Object

Representation ID: 4801

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Stamford Town Council

The proposed development is set in open countryside and next to a SSSI on the Great North Road and there are more appropriate sites for a development of this size in Rutland - e.g. St Georges Barracks. The development will put upon Stamford unacceptable levels of traffic and the town will not have sufficient infrastructure (healthcare, schooling, to cope with this proposal, if taken in conjunction with the Stamford North Development on 1350 houses.

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

Object

Representation ID: 4834

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Miss helen gillies

Environmental impact on the area
Infrastructure- there are not enough facilities in north Stamford - already have to travel across town to use supermarkets, dentist, GP (which is already in special measures with CQC because of the service so adding another 650 households will make it worse). Then traffic congestion

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

Object

Representation ID: 4845

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Pam Wren

This land is essential in its most natural environment to provide a peaceful and healing area for people to de stress and escape the pressures of every day life.
The location of this new housing estate being on the border with Stamford will put demands on services struggling to provide care to the existing population. I object very strongly to this 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: 4855

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs hayley taylor

Little Casterton Road will not be able to cope with the increase in traffic - especially if the other project the other side goes ahead with a school.
The road newtowrk in town will not be able to cope, the doctors surgery is one of the worst in the country and will get even worse if more people live in the town.
The existing quarry is already a lovely walk, with wildlife would be a shame to build on there.

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

Object

Representation ID: 4887

Received: 24/12/2023

Respondent: Ms Sue Milsom

Quarry farm is a fantastic open green space, so important for mental health. The protected wildlife, badgers, bats, deer will suffer, worse, wiped out. Peregrine falcons that Rutland are so proud to say they have will lose out too. This can’t be allowed to happen. Quarry farm is not the right place to build on, it is just greed. The woodlands are category 2 we can’t let them be destroyed. Rare plant life will be lost too

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

Object

Representation ID: 4892

Received: 24/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Justine McGarrity

This proposal has not taken into account the current network of roads which are already so busy especially at rush hours. Rutland CC can barely maintain their current network of roads into Stamford as seen on the A606 at the A1 junction which has been in a terrible state for nigh on a year! To add another 650 homes and potentially another 1200 vehicles is madness. To decimate the area which is so very abundant with wildlife and green space is a terrible thing to do. Especially when it will impact on Stamford’s services & not Rutland’s.

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

Object

Representation ID: 4905

Received: 27/12/2023

Respondent: Mr David Flynn

I object to the inclusion of Quarry Farm in RCC's revised local plan. The open fields are vital to Skylarks and other ground nesting birds and numerous species of wildlife. What happened to Rutland's previous policy of protecting the environment? Stamford already has planned housing developments that will overstretch its resources and infrastructure without a further 650 houses planned by Rutland. Surely, St Georges barracks, which will stand idle in 2026,would be a better alternative!

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

Object

Representation ID: 4915

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

I object to the proposed development of Rutland North in its entirety. It will generate huge increases in population further straining the failing Stamford Primary Health Service provision which many Rutland residents depend upon accessing. The 'Distributor Road' is an attempt to create a northern ring road to stamford by stealth. Its size and capacity is insufficient for this purpose so it will become a busy 'rat run' feeding more vehicular traffic onto the A6121 materially and negatively affecting Ryhall residents access to Stamford. I support the Monarch Park development but believe at 650 houses it is too large .

