Object

Representation ID: 3729

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mike Waumsley

In Summary:The village Sewage system is unable to cope the the existing new developments. This is well documented and know to authorities.
sewage works has no capacity.
Exacerbated flood risk.
Path is required along Swinstead Road to allow safe access to the village.
Swinstead Road is to narrow for the additional traffic volume.
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!
No space in the school or surgery so residents would have to travel out of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3732

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Gina Barrett

My objection here is the same as my objection to SKPR-247
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: 3735

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Mark Barrett

This is a rural village and the impact of yet another influx of dwellings on this scale would devastate both the village itself and the surrounding area. On top of the large housing project proposed for Colsterworth and the obscene sub-station planned locally, these plans are a betrayal to the people who have lived in this rural village all their lives. It lacks all the necessary infrastructure and amenities to accommodate further expansion. The developers should perhaps consider building them in their villages, but I can't imagine that would be feasible.

Object

Representation ID: 3993

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Anthony Miles

I hereby formally object to expanding the village of Corby Glen by another 437 houses, as proposed in your housing and mixed use sites allocation proposal, references SKPR-247 and SKPR233. Listed below are my reasons for the objection.

1.Existing Developments South of A151 in Corby Glen
South Kesteven District Council have already authorised the building of more than 250 houses on three developments south of the A151. The result of these developments has had a devastating impact on the environment in and around Corby Glen.

It is understood that the waste water drainage system was not built in accordance with the planning permission given by SKDC, and that to date no approved planning variation has been approved.

2.Objections to Planning Proposal
I have listed my formal objections below:

2.1 - Over Development
2.2 - Negative effects on amenity
2.3 - Environment
3 - Local Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2036
The Corby Glen Neighbourhood Plan 2023-2036 was greed and published in January 2023. This is what the villagers signed up to, this is what SKDC should be working to.

The SKDC draft local plan is in total conflict with the needs of the village and I strongly oppose its adoption.

Object

Representation ID: 3995

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Kelly Harty

Corby Glen has received one of the largest housing allocations of all the large villages. With the recent increase in housing there has been no improvement in the village infrastructure and no time has been allowed for settling in of the new residents.

There is limited local employment opportunities and the majority of residents will need to commute to nearby towns for employment, shopping or entertainment. This lack of facilities is not considered in the development principles for the two allocated sites.

I am concerned about the large increase in traffic.

The local primary school is oversubscribed for the current year reception intake with children living in the village unable to secure a place and needing to travel to other neighbouring villages for school.

Residents of newly built houses on the Bourne Road/Swinstead Road developments have already been experiencing serious problems with the sewage system, affecting the whole of the village with unpleasant odour.

It seems that the latest decision to allocate even more housing to Corby Glen has been made with little regard to the needs of our rapidly expanded community and the issues the current developments have raised, and I strongly urge SKDC to reconsider its allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 4005

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Julian Muir

I understand there is a need for housing but Corby Glen has already expanded significantly with the very recent developments. With this our village needs to be able to absorb these new homes and for the village infrastructure and amenities to be able to cope. Corby Glen may be one of the larger villages in this council area but it will have increased by 165% in the last 10 years if these two new developments go ahead. There will be a loss of ‘community’ with such a large increase in a relatively short space of time. My concerns also take into account the additional traffic in and around the village. The busy A151 will be affected further but the already overcrowed centre of the village will struggle even more than it already does as the two shops and coffee shop are located here and people often opt to drive from outside the centre of the village.

Please let our village have time to absorb all the recently built houses and those that are still currently under construction before any consideration of further developments, this way our community can adjust and accept what large changes are currently impacting us.

Object

Representation ID: 4010

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paula Muir

I understand there is a need for housing but Corby Glen has already expanded significantly with the very recent developments. With this our village needs to be able to absorb these new homes and for the village infrastructure and amenities to be able to cope. Corby Glen may be one of the larger villages in this council area but it will have increased by 165% in the last 10 years if these two new developments go ahead. There will be a loss of ‘community’ with such a large increase in a relatively short space of time. My concerns also take into account the additional traffic in and around the village. The busy A151 will be affected further but the already overcrowed centre of the village will struggle even more than it already does as the two shops and coffee shop are located here and people often opt to drive from outside the centre of the village.

Please let our village have time to absorb all the recently built houses and those that are still currently under construction before any consideration of further developments, this way our community can adjust and accept what large changes are currently impacting us.

