all residents having to cross town to reach existing healthcare provision and major affordable supermarkets. Not in any way a 'sustainable community'.

Object

Representation ID: 4587

Received: 02/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Leonard Marshall

Wildlife and flora will be removed from Rutland for ever. A sterile, manicured 'parkland' is no substitute. Medical and Secondary Education facilities will be over run in Stamford. Roads will be gridlocked at school run and commute times. Parking in Stamford will no longer be possible. No benefit whatsoever to Stamford, or Rutland, just to developer and County Council.

Object

Representation ID: 4590

Received: 02/12/2023

Respondent: Mr N igel Callow

The proposed development will result in an unacceptable increase in road traffic in the villages of Toll Bar and Little Casterton which already have problems due to the increasing level of traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 4594

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: 4598

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Hoskins

It is insane to think of the sheer volume of traffic that this will bring to already over busy roads. Stamford is often gridlocked if there any incidents on nearby major roads. The primary school proposed will be so dangerous placed near Little Casterton Road. Again, this road is often blocked with traffic stopping at the existing shop and the many roads leading onto it. It will be mayhem. The people proposing these houses clearly do not live in Stamford and see the daily struggles with traffic and parking. We do not need or want this development.

Object

Representation ID: 4628

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Debbie Tuisavura

The development sits in open countryside and will destroy biodiversity on what is an important environmental asset for Rutland. The scale of the development will have a negative impact on surrounding Rutland villages and Stamford itself with an unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and insufficient service provision, particularly healthcare.

Object

Representation ID: 4643

Received: 06/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Alison Lowe

I object to development of this important greenfield site, it's too big for the site, it brings nothing of benefit to Stamford , just more council tax income for Rutland and an achievement of more housing for Rutland's quota but no more infrastructure provision

Object

Representation ID: 4647

Received: 06/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Philip Lowe

There is poor road network and not enough local schools shops and health care provision . I also object to the development of this candidate wildlife site

Object

Representation ID: 4654

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Duncan Farrell

Loss of Biodiversity for may animals devastating specific species.
Loss of a recreational site in an area that needs it.
Massive increase in congestion.
Pollution increase and the environmental effects of this.

Object

Representation ID: 4659

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Kayleigh Nicolaou

This is an unsustainable development which will have drastic impacts on the local fauna and flora. This is a candidate wildlife site and to build on it will cause untold damage to the local environment. Alongside this it will cause undue burden on the already struggling local services and infrastructure. This is an unsuitable location for a development of this size.

Object

Representation ID: 4661

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Jane Bateman

Land at Quarry Farm is currently very natural with woodland, rare plants and protected species and should therefore be protected, NOT built on.
A development of this scale is not sustainable and will bring considerable additional traffic to Little Casterton Road which at the moment is very narrow, and to the surrounding villages of Great and Little Casterton. There is no infrastructure locally (ie GP surgery, supermarkets) which will only encourage more traffic movements into and to the east of Stamford.

Object

Representation ID: 4664

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Karen Neale

Objection on environmental grounds, making precious woodland and wildlife areas into isolated islands and also lack of sustainable community infrastructure....

Support

Representation ID: 4669

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Field

This site is in a swiftly developing area and gives scope for the many people who wish to live in and around Stamford and who can if they wish commute to larger cities like London. It is positioned in an area of land which already has the infrastructure to accommodate it and would address the housing shortage in this area without having a huge impact on its neighbours.

Object

Representation ID: 4681

Received: 09/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Barry Collins

Quarry Farm as you know is local candidate wildlife site and does not need to be managed. You state species will be translocated but surely the animals and flora thrive because the conditions are correct where they are. The site left will be approximately a third of the size it is now yet you say it will achieve a 15% net gain in biodiversity HOW? A country park will not be the same , in the proposed visitors centre which is right near the badger setts you could put pictures of the wildlife that used to be there.

Object

Representation ID: 4687

Received: 09/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Jill Norfolk

Cross boundary issues include:- Impact on Little Casterton, Great Casterton, Toll Bar, Rutland Heights, Ryhall. Stamford roads are already gridlocked. Arran Road traffic has increased considerably over the past few years making it a rat run. A1 is under enormous pressure now with unsafe slip roads. Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development should not be allowed to go ahead.

Object

Representation ID: 4689

Received: 09/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Craig Brindley

The quarry farm site should be protected, especially as other brownfield sites in Rutland are not being developed.

