Object

Representation ID: 2649

Received: 14/07/2025

Respondent: Mr Daniel Gardiner

The proposed development is too large for a village of Corby Glen's size and available facilities. On top of the recent 2 developments (one of which is still being constructed, which I live in) if this proposal and the other one were approved, that would be a total of almost 700 new houses in a village of only 1000 residents. That would be fitting in a town 30x the size but not in a small village with limited transport links and very limited facilities, 15-20 minutes drive to local towns. The current agreed 260 new houses is comparatively enough.

Support

Representation ID: 2711

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Mr David Fowler

As this is already in the current Local Plan, I have no objections to this but I do feel that the infrastructure of the village should be improved.

Comment

Representation ID: 2746

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Susan Coleman

We support the need for more housing in Corby Glen in principle but both of these sites are in unsustainable locations, too far from the village centre. People won’t walk that far and there is insufficient parking in the Square for them to drive; more traffic will also affect residential amenity for those living in the centre. Should development go ahead, onsite amenities would be required as part of the development mix; shops, playgrounds, open spaces, cycle routes etc. Consideration would also need to be given to the capacity of existing schools and health centre to support new demand.

Object

Representation ID: 2747

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Darren Huxtable

I feel as a small village we have already had enough new houses built / being built over th3 last few years. The village does not have the infrastructure to cope with such a large addition develop development

Object

Representation ID: 2751

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jane Day

I object to this proposal. We gave already had 3 new developments in our village. We do not have the infrastructure for any further developments. Our village is far too large now!

Object

Representation ID: 2759

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Penelope Campbell

NO ABSOLUTELY NOT

Object

Representation ID: 2772

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Chris Fotheringham

As a resident of Corby Glen I wish to lodge my objection to this proposal. The village has already had a significant increase of new housing over the last few years. I believe further new build of this scale is totally disproportionate to the size and nature of Corby Glen.

Object

Representation ID: 2775

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Anthony Salt

I have studied the geography and structure of the village of Corby Glen and fail to understand the reasoning and wisdom of such an extensive development. It appears grossly unreasonable to enforce the burden of so much additional housing into so small a community village, which already has issues with some services.

I am totally opposed to this development and urge the Council to reject the proposed development.

Object

Representation ID: 2807

Received: 04/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Marshall Roberts

I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of 144 + 293 houses on land to the west and south of the village.

The current developments are ruining a rural agricultural village with over crowding on the streets, parking, lack of facilities. Already problems are caused to overflow of raw sewage near the children’s play area. I wish to object most strongly to any further developments and the spoiling of a historic rural Lincolnshire village.

Object

Representation ID: 2810

Received: 08/08/2025

Respondent: Alex Hancock

I am writing to raise my objection to the proposed plans in the local area for a substation and housing developments within the village.

My concerns extend to (but not exclusively to): Traffic congestion, access and infrastructure to local services especially the primary school in the village, dismantling of village culture, noise pollution, impact on my personal house price, future developments that may come after this.

This development is not appropriate of wanted in the area. There are already tensions with some of the locals and the existing new builds. Expanding further will potentially destroy the heart of the village. The needs and desires of us living in the village currently must be listened to.

Object

Representation ID: 2813

Received: 28/07/2025

Respondent: Anne Collins

Number of people: 2

We are writing to express our dismay and disbelief at your plans to build more houses in Corby Glen.
We have already had over 300 new homes built and are coping with the problems this has brought.
1. Sewerage: The pipeline as it stands cannot cope with the extra housing. The residents in the new housing have raw sewerage entering their bathrooms. Meanwhile SKDC are blaming the developers, they are blaming SKDC and Anglian Water. The system has to be chemically unblocked regularly.
2. There are no facilities or clubs for young people. Our primary school is full, there isn't any sports clubs, leisure clubs, cubs, brownies, etc. or a Youth Club.
3. There is not a local bus service to speak of. You can get to Stamford or Grantham. But you can't get home again. There is no service to Bourne, our nearest town.
4. Our wildlife will suffer. We have deer, bats, owls and many more species have made their home in the new allocated area.
5. Shops. We have one very small shop, and an even smaller one that sells bread, milk, papers etc. These are situated in the square where parking is a premium.
6. A151 Bourne Road. This road is extremely busy with HGV's using it to get to Spalding and of course the local quarries. The footpaths are narrow hardly wide enough for a pushchair.
4. Our GPs service all the villages in the area, not just Corby Glen. They are stretched now. One practice is only here for 2 days a week. Waiting to see a GP is getting longer and longer.
We wish to register our remarks and hope you will take them into consideration. What with SKDC and the National Grid new pylon line, we are wondering what we've done to deserve all this.

