Whissendine

Support

Representation ID: 4788

Received: 18/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Thomas

I agree that the housing figures of 123 pa in Rutland is realistic, especially as the building has been averaing c160 for the last few years. I also agree with buildings within the larger villages are within the PLDs.

Object

Representation ID: 4920

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Muller Property Group

Agent: Muller Property Group

Object to the omission of any proposed housing allocations in Whissendine and specifically the omission of the MPG site at Stapleford Road.
There are no technical, physical or environmental reasons that would prevent the development of the site. The site is deliverable and achievable and would help sustain the existing facilities in Whissendine as well as contributing to a stronger resident population in the village, supporting the school and local shops. Whissendine is an attractive location that would meet the demand for both market housing and affordable homes.
The village was considered suitable to accommodate development previously by virtue of the draft allocation in the withdrawn plan, and the grant of planning permission on phase 1. As such, there is an oven-ready site capable of being allocated which can demonstrate that it is both technically feasible and deliverable and which could help deliver new homes early in the plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 5520

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Robert Baker

With the recent approval of the 66 homes off Stapleford road, Whissendine is making a much larger contribution to the Counties housing needs than it should with the developer making very little contribution to the Services in the Village.
I note that they refer to this approval as phase one and are pursuing the second part of there development which will need to be a completely new application, not a second phase of an existing application.
The drainage of the village needs review by Severn Trent who are responsible, not Anglian Water. Repeated flooding proves that services are falling short

Support

Representation ID: 6002

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Janet Robinson

Whissendine is doing its bit with the 66 properties for which permission has already been granted. The village infrastructure cannot cope with additional devlopment, in particularthe drainage system which causes persistent flooding issues and needs addressing urgently by Severn Trent Water.
I see that MPG refer to their latest building proposal as 'phase 2' (presumably the 66 approved constitute 'phase 1') whereas it is in fact a separate application.

Support

Representation ID: 6037

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Watkins

I agree that all development within Whissendine as set in the proposed local plan plan should be within the plan limits of development(PLD). It should be noted that Whissendine is currently contributing a large development of 66 homes off stapleford road which will be a challenge for the existing village infrastructure, roads, drainage and school to cope with. Therefore, any further development outside the PLD is not sustainable for the the village.

Support

Representation ID: 6303

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

The crazy approval of 66 houses in Whissendine is quite out of proportion to the village and contrary to almost every objective in the (draft) local plan.
Building on this site was refused at every submission until the Council found its self unable to guarantee a 5 year housing supply and were hijacked into accepting this further application.
There should be no objection to building on brownfield sites - but Whissendine now needs to accommodate this rogue application - and welcome and integrate its new residents. Any more building such as this would see the end of this community.

Support

Representation ID: 7649

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Severn Trent

Please see our summary of a desktop assessment of the capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Works in the Rutland area, considering projected growth up to 2027 and 2047.