Object

Representation ID: 6235

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, roads/infrastructure as a whole without any gain is criminal. As a person who lives and has resided directly opposite this beautiful green field for 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. This should be included in Rutlands Draft Local 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: 6238

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Leon Pritchard

Overpopulation of Stamford
Impact on health services in SKDC, including Peterborough hospital. No impact for Rutland.
Loss of well established natural habitat and beauty spot
Lack of infrastructure
Traffic congestion
Reduction of green spaces for increased pollution (linear park is not a good enough substitute)
No thought for schooling (secondary school???)

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

Object

Representation ID: 6251

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tom Upson

Rutland should not be looking to allocate half of their housing target on the edge of the county at Stamford North. Environnmentally, this will negatively impact on a valuable local wildlife site, which goes against Rutland's environmental strategy and previous commitment to not build on open countryside.
The impact this developemtn will have on Stamford's already stretched facilities would be significant. With the current road network already at capacity, 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.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6262

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Nick McDowall

The development will destroy biodiversity on what is an important environmental asset for Rutland. The scale of the development has not considered the negative impact it will have on surrounding Rutland villages and Stamford itself, producing untenable levels of traffic congestion and insufficient service provision, particularly healthcare.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6263

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Hartley

This development will have a massive and detrimental effect on Stamford's existing public services and infrastructure. The towns doctors, dentists, schools and library serves etc are already stretched to breaking point and currently cannot even deliver a proper service. The proposed additional 650 homes will have a massive and detrimental effect on Stamford as a whole .

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

Object

Representation ID: 6265

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Smith

object to the Stamford North and Quarry Farm proposal on the grounds that it is not necessary and will do more harm than good to this beautiful town.

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).
This will bring more pollution to our beautiful town, and will damage the aesthetic people travel here to view, not to mention no more green spaces and thriving biodiversity

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

Object

Representation ID: 6273

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Hartley

I object to this development because:
A) environmental - Stamford North and Quarry Farm are important greenspaces containing considerable biodiversity..
B) It is an ill thought out plan which will bring considerable pressure on Stamford's facilities such as schools, doctors, traffic.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6277

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: 6311

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jane Cuppelditch

Cross boundary co-operation between local authorities is something to be encouraged when it benefits local people and enhances services. However in my opinion Quarry Farm certainly doesn't fall into this category.
It is a Candidate Wildlife Site, specified in the existing Biodiversity Action Plan for Rutland. RCC EN1 policy states Development resulting in significant harm to biodiversity should not be permitted. Also in the previous local plan Quarry Farm was designated open countryside. The local population is not going to benefit if this green space is lost. The council needs to urgently reconsider the inclusion of Quarry Farm for 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: 6341

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Greg Bayliss

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.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6354

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Bayliss

The quarry is a haven for wildlife and an area where the local residents can exercise as it is situated a mile out of town. The infrastructure of Stamford is not capable of supporting itself at the moment, let alone another 650 houses and families. The added volume of traffic in a residential
area will only bring more chaos. The quarry is not a viable option for housing.

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

Support

Representation ID: 6356

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

Lincolnshire County Council welcomes that Policy H2 seeks an agreed Masterplan or Development Brief or comprehensive planning application for the whole of Stamford North.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 6429

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: 6451

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: 6499

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The transport implications of this development are inadequately explained and it's feared will have major and deleterious impacts on Ryhall and its accessibility to nearby and already congested Stamford system. It will narrow the countryside buffer with Ryhall altering adversely the identity and character of Ryhall and Belmesthorpe as rural Rutland villages. We do not want to be suburbs of Stamford. The increased population will have a profound impact upon the already struggling local health care system and other infrastructure issues. The Quarry Farm/Monarch Park component of the plan is too large and should be scaled back by 50%.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6529

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

The parties agree that the site is a sustainable location for development and that the site can in principle be developed to deliver 650 dwellings, a road connecting the eastern and western boundaries of the site and a country/community park which will also act as mitigation and a translocation area.

Ultimately the development proposal represents an opportunity to deliver significant benefits to the locality whilst underpinning the Councils housing delivery strategy. It is a viable, available and deliverable proposal that will be completed in the next 5-10 years.

(We have provided a formal response regarding the policy to RCC)

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

Object

Representation ID: 6545

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

We have serious concerns about the proposed inclusion of a strategic housing site in the Council's supply and trajectory which has already been examined as part of another local plan (South Kesteven) and found to comprise a critical component part of the neighbouring district's own supply.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6559

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Bush

I object based on
increased traffic/ congestion caused within Stamford and surrounding villages,
increased parking problems in town,
lack of suitable healthcare/dentist provision,
secondary schools already almost at capacity,
safety issues at the link road junctions.
Casterton Road will be severely impacted, the link road comes out on a residential street that already very busy at rush hour. Casterton is already difficult to get through in the morning and evening with the current traffic load and this would increase it further, also heading into Stamford to get into/ through the town is already very congested Scotgate and along North st.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6577

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Linda Biddle

1)Country park cannot replace existing wildlife habitats. Site proposed is on arable land with little biodiversity value compared with that being destroyed. Calcareous species cannot successfully be translocated onto arable land. Nor can badgers and bats!

