Edith Weston

Object

Representation ID: 5012

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

Edith Weston is vulnerable to over-development with current proposals to build 85 homes on the Officer's Mess and potential re-development of St George's barracks. More protection should be given to prevent over-development of 'larger' villages especially without clear proposals for infrastructure to be in place

Object

Representation ID: 5383

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

You have included a Rutland Local Plan Planned Limits to Development (PLD) Review 2023 Final Report (dated October 2023). I object strongly against the revision to the PLD in Edith Weston which proposes to include an area within the PLD (marked in green as Edi1 on the report map). This is greenfield and adjacent to the Rutland Water pedestrian path. It is too small for any development and regularly floods and any disturbance would seriously affect wildlife so close to it. It is inappropriate to be included within the PLD. Please advise why this change has been made ?

Support

Representation ID: 5547

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

On behalf of Francis Jackson Homes Ltd. and the landowners we strongly support the allocation of the land to the north of Pennine Drive, Edith Weston as being suitable for housing. It represents natural infilling of land between 2 existing blocks of residential development either side, thus limiting any visual or wider landscape impact. The site is available, achievable and deliverable, and can be brought forward for housing in the short - medium term, thus aiding to boost the Council's supply of deliverable housing land at the start of the Plan period before any SuE's or large allocations come forward.

Object

Representation ID: 5602

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Pam Allen

The housing needs assessment (HNA) for the 20 year period is 184 for the 21 larger villages (including a 10% buffer increase). Your call for sites proposes 174 of these at Edith Weston (Officers' Mess and Pennine Drive) which is disproportionate, unbalanced and will restrict development in the 20 other large villages. Furthermore your "future development opportunity document" proposes a further 350-500 dwellings at SGB. This could mean that Edith Weston/North Luffenham will have contributed more homes than any other area in Rutland on a site within spitting distance of a protected wildlife beauty spot. This must be rejected!

Object

Representation ID: 5612

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

The proposed GROSS over development of the smallest of the larger villages is preposterous! Edith Weston is not a sustainable location and the polices in this plan do not make it so. The NP has a report from AECOM - who indeed you have used many times - they recommend 23 houses in Edith Weston over the plan period. If you ignore this report, you are indeed rubbishing your own evidence. The officers mess site is out of the PLD - and this the inspector pulled up in the latest appeal on Normanton road.

Object

Representation ID: 6041

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Richard Bonser

85 houses in the current Officer's Mess Planning Application is a significant increase on the 53 houses most recently identified by RCC for Edith Weston. The Plan states it will mitigate the impact of new developments. The number of homes proposed is disproportionate with the size of the village. Edith Weston has NO capacity within it's infrastructure for such growth. In response to my question during consultation about more support for the Edith Weston Village Hall & Community Area, the MOD's agents stated, in writing, they are not required to provide support!

Object

Representation ID: 6053

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Gareth Jones

I object to 85 houses and development of the officers mess until there is a properly development master plan and infrastructure design

Object

Representation ID: 6422

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Wilkin

Under Edith Weston, Ed1
I would like to object to the change to the boundary to include this small area of land adjacent to our property. This land currently is part of a field, grazed by sheep [indeed today!] and cannot be regarded as “land on balance to be within a curtilage of residential buildings”.

Object

Representation ID: 6851

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Nigel Blackburn

I am not happy with the way the local plan is developing around Edith Weston.

Object

Representation ID: 7264

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Hugh C Palmer

The allocations to Edith Weston grossly inflated to effectively triple the size of the village, with approximately half of the extra allocated to Edith Weston despite it being the second smallest of the 7 Local Service Centres. This in defiance of the E/W N/P and the wishes of its community.
The Edith Weston N/Plan constraints have been ignored. (they are legally enforceable and backed by the NPPF.)
The spacial distribution of new housing in Rutland is unacceptably skewed, with far too many allocated to Edith Weston.

Object

Representation ID: 7634

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Peter Vickers

I don't understand why Edith Weston, where I live, also gets additional sites for future housing way in excess of the needs of the county as a whole. Is this deliberate dumping on Edith Weston? It certainly looks like it.

Object

Representation ID: 7775

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We object strongly to the arbitrary and excessive allocation of housing development numbers to Edith Weston, and question the plan’s failure to consider alternative uses for the ‘future’ St George’s Barracks.

Policy SS1(b) identifies Edith Weston as one of the 10 Larger Villages in the development hierarchy.

The policy states that greenfield sites adjoining the Planned Limits of Development will only be released in exceptional circumstances. Clearly this is incompatible with some of the proposed site allocations including ED106.

It does not specify what the criteria of the ‘exceptional circumstances’ might be, and we would welcome more clarity on this.

Object

Representation ID: 7974

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Tracey Lawson

I don't understand why Edith Weston also gets additional
sites for future housing way in excess of the needs of the county as a whole. Does the rest of the county get a free ride?