It is also not right that Rutland are effectively allowing 650 more houses to be built in Stamford with no benefit to Stamford and insufficient infrastructure

Object

Representation ID: 4704

Received: 10/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs TRACEY Jones

The total disregard of local wildlife on the old quarry farm. Use brownfield sites for building. North Stamford has had it's full share of new build sites. Rutland Heights and Exeter Gardens most notably. SKDC should be ashamed of themselves going into cahoots with RCC.

Object

Representation ID: 4706

Received: 10/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Donald Bruce

The Combined development will mean that around 2000 houses are being erected without sufficient improvement to local infrastructure for sewage and other drainage. The current infrastructure cannot cope with the current amount of water leading to discharge of untreated sewage into local rivers. The local roads simply do not have the capacity to cope with the additional traffic. There does not seem to be a plan to increase medical support such as additional GP Services. The only Stamford GP Practice is already assessed as inadequate. Schools in Rutland & Stamford are also at maximum capacity now, without the planned increase.

Object

Representation ID: 4712

Received: 11/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Chris Wright

Stamford simply can't take any more houses, as the road network is already a nightmare during the day, and the healthcare and schools just do not have the capacity. Stamford is slowly losing its charm which is very sad to see.

Please see sense and make plans for building a new town / suburb on brown sites along the A1. Make a positive change for the future, rather than destroying a nationally recognised historically town.

Object

Representation ID: 4726

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Fitchie

The quarry is an area of natural beauty that is being 'cut back' to allow for unnecessary housing. Stamford is already being developed beyond it's capabilities, with the infrastructure of roads buckling under pressure, schools and doctors at bursting point. I have yet to see a practical plan of how these problems will be tackled with an increased population and cars on the road.

Object

Representation ID: 4730

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Muriel Collins

If both Quarry Farm and Stamford north developments are agreed traffic on Ryhall road, Arran road, Casterton road and Sidney Farm Lane leading to A1 will be horrendous. Apart from more congestion on these roads, there will be higher risk of accidents and more air pollution. Have you seen pupils from Casterton trying to get home in the afternoon. Quarry Farm is an area of natural beauty, it should remain for all to enjoy.

Object

Representation ID: 4740

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Serena Solanki

Proposed development 100% within Mineral Safeguarding area. It will be in close proximity to a planned monument. On the Stamford border which will further stress local resources and contribute to local traffic. Local roads are not designed for new loading and volume of traffic. Lincolnshire County Council needs to be contacted as they manage the roads in Stamford.
Why aren't brownfield site delveopment priority? Woolfox and St George's barracks? The Barracks will be decommissioned in 2026.
All options for growth proposal have NEGATIVE affects as per Aecom SA report page 3.and section 9.11 page 51 adverse affects on SSSI

Object

Representation ID: 4781

Received: 17/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Ann Howard

This site would destroy a great woodland area , wear local people enjoy the area which gets people into countryside and benefits health and more importantly mental wellbeing, and all the wildlife that thrives in this fantastic site.
Plus all the extra traffic that bring congestion headed to the A1 which is already a nightmare to join .
Do not go ahead with this .

Object

Representation ID: 4782

Received: 17/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Ann Howard

I object because it’s candidate wildlife site, insufficient infrastructure to support the development @ transport will be a nightmare
Were there are lost of school kids about on this road .
What little country side we got need to be kept .

Object

Representation ID: 4790

Received: 16/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Jackie Griffiths

I am a local resident and I object to the proposed development. I go dog walking over the fields and so do many others who enjoy the local area.

Even when the field is wet and muddy people still walk their dogs. It is also a haven for wildlife and this would be disturbed by development.

My objections are:

1. What impact this would have on the fields ability to absorb the water from rainfall? This acts as a wetland. What would the consequences be if this was all concreted over and tarmaced then where would all the water go? Would it cause local flooding?

2. Stamford is a small town very old and has small streets running through it. How would the town cope with more activity from cars etc? The roads are in a terrible state now with pot holes etc.

3. Getting on to the A1 whether North or South. I travel to Peterborough and at times I have to queue to get on and also to get off at the exit. Queuing to get off is very dangerous as sometimes you are still on the motorway and not on the slip road. How would the A1 be with more traffic movements?

These are my concerns about the planned development.

Object

Representation ID: 4796

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Gareth Vaughan

I do not agree with this policy. Previously Rutland had a blanket policy not to build in open countryside and yet this policy makes a specific provision for Quarry Farm as an exception to the rule. It is unfair on many levels -it benefits neither Stamford nor the surrounding Rutland villages and destroys an important green space.