Strategic Objective 2:

Object

Representation ID: 4810

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Ian Dobson

The Housing Development at Quarry Farm does not support the Objectives identified in this section.
The location is remote in Rutland not local - infact it borders Lincolnshire/Stamford.
There are not good transport links. There are no local jobs. Inadequate services. The health facilities are oversubscribed and in "Special Measures".
There are insufficient Education places for the proposed 650 houses(finally 2,000 houses).
The construction is proposed on a Greenfield site that is currently used as open space for exercise and wildlife.
The infrastructure at the moment before development is inadequate with poor access onto and off the A1

Object

Representation ID: 4945

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Neal Ince

Development should absolutely be sustainable but there is nothing sustainable about the proposal to use an environmentally important greenfield site at Stamford North to build 650 homes that the town will not be able to cope with, neither services nor congestion.

Support

Representation ID: 5009

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

Agree

Support

Representation ID: 5051

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

I support the objective but the selection of Quarry Farm as an allocated site does not meet this objective. It is a greenfield site, remote from the rest of Rutland (and will therefore provide little benefit to Rutland apart from Council Tax and Housing numbers), with no transport links, and where the nearest health facilities and secondary education are oversubscribed.

Support

Representation ID: 5278

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Tracey Chadwick

I support this policy however wish to highlight that Land of Mill Lane Cottesmore does not fit with this policy. Following a recent rejection for development on the same site, the planning committee concluded 20- 30 dwellings may represent a more organic form of growth. Kendrew Barracks is currently growing adding to the population of Cottesmore. A site of this scale is inappropriate. A smaller site contained within the village would be more suitable. For example Land off Harrier Close or other services centres such as Empingham who has had very limited growth in recent years should be considered.

Support

Representation ID: 5349

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Mary Cate

Need to ensure appropriate development in the right location, not the easiest

Support

Representation ID: 5493

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We support growth in sustainable village locations - allowing villages the grow and thrive, and provide housing for all - not just a specific demographic - but the full range that provides housing opportunities for all who wish to live and work in Rutland, including the young and those with families. This should include market housing, as well as affordable housing of various tenures. Villages must be allowed the thrive and grow over time too, not just become fossilised.

Object

Representation ID: 5523

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Allen

This strategic objective fails to recognise that locating development in smaller settlements can be vital to provide the necessary sustainable community and economic activity to support the amenity in those places. The proposal put forward at the Call for Sites stage for the Dovecote site on the land east of Exton Road, Empingham included proposals for the heritage asset to be made available as a community asset, which could fulfil a range of social and community functions in addition to the amenities already available in the village.

Object

Representation ID: 5714

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Hart

These are high minded ideals but they are not carried through in the propose planning . My experience is limited to Cottesmore, the plan for the land north of Mill Lane was unanimously rejected with the greed of the developer cited yet here it is again unchanged, Too big for the site no eco features in the construction with no supporting infrastructure. Riding rough shod over the expressed wishes of the community for smaller integrated developments.

Support

Representation ID: 5744

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

We question the level of growth in unsustainable locations

Object

Representation ID: 6177

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jo Hodgson

The proposed development is not proportionate in size in relation to the size, population or facilities of the village. Transport and traffic will cause vongestion problems and put increased pressure on local services such as the school. There are also insufficient plans for increased open spaces.

Support

Representation ID: 6243

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Please have a read of your objective below. Then tell me if the approval of 66 houses in Whissendine (Appropriate site? Proportionate in scale? In a location that supports sustainability? Good public transport? Active mode connections (what are they)? Jobs? services? health? education? social and community facilities - ha, open space- no, and infrastructure- where? Supporting growth which delivers wider social and economic outcomes, whilst protecting and enhancing the natural and built environmental taking a natural capital approach and in consideration of the rural nature of the County. Absolutely not.

So - great policy. But it seems unlikely.

Support

Representation ID: 6434

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Nick Wainwright

Agree

Support

Representation ID: 6610

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Zena Deayton

Support of course. BUT Council can not guarantee/ influence levels of services and infrastructure. No resources - no adequate levels of service for growing population. Not Councils fault but no point in saying it if can’t deliver.

Object

Representation ID: 6883

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Martin Couchman

We import 60% of our food. Destroying agricultural land to build more houses DOES compromise the needs of future generations.
This is a serious concern. We face a growing world population, uncertain international politics, and climate change which will reduce crop yields worldwide. We rely absolutely on importing 40%+ of our food, yet do not know if the rest of the world will have a food surplus to sell to us in 50 years.
Destroying farmland commits future generations to uncertainty and great risks from the absence of food security.

Support

Representation ID: 6938

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Cristian Durant

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

Our client is supportive of this objective and supports proportionate and sustainable growth as is proposed through the appeal application for three houses at Land West of Apple Gate House on Bull Brig Lane in Whitwell. The dwellings subject to the current appeal are designed
to be highly sustainable. They use sustainable technologies to reduce carbon emissions and
limit their environmental impact by utilising standards of insulation, energy generation and saving, water management and recycling that significantly exceed standard building control requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 7398

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

Rutland is a rural area with a network of villages as well as its market towns. Within this context it must be recognised that sustainable transport options can be limited and that the need to ensure the continued growth of villages must be balanced against this. Hereward Homes recommended that paragraph 2 is amended as follows:

‘Supporting an appropriate level of growth which is proportionate in scale and sited in locations that promote
sustainability in local communities, especially those where there are good public transport and active mode
connections, and where people can access: homes which are affordable; jobs; services; health, education, social
and community facilities; open space; and infrastructure. However, to ensure that the Plan’s Vision is achieved
it is also recognised that housing and employment growth in those rural villages less well served by public
transport will be required to ensure their long term sustainability and vibrancy ‘

Object

Representation ID: 7615

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Frank Johnstone

My fear now is that local government/Councils are in danger of turning beautiful idyllic villages into small towns, destroying tight-knit friendly communities and replacing them with large concrete jungles, thus destroying the unique village life and country way of life that we currently enjoy.

Yes of course I understand that our population is growing - but the majority of this growth is in the already highly populated areas such as established cities and towns where generally employment is readily available and the infrastructure to support large communities such as transport, health and education are already established. Therefore, wouldn't it be more sensible, cost effective, and less intrusive on 'England's Green and Pleasant Lands', to expand these towns and cities to cater for the increased population rather than expanding small and medium sized rural villages which would also require enormous investment in infrastructure i.e. expanding the road network, providing greater transportation, increased workspace, more schools, and hospitals etc, not to mention retail outlets?

Object

Representation ID: 7663

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: South Luffenham Parish Council

Strategic objective 2- Sustainable Development Population increases – but while indicating current primary/secondary education facilities does not address how population increases and housing developments will impact on existing amenities. In addition, current healthcare facilities currently struggle to meet patient demands.

Object

Representation ID: 7778

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

Recent policies propose intensive re-development of the St George’s Barracks site and greenfield development in the Edith Weston parish.

Whilst this represents a reduction from previous proposals, these proposals are at odds with the vision, particularly with respect to climate change, rural character and natural environment and infrastructure.

Similarly, they would be contrary to strategic objectives SO1, SO2, SO3, SO4, SO5, SO8, SO9, and SO10.