Object

Representation ID: 8076

Received: 17/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Bob Blakeborough

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposed Stamford North ‘development opportunity’ should not be included in the Rutland Local Plan because:
1. ‘Greenfield’ sites such as this shouldn't be used for building when ‘brownfield’ sites are available.
2. The proposed homes will be so far from Stamford town centre that services such as shops, schools and GP surgeries will be almost impossible to reach on foot, adding thousands of extra car journeys.
3. The road junction where Sidney Farm Lane joins the A1 slip road is already inadequate. The additional traffic carried by the proposed ‘distributor road’ would make it even more dangerous.

Object

Representation ID: 8091

Received: 26/11/2024

Respondent: Mrs Liz Taylor

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Building on a candidate wildlife site for profit is a very poor decision. The relief road should be rerouted north of the development, not through the middle. How will you ensure the biodiversity is preserved?
Concentrate on building in the Oakham direction rather than Stamford - otherwise Stamford will get all the negatives whilst Rutland gains the housing numbers and council tax.

Support

Representation ID: 8098

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

We welcome Policy H2's comprehensive approach to development across the County boundary. It is important that development here, as the policy intends, continues to be part of a masterplan or development brief.

Object

Representation ID: 8107

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mr John Deag

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The arguments presented to support site H2 are flawed. The Plan fails to take sufficient note of the impact on neighbouring areas of South Kesteven. The Plan is not justified as alternative sites (Woolfox, St George’s Barracks) are available. The Plan it is not consistent with national policy: the NPPF requirements for developments to result in "safe communities" is not met (for reasons of highway safety), the proposed development is not "well located and designed (for reasons of distance to the town centre)", and is not "supported by the necessary infrastructure (existing highway and other shortcomings identified)". The Plan will have a negative impact on sustainability.

Object

Representation ID: 8208

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Of the 2000 house planned for Stamford north; can you confirm only 650 are geographically within Rutland?

Object

Representation ID: 8211

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There is no basis whatsoever to transfer the benefit of 650 homes at Stamford from South Kesteven to Rutland's supply. Whilst the site lies within Rutland it was allocated principally to meet the needs of the neighbouring district as part of its own current and adopted strategy. There is no justification for this position to change and no evidence that it will not impact on South Kesteven's own strategy.
As importantly it proposes a significant element of Rutland's supply at a site which is functionally linked with a town in a neighbouring district.

Object

Representation ID: 8245

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As set out in our objection to Policy SS1 the 650 dwellings associated with this allocation should not be counted towards meeting the needs of the County. It is considered that the majority of this 650 should be directed into the Rural Area, focused on the Larger Villages.

Object

Representation ID: 8282

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mrs Carol Trott

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Quarry Farm does not comply with your Strategic Objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10. Climate damaged, development not sustainable for Stamford, damages local economy and destroys local communities, infrastructure is not being developed to support the expansion plans. Stop this development and the damage which it will cause to the beautiful town of Stamford, it is not in your County, do not damage it for your benefit.
If absolutely necessary to build here, then include the infrastructure to support the development, including Dr's, NHS, Dentist's, recycling, schools, a bypass a bus service is not needed which nobody will use.

Object

Representation ID: 8293

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Whilst WDH recognises that an MoU has been agreed between RCC and SKDC, the proposed SUE will clearly operate functionally/geographically as an extension to Stamford. Therefore, Stamford SUE should continue to be treated in the same way as in the withdrawn plan, as an allocation to meet the needs of neighbouring SKDC. Whilst WDH recognises that the RLP must make reference to the delivery of the SUE given that the site is within RCC’s jurisdiction, it should not be considered as an allocation to meet RCC’s needs, and should be removed from the housing supply in the RLP.

Support

Representation ID: 8388

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: South Kesteven District Council

The Council welcomes the inclusion of a specific Stamford North policy, and its identification as a ‘Strategic Policy’ as per the Statement of Common Ground. Policy H2 should reflect the Statement of Common Ground and prioritise expenditure of CIL receipts generated by the Stamford North development on projects that are either critical to enable the development to go ahead or are essential to mitigate the impact of the development on infrastructure, including infrastructure to be wholly located within South Kesteven District. The Council proposes a number of amendments to Policy H2:
replace criterion d) to reflect findings of Transport Assessment, exempt the site from CIL to enable financial contributions to fund essential infrastructure wholly located within South Kesteven District, in line with criterion f and the agreed Statement of Common Ground, and amend criterion j. to reflect the grampian conditions to be imposed on the grants of planning permission.
Affirms that SKDC, RCC and Lincolnshire CC have been working together over several years on the future development of Stamford.