Object

Representation ID: 2839

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

Looks to be countryside that should be left as it is, not destroyed.

Object

Representation ID: 2862

Received: 04/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Sandon

In light of recent developments over the last 25 years this seems insane to be considering with the current infrastructure already under strain (sewage issues off the new Allison & David Wilson developments), parking a growing problem and also recent increases in anti social behaviour which I'm not aware ever occurred before.

This is a small, rural community and although I recognise there's a national need for new housing it has to be planned in areas that can accommodate the homes and new residents with minimum negative impact.

I feel Corby Glen has already absorbed a large number of new builds and yet nearby villages have not had to absorb any - why is this?

For all the new residents arriving in the village there appears to be no upturn in use of the local amenities (pubs, shops, clubs & societies), in fact the exact opposite seems to be happening.

The land around Corby Glen has a tendency to both flood and then hold moisture during the winter, and from what I have seen the fields earmarked for planning proposals 247 & 233 are more prone to this than others.

Object

Representation ID: 2864

Received: 03/08/2026

Respondent: Adam Lynch

I strongly appose the scheme and there are to many new houses already without the proper facilities and shops and just sounds like a money making scheme to me

Object

Representation ID: 2867

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Sarah Green

I am writing to object to the addition of 144 + 293 additional houses to the above local plan.

Having lived in Corby Glen for 18 years I have seen significant changes to the village and I am not against change but the village cannot cope with additional houses as proposed.

The village does not have the infrastructure with only 1 small shop and 2 school, both of which are at capacity. The road is also very busy with a current speeding problem and with a lack of traffic management that will only get worse with that number of new houses.

Corby Glen has already seen the addition of nearly 300 new houses on the last 2 years, a number of which aren’t sold and some of which have now been additionally to social housing.

With limited public transport the village cannot accommodate more social housing and anti-social behaviour has already increased in the village.

There are other local villages who have not seen an increase in houses like we have where these hiyses can be placed.

It’s also my understanding that these houses have been added to the plan as a late addition so can easily be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 2871

Received: 01/08/2025

Respondent: Katy Andrew

When I moved to the village in 2012, it was a vibrant, close-knit community with a distinctive character — one defined by its historic stone architecture, rural setting, and the mutual support of its residents. However, following the recent development that increased housing from around 450 to 700 homes, we have already seen significant strain on both the character and cohesion of the village.

I object to these proposals on the grounds of:

Unsustainable and rapid expansion beyond the village’s infrastructure capacity;

Loss of village character and heritage through inappropriate design;

Mismatch between housing provision and local need; Feels like a numbers game to say 'we have built this many houses' rather than the right housing in the right place to meet the needs of the nation.

Lack of transport, employment and support infrastructure for vulnerable residents;

Lack of consideration for the wants and needs of local residents.

Disregard for the agreed and voted in Neighbourhood Plan.

I urge the Council to respect the needs and wishes of existing residents and to prioritise development that enhances, rather than erodes, the unique identity of Corby Glen.

Object

Representation ID: 2883

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: Lee Scott

Scale of Development:
This expansion is unsustainable - nearly tripling the village size.

Infrastructure:
Utilities: Existing water, sewage, and electrical infrastructure wasn't designed to accommodate dramatic population growth. See: the ongoing sewage concerns near the Swinstead Road development.
Healthcare: GP services/healthcare facilities are already stretched and cannot serve additional residents
Education: Local schools lack capacity for significant increase
Digital Infrastructure: Broadband and mobile coverage is already insufficient

Transportation:
Village roads are narrow and unsuitable
Parking capacity is already insufficient
Public transport links are limited
Increased traffic will create safety hazards

Community:
Further loss of rural character and village identity
Further loss of rural landscape
Pressure on local amenities and services
Negative impact on existing residents' quality of life
Disproportionate burden on a small rural community

Property/Economic Concerns:
Oversupply risks depressing property values for homeowners.
Many of the previous phase remain unsold.
Strain on local businesses.

Request for Action:
Conduct comprehensive infrastructure impact assessments
Re-evaluate & reduce the proposed housing allocation for Corby Glen, distribute development evenly across the district
Ensure infrastructure improvements precede development

This level of concentrated development will fundamentally damage the community that residents value highly.

