Object

Representation ID: 6199

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Lena Milner

I strongly object to the building of dwellings in Stamford North as the infrastructure can barely cope at the moment. There are already new houses going up this side of Stamford on the Blackstones site, do we really need more? We currently have major problems with congestion in and around Stamford. Many people avoid the main roads, using cut throughs which are also becoming difficult to navigate. It also worries me that there is no plan to build a new doctors surgery. Lakeside Healthcare is currently over-stretched and unable to meet the town's needs.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6207

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Jane Sauntson

Quarry Farm is a significant local wildlife site, including category A woodland, diverse plant species and wildlife. It is inappropriate for lots of housing especially considering the fact that Rutland's local plan emphasises protection of wildlife. Previously RCC was against building in open countryside - why the change of plan ?- there are surely more viable sites such as the empty St George's Barracks. I have concerns about a sustainable community - public services are already overstretched and there is nothing within these proposals to counter that. Further concerns regarding access and traffic in an already congested area.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6210

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Battey

The proposal is not truly sustainable nor environmentally optimum, especially compared to - St Georges Barracks, Luffenham & Martin's Park , Stamford., No evidence is given regarding assured local employment opportunities - and matched affordable housing. The site is a Local Candidate Wildlife site and supports Rutland's environmental strategy (commitment) - especially its Nature Recovery Strategy (EN2), Biodiversity Action Plan and previous CS4 policy commitment to not build in open countryside. The proposal is totally reliant on service and infrastructure of Stamford (within SKDC). The proposal lack any sort of integrated Environmental consideration at a time of Climate/Ecological Emergency.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6212

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Battey

The proposal is not truly sustainable nor environmentally optimum, especially compared to - St Georges Barracks, Luffenham & Martin's Park , Stamford., No evidence is given regarding assured local employment opportunities - and matched affordable housing. The site is a Local Candidate Wildlife site and supports Rutland's environmental strategy (commitment) - especially its Nature Recovery Strategy (EN2), Biodiversity Action Plan and previous CS4 policy commitment to not build in open countryside. The proposal is totally reliant on service and infrastructure of Stamford (within SKDC). The proposal lack any sort of integrated Environmental consideration at a time of Climate/Ecological Emergency.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6214

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jason Milner

I strongly object to the building of more dwellings around Stamford. We currently have major problems getting across town as the infrastructure is insufficient. Lakeside Healthcare cannot cope and is unable to meet the town's needs. If this development was to go ahead it would only be a bad thing for Stamford and it's residents.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6220

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Laura Upson

Stamford cannot accommodate this large development without significant infrastructure changes. Medical, traffic and educational services are insufficient. The loss of grade 2 and 3 agricultural land as well as the candidate wildlife site at the quarry is not acceptable. We have to prioritise greenfield sites for food production and to take the pressure of surface water drainage. Just look at the flooding. St George's Barracks is perfect for development. We don't want to leave a legacy of ecological and arable destruction for future generations. This development with mass greenfield destruction sets a dangerous precedent for future applications.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6223

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Leon Pritchard

Greedy district councils who plan to coin it in, whilst providing no improvements to services and amenties to already over-stretched/over-whelmed towns. The plans for developing both quarry farm and stamford north are not sustainable and should not be allowed to go ahead in their current state.

Lack of a basic healthcare/doctors, where a phone call which places you in Q of 1000990000 people at 0800 and at 0801 states all todays appointments have been taken and you want to add ~1000 more people to this, mental.
A busy and often gridlocked traffic system and more cars to be added, barmy.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6226

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Battey

The proposal is not truly sustainable nor environmentally optimum, especially compared to - St Georges Barracks, Luffenham & Martin's Park , Stamford., No evidence is given regarding assured local employment opportunities - and matched affordable housing. The site is a Local Candidate Wildlife site and supports Rutland's environmental strategy (commitment) - especially its Nature Recovery Strategy (EN2), Biodiversity Action Plan and previous CS4 policy commitment to not build in open countryside. The proposal is totally reliant on service and infrastructure of Stamford (within SKDC). The proposal lack any sort of integrated Environmental consideration at a time of Climate/Ecological Emergency.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6227

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Leon Pritchard

Over population of Stamford
Impact on local health services in SKDC including Peterborough hospital
Lack of infrastructure
Traffic congestion
Loss of natural habitat
Lack of green spaces for increased pollution

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6230

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Carol Trott

The impact these 650 dwellings will have on Stamford not Rutland regarding its already crumbling/lack of NHS services, the roads and infrastructure as a whole without any gain is criminal. As a person who lives and has resided directly opposite this beautiful green field for the last 37years I appreciate the vast variety of wildlife that has become part of our daily life, the traffic, noise and loss of privacy these dwellings will have on our everyday life is nothing short of a criminal act and money making by all who are even considering this application.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6231

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tom Upson

The impact this will have on Stamford's already stretched facilities would be highly detrimental. With the current road network in this area already stretched at peak times, huge investment would be required to provide safe and sustainable access to the A1 for the additional 3000+ cars that can be expected from the Stamford North 'Sustainable' Urban Extension.
Being right next to Stamford and Lincolnshire, this development does not best serve the towns and villages of Rutland. Rutland should instead look more centrally in the county for such a large development (i.e. St Georges Barracks).

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6240

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Matthew Parlett

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.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6253

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Nick McDowall

The proposed development of Stamford North and Quarry Farm is very poorly thought through. There is extremely limited consideration given to the impact it will have on Stamford and Stamford's services that are already over capacity.