Object

Representation ID: 4013

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Katharine Dancer

Please see my reasons for objecting below:

1. Historically important village, about to lose its village status:
Corby Glen is a beautiful, historically important village dating back to the 12th Century.
2. Destruction of beautiful countryside and wildlife habitats:
This will desecrate some of the most beautiful English countryside
3. Demand and supply – no demand for these additional dwellings in this area:
Why is Corby Glen being “allocated” a further 437 homes before the completion of the DWH site?
4. Unresolved issues with current sewerage systems surrounding the Allison and DWH estates:
There is a current, ongoing issue with the village sewerage system being unable to cope with the recent influx of new properties on the system.
5. Insufficient amenities & infrastructure:
Further housing development would put increased strain on utilities supplying Corby Glen
6. Increased traffic levels, especially heavy traffic
7. Access to Corby Glen
8. Annual flooding and cut-off of Corby Glen during wet periods:
The village is prone to flooding in the winter months

Taking all the above into account, I am sure you will agree that it is not viable to consider further development in or around Corby Glen.

Object

Representation ID: 4017

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Paul Smith

I am writing to formally object to the proposal of building yet more houses in Corby Glen.
We have poor infrastructure.
Sewage system unable to cope. We already have an ongoing issue with sewers since the latest developments on Bourne and Swinstead Road.
Increase of speeding traffic on A151.
South Kesteven and District Council appear to be unable to enforce planning conditions which is unacceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 4026

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding Team

Safeguarding Zone(s) Affected -
RAF Cottesmore (height safeguarding zone)

Development Triggering Statutory Safeguarding Criteria -
Development of, or exceeding, 91.4m in height above ground level will trigger statutory consultation requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 4027

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Matthew Perkins

Protecting Historic Assets
Ignoring the Neighbourhood Plan
Development Pressure Already High
Infrastructure Cannot Cope

Added to this are external factors: consultation is ongoing for pylons running through the village and a vast electricity substation covering the area of 21 football fields.

A Village in Danger of Losing Its Identity

Why These Allocations Must Be Rejected
•They are incompatible with the adopted NP.
•They compound unsustainable levels of growth already approved.
•They jeopardise the heritage assets that define the village.
•They impose demands on infrastructure that cannot realistically be met.
•They risk erasing Corby Glen’s identity as a rural community.

Conclusion
I urge the Council to reject allocations SKPR 233 and SKPR 247. If there is any consideration of bringing them forward, it must be preceded by:
1.A full assessment of infrastructure capacity.
2.A heritage impact study of all affected listed and scheduled sites.
3.A review that aligns with the community-led Neighbourhood Plan.
Corby Glen deserves careful, respectful planning. Large-scale allocations of this kind are neither appropriate nor sustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 4100

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Craig Goodman

SKPR-247 & SKPR-233
I would like to submit a hard objection to both potential developments mentioned above.

Object

Representation ID: 4108

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Susan Sang

Our village is currently in the middle of building of over 100 new homes. The local doctors are under pressure – I have to wait 5 weeks for a non urgent appointment – as well as the local schools and the roads. This was a relatively quiet village between Colsterworth and Bourne but now the traffic through the village is almost constant. I don’t think the village has the infra structure for a further 293 houses with proposals for another tranche of houses to be built after that. Nobody will be working locally so there will be more cars on the road with a possible 2 extra cars for each of these houses built. This will increase pollution and will affect the children in the two local schools. This will not be environmentally friendly. There isn’t adequate public transport through Corby Glen so any residents will be using cars.

The current new building estate has caused problems with smell from the waste water and sewage which will be further exacerbated if even more houses are built.

I cannot see how this benefits the area. Who will be buying these houses and will there be adequate social housing included in the proposals?

Object

Representation ID: 4204

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Thompson

Disproportionate Scale & Strain on Infrastructure
•Totalling 437 dwellings, far exceeding the needs or capacity of Corby Glen.
•serious concerns about cumulative impacts on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and public services
•conflict with the recently ratified Neighbourhood Plan

Landscape, Heritage & Environmental Constraints
•Both sites are subject to explicit constraints in the Local Plan documentation:
SKPR-233: same constraints plus pre-commencement archaeological investigations required

Preparedness and Policy Context
•Both SKPR allocations are at an early, draft stage and have no amendments proposed at this Regulation 18 phase, moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk). This presents a valuable opportunity to oppose these allocations before they proceed further.

Statutory and Policy Context
•By allocating SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 at such scale, the draft Local Plan undermines the Neighbourhood Plan’s legally recognised provisions for proportionate growth, thereby conflicting with both statute and national policy.

Conclusion
The proposed housing allocations at SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 are contrary to planning principles of sustainable development, would overwhelm local infrastructure, and fail to adequately reflect heritage, landscape, and environmental sensitivity. I urge SKDC to remove these allocations at this stage and instead prioritise proportionate, locally endorsed development strategies embodied in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4207

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Vivianne Thompson

Disproportionate Scale & Strain on Infrastructure
•Totalling 437 dwellings, far exceeding the needs or capacity of Corby Glen.
•serious concerns about cumulative impacts on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and public services
•conflict with the recently ratified Neighbourhood Plan

Landscape, Heritage & Environmental Constraints
•Both sites are subject to explicit constraints in the Local Plan documentation:
SKPR-233: same constraints plus pre-commencement archaeological investigations required

Preparedness and Policy Context
•Both SKPR allocations are at an early, draft stage and have no amendments proposed at this Regulation 18 phase, moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk). This presents a valuable opportunity to oppose these allocations before they proceed further.

