Object

Representation ID: 2633

Received: 04/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Cassie

The land is unsuitable for housing as it floods regularly along the boundary of Redthorn way and Tinsley close

1. What will the developers do to ensure this flooding to Redthorn way and Tinsley close is halted ?
2. What will be done to prevent the new housing over looking the existing properties ?

Object

Representation ID: 2713

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Stokes

Goes against the local plan for Claypole. Main Street already very busy and Doddington Road junction dangerous. Would totally spoil the view for many houses on Tinsley Close and Redthorne Way,

Object

Representation ID: 2714

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Richard Widdison

Over the years many legitimate objections have been raised to similar proposals and developments on this land. Claypole is already over populated and has grown massively over recent years. These houses are destroying the character of the village and the infrastructure isn’t in place to support continued expansion. Drainage is a problem, Main Street is already too busy, GP services and NHS services are overstretched and we have a massive extension of Fernwood already on our doorstep. Previous objections by the Parish Council have articulated very well why this shouldn’t be supported.

Object

Representation ID: 2715

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Cassie

Has there been any consideration for other developments in the area. I know it's across the boarder but there are already other larger developments planned which will cause infrastructure stress , so this will contribute to it.

Object

Representation ID: 2716

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Kieren Martin

I strongly believe that this development would have a drastically negative impact on the village. The proposed 86 dwellings would increase traffic through the village which it already has issues with along doddington lane and main street. This coupled with the lack of substantial local amenities would lead to many of the current villagers becoming hostile to “new residents” which is the opposite of what a small village needs. Infill has already taken some lovely buildings out of the village and this development would be one step too far for many of the village’s residents.

Object

Representation ID: 2717

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Miss Eleanor Bedford

I don’t want to see Claypole become a large town and become too busy and over taken by amenities to accommodate the growing housing market. It is a lovely small community which will be ruined by building more and more houses. The countryside is why we live here and these houses are taking it over and making it more town like. I am 21 and looking to buy in the next few years and won’t look to live in Claypole if it is too large and not as peaceful as it is now with the fields and country lanes.

Object

Representation ID: 2719

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Barber

This is a large development and not needed in the village. The road infrastructure in the village can not cope with that many additional houses - the cross roads is already dangerous. There are already large scale developments in fernwood and middlebeck so this isn’t needed in a small village community

Object

Representation ID: 2720

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mr David Hull

Village only small.cannot cope with traffic as it is. Persons in houses for years will have views spoiled.

Field is a village amenity used for dog walking and walking. This will spoil the outline of the village with less green areas.local habitat for wildlife will be destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 2722

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Steven Johnson

These large developments increasingly impact on one of the few remaining quiant villages in our county. Our village is already let down by our district council with failings to deal with a growing anti-social behaviour issue at the bridge, poor road surfaces and a non existent public transport. It would be another slap in the face for SKDC to further show a lack of support to our village by supporting this application which will further compound issues currently ignored by our elected members.

Object

Representation ID: 2726

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Ms Katie Hill

Ruining a beautiful village. The tenants of the previous houses built on this land have no respect and are slowly turning it into an eye sore. I’ve lived here 29 years and it’s such a shame that the small village we chose to live in is fast becoming a housing estate.

Comment

Representation ID: 2729

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Jenny Plumb

Although the plans state that Doddington Lane will need widening. This does not help that Main Street, the route that new householders will use to access the site, can not be widened and it is already basically a single track road due to residents parking.
This is my main concern, that Main Street is often congested and cars associated with 86 new houses will make the road more dangerous than it already is.

Object

Representation ID: 2731

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Mrs Lauren Gray

We do not need any more development in the village. With the Fernwood development encroaching on the village we are rapidly losing our village feel.
The recent development is largely disrespected by its occupiers, who have no respect for the village or the impact this has on the surrounding residents.
Please leave our village alone!!!

Object

Representation ID: 2732

Received: 29/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Harry Garner

We don’t need more housing along that road

Comment

Representation ID: 2743

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Harwood

You are destroying the village.