Object

Representation ID: 2894

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Newbery

Scale of development: Drowning of my village in an ocean of new house building. 65% increase in the last 3 years- growth of 292 houses. One village shouldn't bear the brunt of all the new builds for this area. I agree on the need for more housing, this isn't the right place- amount of affordable housing is minimal.
Identity: Already beginning to lose village's charm and identity. Corby Glen is a special place to live; very friendly and sociable village with a tight-knit community, so why destroy this?
Infrastructure: Not upgraded with the recent influx of new housing. Sewers now smell due to overload. No extra health facilities or schooling.
Employment: No work in the area to support such a large increase- concern of becoming a satellite town with a destroyed community.
Pylons/substation: No strong objections. We do need the infrastructure- shame it cannot be buried underground, but I dare say this isn't cost-effective. The proposed substation does seem to be extremely large- should be moved further away from the village. Location on stretch of road with a sharp bend and the railway bridge obscuring the view would make this a very dangerous road hazard for site traffic.

Object

Representation ID: 2907

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Claire Clarke

This is a village that does not have the infrastructure to support the development.

Swinstead Road already suffers from an odour problem from the drains as a result of the recent and ongoing development that has not been addressed or resolved.

This development will:
• have an adverse and detrimental effect on the local countryside and environment.
•have a detrimental effect in the character of Corby Glen as village- making it a small town
• increase the traffic on narrow village roads, unable to support parking and damage existing infrastructure. Swinstead road is a small country road with excessive traffic which will be significantly increased as a result. The crossroad by the Woodhouse Arms is a risky crossing with poor viability to cross the A151. The junction from the new development of James Ancaster Avenue also has quite poor visibility. Speeding is a persistent problem on this road.
•house significant numbers of people with no economic opportunities to support them- likely to end up commuting into towns with minimal public transport available to support a commuting population.

Object

Representation ID: 2909

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Richard Oatridge

I oppose these plans for these reasons:

1. Number of new properties
Corby Glen has recently had a lot of properties built. The village size has increased significantly- placing an extra load onto already stretched infrastructure. Adding 437 new homes is unacceptable, does not add any benefit to the village.

2. Infrastructure
Not enough local infrastructure to support these new homes. Not seen new shops, GP/Dr's, dentist practises, schools, police coverage, more frequent refuse collections etc.

3. Traffic
Will increase traffic within the village, with more entering and exiting each day. New more restrictive traffic restrictions will come into force, pushing the 30 mph zones further on Bourne and Swinstead roads

4. Future plans
I believe these plans only serve SKDC and the landowners the developments are planned for. These proposals open the village to more future development. Corby Glen is a rural village, so this is unacceptable- shouldn't be open without listening and understanding the wishes of the local community, who don't want new houses or subsequent proposals that will undoubtably come.

5. Houses for Sale
Properties are still for sale on the new developments; there's no requirement for more houses here, prospective homeowners don't desire to live here.

Object

Representation ID: 2911

Received: 05/08/2025

Respondent: John Humphries

Number of people: 2

My spouse and I wish to formally object to the recently revised local plan, which proposes the construction of an additional 437 houses in our village.

Concerns Regarding Infrastructure
We are particularly concerned that the current plan does not adequately consider the impact such a significant development will have on the village’s existing infrastructure. Specifically, there appears to be a lack of detail regarding improvements or expansions to essential utilities, including electricity, water, and sewage systems.
Healthcare Facilities
It is already notoriously difficult to secure a doctor’s appointment in our area, and the new plan offers no information about plans to increase GP capacity or enhance local healthcare services.

Education and Childcare
School placements and childcare availability are already challenging for many families in the village. There is no mention of how these issues will be addressed with the expected increase in population.

Local Amenities
The village currently suffers from a lack of local shops and amenities, and the plan fails to address how this situation will be improved to support new residents.

Sue and John Humphries

Object

Representation ID: 2917

Received: 07/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Joely Bostock

Number of people: 2

We formally object to the proposed housing development in Corby Glen due to several concerns:

Scale of Development: Significant expansion since 2020 meets local housing needs. Further growth could triple housing numbers, risking transformation into a small town and threatening community character and sustainability.

Density and Overdevelopment: The proposed development would over-intensify land use, leading to:

An urbanized feel undermining village identity

Crowding of amenities like schools and healthcare

Reduced green space and pressure on ecosystems

Precedent for unchecked development

Infrastructure Deficiencies: No improvements to essential services have been made despite growth, including healthcare, school capacity, and public transport.

Traffic and Environmental Impact: Increased traffic through narrow streets poses hazards and raises pollution levels, which have not been addressed.

Loss of Village Character: The proposed development threatens access to the countryside and the village's peaceful atmosphere, impacting local wildlife and habitats.

Design and Sustainability: Current housing lacks architectural harmony with the village and does not prioritize sustainability.

Social Impact: Population increases may lead to higher crime and antisocial behavior, impacting community safety.

In conclusion, this proposal poses unsustainable risks to Corby Glen. We urge South Kesteven District Council to reconsider its long-term impact on our village's identity, infrastructure, and environment.