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

Object

Representation ID: 4924

Received: 29/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Susan Marsh

Stamford cannot support Rutland's housing stock problems. The town has it's own growing issues with nonexistent health services, traffic, school placements, consumer needs on the opposite side of town. Sewerage/drainage. Destruction of wildlife areas. Overcrowding. This plan has been ill thought through and is storing up problems for the future. Total breakdown of the existing community impacting on the quality of life for current residents. Basic fact is the town simply cannot cope with any more developments which appears to escape those that want to profit. Stamford will end up paying whilst Rutland benefits financially. Total destruction 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: 4944

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Neal Ince

This proposal is not sustainable. Stamford already struggles with poor healthcare, dentistry and educational provision. The villages of Little Casterton, Great Casterton and Toll Bar will also be massively impacted by the additional population and traffic.
The minimal services proposed are inappropriate - why build a community centre on woodland and site the primary school off Little Casterton Lane , which is already unsuitable for the existing amount of traffic on it.
The development doesn't take into account the impact of other proposed developments in Stamford. Rutland CC should focus development on existing brownfield sites, not greenfield sites in 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: 4952

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jane Ince

I have huge concerns about the environmental impact of this development. The quarry supports wildlife and plantlife that could not be supported elsewhere. It is not appropriate for development

We do not have the infrastructure to support a further 650 homes. Lakeside Healthcare already struggles to provide adequate care for its existing population. Empingham medical centre is at capacity. Both surgeries have had huge problems recruiting. Even if a new surgery is built how is it going to be staffed? There are the same issues in dental care and a lack of secondary school places.

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

Object

Representation ID: 4971

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Alex Smith

Objection for the following reasons -

1. Harm to environmental site, biodiversity and wildlife habitat damage - this will not be mitigated by the proposed "country park".

2. Strain on the town's infrastructure and resources, including transport and local services - this will not be sufficiently or properly mitigated by the proposed new roads and junctions. Local amenities and roads are already over-burdened.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5063

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Helen Mulcahy

This development will have a significant impact on Stamford and its surrounding villages. Stamford does not have the infrastructure to support this development. The town is already struggling with traffic and an increase of cars exiting onto casterton road will have an adverse effect. Quarry farm is abundant with wildlife and the effect this will have on the environment is a disgrace. The site is used by many local people and is incredibly important for mental wellbeing.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5064

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Trott

Whoever used the term Masterplan needs to go back to school, this term is an obvious oxymoron because it is determined by money grabbing fools and not by someone who really cares about the town of Stamford. I do not disagree with development as I love my town and understand that it has to evolve, it is not just a Georgian slice of history but a living breathing unique place which needs to develop, modernise to survive. We need infrastructure, services, jobs and development, wealth generation to feed our retail, unfortunately we just get houses. Think smarter, just for once.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5072

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Anna Russo

I strongly object to so many many new homes being imposed on a small historic town.
Developments have been added in recent years and none have provided the necessary infrastructure and services to support the extra popluation and traffic.
How can such growth be "sustainable" when services and schools are already stretched to the limit?

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

Object

Representation ID: 5099

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Bullet point (c) requires a country park incorporating the appropriate mitigation of potential harm to biodiversity and wildlife assets, including the appropriate translocation of notable species and would wish to ensure that the BNG requirements can be fully met on this site.
We welcome bullet point (h) which requires 15% Green Infrastructure on the site and emphasise the importance that GI is incorporated throughout the site, so all residents have equal access to high quality green space. We would also advise that GI design follows advice in both the Melton GBI Strategy (2023) and Natural England’s GI Framework.

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

Support

Representation ID: 5168

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

As with St George’s Barracks, Stamford North is an opportunity to do something better than the norm. In particular, for the LA’s to be proactive and collaborative in design rather than being reactive. A DPD is definitely needed. it must be designed as a community in its own right rather than just a huge housing estate. I am skeptical about Biodiversity Net Gain being implemented in reality. How is any BNG realistically possible ‘on site’? (master plan contents point h)

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5246

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Ginny Matthew

this site's environmental importance as a candidate nature reserve will be destroyed, even if small areas are retained as park that will be degraded. re "sustainable community" - it will add pressure to services struggling to cope with unsustainable population increase from previous and ongoing developments in Stamford i.e. local roads especially the A1 slip roads leading to dangerous congestion on the A1 at peak times, medical services, schools - ideas that a link road and a one off payment to the local health authority will help are not realistic and rates will go to RCC not Stamford or SKCC

