Object

Representation ID: 7333

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Proposed development of this site for 93 dwellings was refused planning permission in April 2023 for seven separate reasons including the effect of the proposed development on the landscape and settlement character given the prominence of views of the site on the approach to the village as well as adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, which according to the Council’s assessment could not be avoided. Identification of this site as a reserve site for 90 dwellings is therefore not well-founded, given that it is unlikely to be able to support this scale of development without generating a materially adverse impact.
This proposed Reserve Site is inappropriate both in terms of scale for the settlement of Cottesmore and for the reasons given by the Council less than a year ago for refusing the grant planning permission why a planning 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: 7443

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

object to the site for following reasons:
- it is 50% larger than when last designated.
- This is clearly open countryside
- good quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded from development unless it meets an essential need.
- as currently shown the single point of access is directly opposite the entrance to St. Nicholas Primary School and no amount of mitigation measures is going to offset the potential hazards and likely impact on pedestrian safety.
a development of this scale would increase the population of the village itself (excluding Kendrew Barracks) by around 20-25% in one go. We suggest that villages, even larger ones like Cottesmore, need to be allowed to grow organically through smaller scale expansions, with more sensitive design and will support rather than stretch local services.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7450

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Sport England

This site adjoins Westray Park which is used by the community for football. There is a floodlit adult football pitch adjacent to the proposed site which is used by the community during evenings and weekends.

Paragraph 193 of the NPPF requires that new development should be integrated effectively with existing businesses and community facilities such as sports clubs. It further goes on to state that existing businesses and facilities should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result of development permitted after they were established. Therefore, the applicant (or “agent of change”) should include details of measures to protect the operation of the adjoining football pitches from any significant adverse effect arising from the siting of this new development. These mitigation measures may impact on the number of dwellings that could be constructed at the proposed housing site.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7693

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Cllr Abigail West

Mill Lane should not be a reserve site, it should be a main site but with an allocation of 40-60 houses and an improved access arrangement. The community will accept this and this gives us an allocation to counter some of the loss of the Brooke Road Oakham site.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7717

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

The Technical Consultation in respect of “Relationship to Settlement” concludes that further assessment is required to establish the impact on the landscape and therefore “potentially” suitable.

Despite these unanswered questions, the Council seek to allocate the site in reserve for 90 dwellings.

Conclusion: Unsuitable for a reserve allocation due to lack of information on landscape impacts.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7720

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Reserve site H1a - Land At Mill Lane, Cottesmore has recently been refused planning permission in April 2023 for 93 dwellings (reference: 2022/0604/MAF). There were a large number of refusal reasons including that the location is prominent within views on the approach to the village from the northwest and the combination of the proposed details of the scheme and its location would have a detrimental impact on the character of the village when approaching it from this direction. Whilst it is accepted that many of the reasons for refusal could be overcome through the allocation of the site and improvements to the design and layout, this reason will be harder to address and potentially raises questions about the suitability of the site for allocation.

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

Object

Representation ID: 8014

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr PJRS Hill and Pikerace Limited

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore has been identified as a reserve site for 90 dwellings. This is in spite of the fact proposed development of this site for 93 dwellings was refused planning permission in April 2023 for seven separate reasons.

Amongst the reasons for refusal, was the effect of the proposed development on the landscape and settlement character given the prominence of views of the site on the
approach to the village as well as adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity, which according to the Council’s assessment could not be avoided. Identification of this site as a reserve site for 90 dwellings is therefore not well-founded, given that it is unlikely to be able to support this scale of development without generating a materially adverse impact.

This proposed Reserve Site is inappropriate both in terms of scale for the settlement of Cottesmore and for the reasons given by the Council less than a year ago for refusing the grant planning permission. The scale of development is also entirely out of kilter with the
scale of development proposed in Policy H1 5 (8 dwellings) and H1.8 (8 dwellings). This disparity of scale is otiose in the context of Cottesmore.

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

Object

Representation ID: 8022

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Messrs J, P & P Turner; Scott & Scott (Ayston) Limited; Peterborough Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

This proposed allocation is very difficult to understand or rationalise given the fact that a planning application for the residential development of the site was refused planning permission by the Council’s Planning Committee in April 2023, for seven separate reasons including:

-The effect of the proposed development on the landscape and settlement character, given the prominence of views of the site on the approach to the village;
-Significant concerns regarding adverse impacts to neighbouring amenity, which according to the Council’s assessment could not be avoided.

Identification of this site as a reserve site for 90 dwellings is therefore not well-founded, given that it is unlikely to be able to support this scale of development without generating a materially adverse impact.

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