Object

Representation ID: 2919

Received: 03/08/2025

Respondent: Ruth Crook

I oppose the proposal for an additional 437 houses in Corby Glen. The 2013 Corby Glen Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan states that the area is designated for special architectural/historic interest, which must be preserved. Allowing more houses undermines this conservation effort and the integrity of existing heritage assets.

Key points:

The NPPF emphasizes the importance of protecting designated heritage assets.

Archaeological evidence shows long-term settlement in the area, highlighting its historical significance.

Increased housing would threaten the thirty-six Grade I and II listed buildings and strain existing infrastructure, including drainage, electricity, water supply.

The village already faces flooding issues, which would worsen with more development and compromise existing buildings. Last week, the manhole covers in the children’s playground were overflowing after rain, which is a health hazard. The Flood map GOV.UK shows that Bourne Road A151 is blocked during flooding, preventing access into/out of the village.

Local amenities (healthcare services, primary school, shop) are already insufficient for current residents.

New residents commute to work, adding strain to the already busy Bourne Road A151 without benefiting the local economy.

In conclusion, Corby Glen is unsuitable for further housing expansion, as it compromises the character and integrity of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3087

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs C Baker

The village cannot support more houses, it has neither the public transport nor the vast enough amenities and employment opportunities. The schools are already under pressure and will not be able to accommodate more people. It will negatively impact the environment and local wildlife. Green areas will become lacking and heavy traffic/pollution will become even more of an issue.

Object

Representation ID: 3418

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jenkins

Corby Glen has seen rapid growth in the past few years the physical and social infrastructure does not support this additional development

Object

Representation ID: 3453

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Jo Harriman

As a resident of Corby Glen I wish to object to the proposed plans to erect a further 437 houses in the village. We currently have no school places available/ no capacity at the doctors surgeries to take on any new residents. The infastrucure is not in place to accomadate any more people. The roads are already busy and the public transport to allow travel to surrounding areas for work etc is in adequate, meaning all travel has to be via car.

There appears to be no plans for shops to be added, again meaning travel by road to shop. This housing plan offers no benefit to the existing village and will not help existing facilities grow. My understanding is that the current houses that have been built have not yet been sold, so building more in the area does not make are sense. The existing properties, in some places have a major problem with sewage/water etc , which needs rectifying.

In conclusion corby glen is not the correct place to build any more houses.

Object

Representation ID: 3640

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Lesley Young

Won't benefit the local community- scale of additional proposed development isn't proportionate to village environment/infrastructure.

Local primary school is already over subscribed, the secondary school facility would be equally so. GP surgeries/dispensary are already struggling to keep up with demand, increase will exacerbate the problem to detriment of residents.

Approved social housing developments on Swinstead Road and Allison & David Wilson homes currently in build will likely double the population. This is more than sufficient; lack of opportunity for local work and limited amenities. The small local shop/public house/cafes/primary school are situated in the heart of the village where streets are narrow, customers compete for space with residents parked on the road. Dangerous and unhealthy for pedestrians.

Lack of amenities makes travel a necessity. Villages/hamlets on A151 will be subjected to increased traffic causing noise/inconvenience/increased pollution/risk to residents.

Large housing project in Colsterworth, only 5 miles from Corby Glen- what research supports the need for further housing in this area. David Wilson project in Corby Glen has been scaled back due to insufficient demand for planned housing.

I hope this consultation is a genuine opportunity to garner resident views and SKDC won't sanction further housing development if not supported.

Object

Representation ID: 3730

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Barrett

The sheer number of houses planned for Corby Glen seems completely unfeasible, unless destroying the area is the overall aim. The village lacks all the necessary infrastructure and amenities for further additions, surrounded by agriculture and small lanes, except the A151, which is already too busy, making it unsuitable for the traffic demands and large vehicles that would be imposed on it. Even the previous, smaller addition to the area's housing has had adverse effects on crime and anti-social behaviour, so it can only be imagined the devastating result these plans would have.

Object

Representation ID: 3731

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gina Barrett

No infrastructure to become a town. Not enough schools, doctors, shops, places to work, places for young people. Poorly maintained roads, small roads, no parking at the village centre. Yearly flooding cuts off the village. Environmental impact, particularly when added to huge substations proposals and impact of traffic pollution (as new residents will need to drive to go to work)

Object

Representation ID: 3734

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Waumsley

No work in this area.
Agricultural land.
Tenants have to travel to work not eco-friendly.
No Buses.
Impact deer population.
Too many houses destroying community.
Wrong houses we need Bungalows for our ageing community, who then free up larger houses.
No space in the school or surgery so residents would have to travel out of the village.
Exacerbated flood risk.