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

Object

Representation ID: 6585

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Middlemiss

I object to the Quarry Farm development, a greenfield location, when brownfield alternatives exist.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6590

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Sally Middlemiss

I object to this greenfield development - it is illogical and unfair, when larger brownfield sites eg St George’s Barracks exist. I believe our Local Plan should protect local biodiversity and ecosystem integrity - this Quarry Farm proposal does the opposite.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6616

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rick Wilson

I object most strongly to this development. The loss of a very popular area of natural beauty, despite the proposals by the developer, which will be nowhere near good enough to replace what is lost. Additionally, the extra strain on the resources, services and infrastructure of Stamford will be disastrous, as will the extra strain on the road network, both during any construction and once finished 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: 6652

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Philippa Wills

I am concerned about the large scale of this development, and the impact on Stamford.
Stamford does not have the necessary infrastructure to support this development, in terms of healthcare and schooling. The other area of particular concern is impact on the road network, which struggles to cope with the existing traffic. I would therefore like to know what improvements will be made to the road network to accommodate this large scale development?


The quarry provides an essential home for wildlife , and I am very concerned the the scale of biodiversity loss could not be mitigated by the developers.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6784

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Catherine Wales

I was under the impression that this land was under a law of a protected nature reserve?
The plans that have been put forward will annihilate any wild life that have made their habitat there . Already the Green Woodpeckers have been dispersed.
We all need to have space, humans and natural habitats.
But the need for housing , (which I’m assuming is hopefully some assisted homing ?) could be situated in a more realistic site?
There are no amenities here or public transport so are you relying on families here with the means to commute to London etc every day.
Stamford (including Great Casterton) does not or deserve any more congestion that it already has .
In my mind this is just pure greed and not looking at the bigger picture.
Quarry farm has been a safe haven for humans and animals alike for many years. We pick up any litter we take care of it in our hearts. If built on, it will destroy a community.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6856

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Point c. refers to a “country park incorporating the appropriate mitigation of potential harm to biodiversity and wildlife assets, including the appropriate translocation of notable species”. There are concerns over the potential viability of habitats capable of supporting translocated notable species within this context. The point should be
amended to focus on the need for a clear spatial mitigation strategy for habitat losses, in-line with both the Mitigation Hierarchy and new Biodiversity Net Gain Hierarchy, with an assessment of the viability of species translocations alongside this. The strategy should favour on site provision over off-site provision to mitigate any losses.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7021

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stephen Wheatley

As a Stamford resident, I support the objection made by the Stamford Town Council regarding traffic levels and insufficient infrastructure. Even the support given by South Kesteven District Council says that Policy H2 should reflect the Statement of Common Ground, which acknowledges that there is likely to be an impact on the existing infrastructure in Stamford. The policy ignores the current situation in Stamford.

There needs to be something more specific in Policy H2 about the expected needs for additional traffic management, healthcare provision, schools and for shops on the west side of Stamford, rather than general statements about a transport assessment and appropriate community infrastructure.

The proposed CIL for required infrastructure will be paid to Rutland County Council, as will the Council Tax income from the proposed 650 dwellings of the Quarry Farm development. Therefore, although Stamford will have to deal with the impact of the development, the generated income all goes to Rutland.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7098

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

RCC acknowledge that the proposed allocation at Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development is dependent on the SKDC local plan allocating a further 1,350 homes to North Stamford (within SKDC) being deemed sound. This cannot be assumed at this stage for a variety of reasons set out in our full submission.

Until the SKDC Local Plan is confirmed sound and the necessary studies for the development have been carried out including Traffic Impact Assessment (based on an updated Stamford Traffic Model), an Environmental Impact Assessment, an Archaeological Assessment and a Heritage Impact Assessment, (including an assessment of the impact on Stamford’s Heritage) there can be no certainty that the development can proceed.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7167

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes (Greetham) Limited

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

The policy states that the portion of land within Rutland will only be brought forward for development in conjunction with the land in South Kesteven as part of a comprehensive mixed-use scheme known as Stamford North.

Recommendation:
a) Until it can be demonstrated that the site is actually deliverable in accordance with all criteria in Policy H2 none of the dwellings should be counted towards meeting the housing requirement.
b) If it can be demonstrated the site is deliverable, the level of housing to be delivered must be set in the context of the delivery of the main part of the allocation in South
Kesteven and with reference to appropriate and realistic lead in times and delivery rates.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7295

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton and Tinwell Joint Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

We would query what happens to this housing delivery for Rutland should the overall Stamford development not proceed, and what are Rutland County Council’s fallback options? This is a significant amount of development to commit to, on a partnership basis. It would be helpful for the Plan to explain what the safeguards are in this situation.

We would also note in the context of this policy that the proposals for the creation of a Country Park do not suitably compensate for the loss of biodiversity on the Quarry Farm site in question. In addition, the proposals for translocations of specific species may look fine on paper but are extremely difficult to achieve in practice, and due weight should be given to this concern. In this, we echo the concerns of the Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust in their response to you.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7358

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Policy H2 relates to Stamford North, which is a site allocated in the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan
(SVLP - Jan 2020) and includes provision for 1,300 dwellings. It is however unclear how development at
this site is accounted for within the housing figures for Rutland and this must be clearly explained through
appropriate evidence.

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