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

Object

Representation ID: 5271

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

The development of Quarry Farm will only be supported as part of the planning application for the whole Stamford North proposed development. If the Stamford North development is not approved then Rutland will lose 650 homes that it is relying on to maintain its 5 year housing land supply. This will result in a return to 'presumption in favour of (sustainable) development', which allowed Ketton to be saddled with 75 (and another possible 41) houses on top of the 86 which were on allocated sites. Surely safer to rely on sites that do not rely on approval by another LA.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5292

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Kevin shell

I object to destroying what little country side we have left. Wild life has as much right to it too. We do not need the extra demand for schools and doctors in our town.

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

Support

Representation ID: 5361

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: South Kesteven District Council

SKDC welcomes the inclusion of a specific policy for the cross-boundary development opportunity at Stamford North. SKDC considers, however, that the policy should reflect the Statement of Common Ground which acknowledges that there is likely to be an impact on the existing infrastructure of Stamford.

Policy H2 should therefore echo the SoCG and stipulate that RCC will prioritise expenditure of CIL receipts generated by the 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 SK District.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 5369

Received: 30/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Deag

I object to this policy. The arguments presented to support the building of 650 houses at Quarry farm are convoluted. The draft plans states that the land in Rutland is needed in conjunction with land north of Stamford "to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable development", including the provision of a 'distributor' road from Ryhall Road to
Casterton Road. As the land to the north of Stamford has been marked for development in the South Kesteven Local Plan it is held that in effect Rutland's hands are tied by a statutory requirement to cooperate with South Kesteven. The problem is that there are many reasons to believe that Stamford North development will not be sustainable.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5385

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Stevenson

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 is also a fantastic wilderness of open space, wildlife and fauna.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5394

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Dee Downham

We can not afford to loose more countryside. Loss of biodiversity and therefore quality of life. Stamford needs to maintain these precious areas.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5399

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Liz Taylor

Quarry Farm should not be developed as part of Stamford North. It will destroy a natural area, the totally inappropriate design will plough a rat run of a road through the middle of the site separating the areas of woodland, it will be running through the housing itself, hardly good for safety especially with talk of a potential school in the area. Traffic in the area will be a nightmare, Little Casterton road is currently a difficult road at present as it is a small country road. This is purely a badly thought out money making venture for the developer

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

Object

Representation ID: 5477

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Jenny Ellery

Rutland will get all the council tax, but the impact will be on Stamford. We also need to protect nature rich green spaces of which this is one.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5485

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Cheryl Allibone

- this area is my local greenspace, I don't have anywhere else with any naturalness within 15mins walk, it meets the Government's 'Green in 15' commitment for all those living in this end of Stamford. We need this greenspace for our health and wellbeing
- Quarry Farm is of high biodiversity value (including woodland, chalk grassland, ponds). Rutland Local Plan proposes 15% Biodiversity Net Gain, so destroying valuable natural habitat would make this impossible to achieve with building houses on the best and most biodiverse areas and creating a country park on agricultural land.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5490

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Patsy Burke

The development plans are detailed, but the salient point is that Stamford’s existing infrastructure is already overwhelmed.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5501

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Antony Squires

I object to the inclusion of Quarry Farm being included in the residential development plan.

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

Object

Representation ID: 5507

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Dr Chantal Radley

I strongly object to this on several grounds: 1) environmental degradation of a highly biodiverse area, 2) direct contravention of Rutland County Council's proposed EN1 policy which states Development resulting in significant harm to biodiversity will not be permitted, 3) lack of appropriate planned resources for the new 650 homes will bring appalling standards of healthcare and education for an already highly challenging local environment. This policy demonstrates a total disregard for current circumstances in Stamford and will put yet more pressure on existing residents to access suitable provision. The Council must rethink this misguided and ill thought out policy.

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