Support

Representation ID: 8052

Received: 28/10/2024

Respondent: Martin Shewry

This looks to be an appropriate development for the site and area. I expect when finished, it'll look similar to the development just down the road at Rosewood Close in North Luffenham, which has blended in nicely. Well done for meeting the county housing target. I note there's NO reference in the Plan to the "brownfield site" in the Barracks Area. That's another matter. Creating a housing estate to match those around Peterborough City is simply NOT appropriate, to Rutland Water or Rutland as a rural county. There will be traffic commuting, etc. Its character will be lost for ever.

Object

Representation ID: 8249

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The EH2 plan ignores and increases the maximum numbers in the Neighbourhood Plan and the Parish Council's independent assessment. It lacks an evidence base and is against the LP's own spatial strategy objective to maintain the 2 county towns as key location! It infringes Policy CC4 and Section 14 of NPPF because homes will be commuter bases for remote employment opportunities due to lack infrastructure and transport (no buses to county town, infrequent service to other locations). NPPF only supports larger scale development if "well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities". This is not!

Object

Representation ID: 8253

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

See comment regarding this particular site in the general H1 section

Object

Representation ID: 8255

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Mrs Pam Allen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

NPPF states that it will only support larger scale development if "well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities." The number of "up to 85" approved on outline planning permission far exceeds the Edith Weston Neighbourhood Plan (now through Inspection stage). There is no evidence to suggest these numbers are required in this location and given lack of employment they will become commuter homes to Peterborough and Leicester and beyond which will infringe S14 of NPPF and Policy CC4. Insufficient infrastructure is proposed and local transport currently is abysmal.

Object

Representation ID: 8278

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Susan Walling

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This allocation is unsound for these reasons:
Maximum housing numbers too high
Ignoring the Edith Weston neighbourhood plan
Unsustainable increase to the existing village
The site is unsustainable and with limited public transport
Need for a cumulative traffic impact assessment considering housing opportunity at SGB
landscape sensistivity not considered.
Another local site, Normanton Rd, recently assessed at an appeal by inspector and site refused.
Given the evidence at the main SGB site of a possible new SSSi site and the location of this allocation to the SGb site, consideration should be given to the need for a full environmental survey.

Object

Representation ID: 8471

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This site contains sports facilities which would either need to be retained or replaced as part of any redevelopment proposal. The retention of the sports facility may impact on the number of dwellings that could be constructed at the site.

Object

Representation ID: 8479

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I have objected as I believe that RCC has totally ignored the Edith Weston’s Neighbourhood Plan in its decision to include the Officers Mess site at larger numbers. H1.2
Since the figure of 51 was given by RCC - 6 further house have been build so I believe the number of houses in this site should be reduced to 45 to be legally correct. Furthermore there needs to be consideration as to the impact of the main SGB site especially given there is evidence to suggest there may be a protected nature area here/triple SSI of which the buffers are not yet known. this site borders open countryside which may well be a wildlife corridor to the main site. To date there has been little reporting of evidence to consider this priority.

Object

Representation ID: 8594

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Norman Milne

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed 85 homes at the Officers’ Mess in Edith Weston exceed the Neighbourhood Plan’s allocation of fewer than 60 houses, raising concerns about over-intensification.

Object

Representation ID: 8715

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

A detailed heritage assessment is again required at both Local Plan and application stage. An additional criteria should be included for both a detailed HIA at application stage (together with that carried out at Local Plan stage) and for a criteria to ensure protection of the setting of the Grade II listed School House and other listed buildings.