Currently 1382 residents in 560 dwellings.
86 new units is approximately a 15% increase.

Average cars per household is 1.20- this would mean an additional 103 cars in the village.
A single car can produce 4.6 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually =474.72 metric tons of Co2 annually in the village

Contribute to climate change, which in turn negatively impacts wildlife through habitat loss, changes in food availability, and increased frequency of extreme weather events

Currently issues with pavements, lights and potholes without adding more vehicles and people.

Object

Representation ID: 2788

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Hales

I object to the planning application on the following grounds
1. Unnecessary damage to the environment both from building works and increased in site traffic and when completed residential traffic.
2. An increase in the size originally of 55 homes to 86.
3. Impact on the neighbouring houses, in design and being out of character with the vast majority of surrounding buildings.
4. Safety concerns of pedestrians and cyclists using Doddington Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 2818

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Annette Turnpenny

Detailed objection has been sent separately to SKDC Planning Policy Team, in summary I object to the proposed planning for 86 dwellings in Claypole on the basis of the same issues that were raised in previous planning applications S22/1559 – (66) and S21/0769 – (74), both starting at higher numbers but still rejected.

Concerns relate primarily to Claypole’s long-standing problem of surface water flooding and the capacity of any drainage system proposal, in addition to the public sewage system, to cope. Also, the water supply to the village struggles to maintain pressure.

Other concerns relate to travel/transport/road and pedestrian safety/wildlife.

Object

Representation ID: 2859

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Fisher

Here’s the updated 100-word objection with the correction:

---

I strongly object to the proposed development. The scale is wholly disproportionate to the village’s size and needs, particularly given 1,700 houses are already under construction less than a mile away, near the county border. This site extends into open countryside, harming rural character and setting a precedent for further sprawl. Local infrastructure—roads, schools, healthcare, drainage—cannot sustain this level of growth without significant adverse impact. More sustainable, better-connected locations exist within the district. This proposal repeats past, rejected schemes and should be removed from the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 2892

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Mr James Patrick Stapleton

The main planning issues to consider to be whether the planning application constitutes: • an appropriate location for development having regard to policies of the Development and Local Plan and accessibility to services and facilities; • an appropriate site for housing older people; • development that meets an identified need; • provision of mixed and balanced community that integrates with the host community; • a proposal that reflects the form, structure, character and appearance of Claypole; • a proposal that has appropriate provision for surface water drainage; and • a proposal that does not adversely affect highway and pedestrian safety

Object

Representation ID: 2933

Received: 14/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Colin Richardson

Problem with traffic congestion.. already chaotic on the high street. Fernwood extension brings 3000 more houses, creating more traffic..... No infrastructure to support Eighty plus more houses in Claypole.
Flooding on proposed build site which Lincolnshire county council are looking into.
Local school at PAN
Neighbourhood plan made it clear that increasing the size of Claypole is disproportionate to the village needs and completely out of character for the village
Strain on local services

Object

Representation ID: 2963

Received: 16/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Simona Rowell

We oppose the allocation of site SKP-322 in Claypole due to lack of transparency, poor consultation timing, and misclassification of the village’s status. Claypole lacks infrastructure, services, and capacity for large-scale development, risking environmental harm and urban sprawl. The proposal contradicts the Claypole Neighbourhood Plan and violates national and local planning policies, including the NPPF. It threatens the village’s rural character, increases traffic and flood risks, and undermines community-led planning. We urge South Kesteven District Council to remove SKP-322, reassess Claypole’s classification, and extend the consultation to ensure fair public participation.

Object

Representation ID: 2973

Received: 17/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Bedford

As a resident on Main Street, my main concern is the increase in traffic. There is no possibility of widening this as there is on Doddington Lane but the increased traffic will use Main Street. Increased noise and pollution will affect health and wellbeing. Drainage around the village has been an issue for years, sewers are already struggling to cope - we have had many blockages which will increase with further
housing. This whole development ignores the wishes of most villagers as outlined in the recent meeting attended by around 100 residents and goes against the agreed Neighbourhood plan.