In addition to the obvious environmental impact of building on a greenspace and the loss of biodiversity and habitats - more housing in this location (particularly QF) will create a significant increase in traffic into the bottle neck of North Street/East Street/St. Paul's with residents crossing town to access the supermarkets. The impact on the already stretched services (healthcare/schools) has again not been considered.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6256

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Smith

The town is pretty much gridlocked along Ryhall road as it is now, especially during morning and afternoon traffic, this site will only make this worse. ( I live on Ryhall Road and work from home so witness this on a daily basis).
All of this additional traffic will also bring more pollution to our beautiful town, and will damage the outstanding beauty that exists here; especially the old stone buildings that have stood for 100’s of years, exhaust fumes will blacken the stone and ruin the aesthetic people travel here to view.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6257

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Hayley Pallett

I'd like to object to houses being built on this very diverse piece of land. We go out to look at the nature residing in this land regularly, its been developmental to our physical and mental health tremendously. So many species of wildlife are residing here and I can't bear for this to be destroyed, my children love to learn about nature and this is our go to spot. Stamford is already struggling for road traffic management, premises for medical care; doctors and dentists. Please don't destroy this land. I can't elucidate enough how terrible this would be for Stamford!

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6276

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jak Frisby

This area offers a fantastic area for natural wildlife as well as drainage for any potential flooding as we have recently suffered with. The development will also put significant strain and pressure on the already heavy traffic in the town, not to mention the amount of extra pollution this stationary traffic will produce. The existing infrastructure is already struggling with the population and adding 650 homes will be unable to cope.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6278

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Emily Sykes

I object to this lovely bit of land becoming houses as we need more schools/ doctors or dentist stamford is becoming overrun as it is without adding more houses. Dog walkers love the quarry for their dogs it's beautiful and the area needs that bit of land. It's so beautiful and quiet.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6280

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs N Wayling

This development will reduce the biodiversity of the site. It is a greenfield site and alternative brownfield sites should be developed instead.

The existing infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the demands of the existing residents, and would break with additional housing. The schools and doctors are at capacity and already in need of improvement.

The area is already subject to considerable congestion and further development will only exacerbate this. This additional traffic will also lead to safety issues.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6288

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Charlotte Sismey

This area for wildlife needs to be protected. The town and councils do not have the infrastructure or funding in the right places to support the extra traffic or residents

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6289

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Adele Stainsby

Not needed.
Infrastructure not sufficient to support a growing population.
Large swathes of countryside will be destroyed.
Wildlife habitats will be destroyed.
Food security is an issue, arable land would be sacrificed.
Too many developments will cause traffic chaos.
SAY NO TO MORE DEVELOPMENT!

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6290

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Charlotte Sismey

This area for wildlife needs to be protected. The town and councils do not have the infrastructure or funding in the right places to support the extra traffic or residents

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6320

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Ruairi Johnston

I echo the main concerns brought by many others. Primarily that Stamford is by no means a suitable town for an expansion of this magnitude. The drainage systems proposed by the developer have a poor track record of performance so are likely to increase flood damage to downstream homes in Stamford, and therefore leave Rutland councillors vulnerable to compensation claims for easily argued damages caused. Other main concerns are: damages to quality of life for residents of Stamford, difficulties obtaining medical appointments, loss of valuable and accessible green space, wildlife habitat destruction, transport infrastructure limitations, education faculty limitations.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6328

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Kate Osborn

There are far more suitable sites available, for instance the barracks which would allow a large development on a site already used. This site is of importance to the whole community and should not be destroyed - the health and well-being of local people and the diverse nature of the site. This special site would be destroyed at a time when we know the importance of preserving such places. With the increasing loss of biodiversity to allow this site to be built on would be irresponsible. We should be ensuring we protect and conserve these areas, not destroy them.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 6331

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support this in principle.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6405

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Little Casterton Parish Council

This proposal does not fulfil the Rutland CC objectives. It does not sit close to Oakham or Uppingham and does not enhance Rutland. It enables Lincolnshire to achieve their Housing figures and is on a Green Site not Brown. Stamford has several Brown sites available which should be developed before this one. The Medical and Education facilities in the area are already full. The road infrastructure and drainage network are both barely adequate currently and this development will create overcapacity leading to high cost solutions. The A1 currently has queues back onto the main highway every weekday evening.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6427

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Gillian Henry

The proposed development is not supported by local residents particularly as there is no infrastructure to support the application. It would also be destroying an area of natural beauty - a Local Wildlife site, and its 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. Neither does it fulfil the criteria for a sustainable community, partly because of the spatial strategy, but also because of its over-reliance on service and infrastructure provision in the neighbouring town of Stamford (within SKDC).

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6452

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs SUSAN SMITH

Quarry Farm is a Local Candidate Wildlife site. Building on open countryside conflicts with Rutland’s environmental strategy, Nature Recovery Strategy (EN2), Biodiversity Action Plan and previous CS4 policy commitments. It is an area rich in biodiversity with protected species, important woodland (much of which should be subject to TPOs) and open space. It is often water-logged, which cutting down thousands of trees would exacerbate. The proposal does not fulfil the criteria for a sustainable community as it is reliant on the neighbouring town of Stamford (outside Rutland) which has serious issues with traffic, healthcare, education and public transport provision.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6460

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tim 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.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6469

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jenkins

This development when considered with proposals included in the area of Lincolnshire CC is totally unacceptable. It is currently a potential site for wildlife conservation. The addition of such a large number of dwellings will place an uncontrollable impact on Stamford's historic infrastructure, The town is already under strain from traffic and access to facilities. This damages the visitor economy of Stamford. The development will be solely served by private cars which goes against Policy CC13 on Sustainable travel and Climate change policies

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6477

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Jenny Groves

Green space with ecology that slows the pace of water is essential for the town.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.