Support

Representation ID: 8394

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Network Rail

The transport assessment referred to should include consideration of the proposal's impact on Stamford railway station and any adjacent railway assets (such as level crossings and bridges) so that any impacts on railway operations and safety may be identified and mitigated as appropriate (e.g. via alterations to plans or S106 contributions etc).

Support

Representation ID: 8412

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

This site is adjacent to an historic landfill site (Belvoir Close) which may have caused contamination at the site and these risks need to be assessed. Whilst this is not referenced in the policy the supporting text is clear a Contaminated Land Assessment will be required.

Support

Representation ID: 8441

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF have no comments on this policy other than to note that cross-boundary strategic sites can be complex to deliver, which further underlines the need for flexibility in the plan through additional allocations, and robust monitoring to ensure effective housing delivery is achieved over the Plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 8472

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England welcomes the inclusion of the criteria under m) which requires new playing pitch provision and the use of Sport England’s Playing Pitch Calculator.

Support

Representation ID: 8494

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

Allison Homes support Policy H2 in its allocation of Quarry Farm, Stamford for a residential development of up to 650 homes. The site is controlled, with a well-progressed outline planning application covering the whole allocation. The site-specific allocation requirements are also supported.

Support

Representation ID: 8623

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Policy H2 for Stamford North therefore positively plans for a sustainable location for growth at the proposed 650 homes or above figure set out in the Plan.

AWS supports reference to the provisions in the policy at i. on water supply and j. on water recycling capacity and connections.

Object

Representation ID: 8644

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The provision of other infrastructure, including energy and broadband, is not specifically mentioned but should surely be included.

Object

Representation ID: 8710

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Criterion k. is not currently adequate to effectively and proportionately address the significance of the Roman Town scheduled monument. A drawn map of the buffer to the monument should be included with the policy as previously agreed, to provide necessary assurance and clarity for all parties where reliance on wording only is likely to be ineffective.
A wording change to the policy is also suggested.

Also queries what will be done to secure the conservation and appreciation of the stretch of Ermine Roman Road to the south (such as improved management, vegetation clearance, interpretation etc)? This needs to be brought into:
https://rutland.oc2.uk/document/38/3001#d3001

Further assessment is also required, including upon the landscape, views into and out of the site in relation to Burghley House GII* RPG.

Support

Representation ID: 8723

Received: 24/12/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Impact Assessment - any potential sites anticipated to have an impact on the SRN in the area are subject to consultation with National Highways, and the proposal to be appropriately assessed in line with the DfT Circular 01/2022, to determine the potential impacts on the SRN. Depending on the scale of likely impacts, the applicant may need to identify suitable mitigation measures.
It is to be noted that the cumulative impact of the proposed site allocations also needs to be assessed in line with the Circular for understanding the likely traffic impacts on the SRN, in terms of capacity and safety and identifying any possible mitigation measures required.
We note a commitment for a Transport Impact Assessment (Policy H2), this is welcomed and we look forward to receiving the document for review.

Support

Representation ID: 8732

Received: 24/12/2024

Respondent: National Highways

For any developments which have an impact on neighbouring Local Authorities (LA), National Highways advises a joined-up approach whereby National Highways, Rutland and the other Local Authorities attend joint meetings with future developers or applicants. This will ensure that the interests of all parties are protected, and a combined solution is derived. National Highways acknowledges that a Duty to Cooperate approach is already in effect arranged by Rutland County Council, with the neighbouring authorities of South Kesteven and Lincolnshire County Council and engaged with throughout the development of the local plan.

Once again, National Highways welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Rutland County Council Regulation 19 Local Plan (Publication Version) consultation. We look forward to working with the Council in a collaborative manner to aid and support the development and adoption of the Local Plan for Rutland.