Object

Representation ID: 2986

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Cassie

As Claypole is a smaller village the proposed area for development causes it to grow, the village cannot sustain this growth without extreme "OTHER" developments which have to include :

Roads or by-pass - however this will Ruin the village (look , feel and structure) and village life
Doctors - The village does not have a doctors surgery
Dentists - The village does not have a dentist
Additional homes - These homes will put additional pressures on existing roads and infrastructures which the village cannot sustain

Object

Representation ID: 3015

Received: 18/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Elina Ellis

I object to the proposed development due to severe traffic and road capacity issues, as the village has only one narrow road already subject to congestion. The site itself floods badly every winter, raising concerns about increased flood risk to neighbouring homes. The village has no healthcare provision, a full primary school, and very limited amenities, making it unsuitable for additional housing. The development would also overwhelm and permanently alter the character of our small rural community. Furthermore, with a major 1,000-home development already underway nearby, further housing here is unnecessary and unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 3066

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Bedford

Not enough facilities to accommodate more homes, more traffic through the village. Drainage already over taxed. Goes against what was agreed in the neighbourhood plan.

Object

Representation ID: 3067

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Heather Banks

Claypole is categorised as a small village. Nothing has changed to warrant a re-categorisation to large village. We still only have a shop, butchers, hairdresser, pub and small cafe. Residents tend to shop in Newark, driving because of the limited bus service.
Most people have to travel to work outside of Claypole. A 13% increase in houses would add more traffic to an already congested Main St. Widening a small part of Doddington road will alleviate nothing.
The proposed site is marshy for much of the year and frequently floods dwellings on Tinsley Close, [redacted], also Redthorn Way.

Object

Representation ID: 3090

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Brad Picker

86 houses in such a small space is not sustainable. The designated plot includes a right of way which my family uses daily for dog walking. The field already suffers with excess surface water and floods houses on tinsley close. Claypole Road is already congested enough. If house builders want to build in the village I have no problem with that, but ensure they uplift the services and infrastructure present in that village to handle the increased population. There are other urban areas that are far better placed to absorb new houses, Claypole is not suited, specifically the site proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 3102

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Helena Delgado

I strongly object to the proposed housing development in Claypole, which threatens vital greenfield land home to protected species including barn owls, bats, and hedgehogs. The area provides essential drainage, oxygen, and wildlife corridors. Removing it will increase flood risk, pollution, and biodiversity loss. Claypole is already under pressure from nearby expansion in Fernwood, with overstretched roads, healthcare, and schools. Local footpaths are mostly private, and green public space is already lacking. Further development would erode the village’s rural character and community identity, increase traffic hazards, and reduce residents’ quality of life. This proposal is unsustainable and environmentally damaging.

Object

Representation ID: 3103

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Stephen Cassie

The Government and local authorities need to work together and look at the bigger picture, instead of working in silos. Developments in Fernwood , Balderton and Newark areas (although in a neighboring authority) should be considered all that the area requires and therefore use the allocation to benefit another village that requires this additional allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 3135

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Susan Ashton

Development proposal is out of proportion. Infrastructure of the village would not support it. Public transport is limited meaning people need private transport to get to work/GP surgeries/hospitals etc i.e cars. Limited capacity to improve roads within the village which already see a lot of traffic. Employment options limited and people need to travel so again need private transport as limited public options. Flooding on the land concerned would not be improved by developing it and likely would make it worse. Limited retail options so again travel to Newark of Grantham is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 3185

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Mr C Barnascone

I object because: Policy SP2 settlement hierarchy test scoring is unsound and inconsistent - not the one 'found sound' by the current local plan inspector, there is a significant flood risk and the sequential test has not been done, the strategy is not set out to balance housing and employment needs, rationale for housing has not been made clear for larger villages, there is strong opposition to this large scale development at local level, the sustainability objectives are not met as the location will encourage less sustainable transport, proposed allocation will exacerbate congestion on main street