Statutory and Policy Context
•By allocating SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 at such scale, the draft Local Plan undermines the Neighbourhood Plan’s legally recognised provisions for proportionate growth, thereby conflicting with both statute and national policy.

Conclusion
The proposed housing allocations at SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 are contrary to planning principles of sustainable development, would overwhelm local infrastructure, and fail to adequately reflect heritage, landscape, and environmental sensitivity. I urge SKDC to remove these allocations at this stage and instead prioritise proportionate, locally endorsed development strategies embodied in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4211

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Smith

Statutory and Policy Context
•planning decisions and plan-making must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
•The Corby Glen Neighbourhood Plan, having been recently “made” following local referendum, forms part of the statutory development plan.

Scale of Development and Infrastructure Capacity
•The cumulative impact on infrastructure—particularly highways, education, healthcare, and utilities—has not been demonstrated to be deliverable or viable, contrary to the requirement in NPPF

Landscape, Heritage and Environmental Constraints
•Both sites are subject to explicit environmental and heritage constraints as identified in the Local Plan evidence base:
SKPR-233: subject to the above, and additionally requires pre-commencement archaeological investigation.

the allocations are incompatible with NPPF

Legal Tests of Soundness
•Positively prepared
•Justified
•Effective
•Consistent with national policy

Accordingly, SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 fail the statutory tests of soundness.

Prematurity
Proceeding with these allocations at Regulation 18 stage would also be premature

Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, allocations SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 are unsound, contrary to both statute and national policy, and inconsistent with the Corby Glen Neighbourhood Plan which forms part of the development plan

Object

Representation ID: 4235

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Lara Thompson

Disproportionate Scale & Strain on Infrastructure
•Totalling 437 dwellings, far exceeding the needs or capacity of Corby Glen.
•serious concerns about cumulative impacts on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and public services
•conflict with the recently ratified Neighbourhood Plan

Landscape, Heritage & Environmental Constraints
•Both sites are subject to explicit constraints in the Local Plan documentation:
SKPR-233: same constraints plus pre-commencement archaeological investigations required

Preparedness and Policy Context
•Both SKPR allocations are at an early, draft stage and have no amendments proposed at this Regulation 18 phase, moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk). This presents a valuable opportunity to oppose these allocations before they proceed further.

Statutory and Policy Context
•By allocating SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 at such scale, the draft Local Plan undermines the Neighbourhood Plan’s legally recognised provisions for proportionate growth, thereby conflicting with both statute and national policy.

Conclusion
The proposed housing allocations at SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 are contrary to planning principles of sustainable development, would overwhelm local infrastructure, and fail to adequately reflect heritage, landscape, and environmental sensitivity. I urge SKDC to remove these allocations at this stage and instead prioritise proportionate, locally endorsed development strategies embodied in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4239

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Melissa Thompson

Disproportionate Scale & Strain on Infrastructure
•Totalling 437 dwellings, far exceeding the needs or capacity of Corby Glen.
•serious concerns about cumulative impacts on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and public services
•conflict with the recently ratified Neighbourhood Plan

Landscape, Heritage & Environmental Constraints
•Both sites are subject to explicit constraints in the Local Plan documentation:
SKPR-233: same constraints plus pre-commencement archaeological investigations required

Preparedness and Policy Context
•Both SKPR allocations are at an early, draft stage and have no amendments proposed at this Regulation 18 phase, moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk). This presents a valuable opportunity to oppose these allocations before they proceed further.

Statutory and Policy Context
•By allocating SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 at such scale, the draft Local Plan undermines the Neighbourhood Plan’s legally recognised provisions for proportionate growth, thereby conflicting with both statute and national policy.

Conclusion
The proposed housing allocations at SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 are contrary to planning principles of sustainable development, would overwhelm local infrastructure, and fail to adequately reflect heritage, landscape, and environmental sensitivity. I urge SKDC to remove these allocations at this stage and instead prioritise proportionate, locally endorsed development strategies embodied in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4241

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Thompson

Disproportionate Scale & Strain on Infrastructure
•Totalling 437 dwellings, far exceeding the needs or capacity of Corby Glen.
•serious concerns about cumulative impacts on local infrastructure, including roads, schools, and public services
•conflict with the recently ratified Neighbourhood Plan

Landscape, Heritage & Environmental Constraints
•Both sites are subject to explicit constraints in the Local Plan documentation:
SKPR-233: same constraints plus pre-commencement archaeological investigations required

Preparedness and Policy Context
•Both SKPR allocations are at an early, draft stage and have no amendments proposed at this Regulation 18 phase, moderngov.southkesteven.gov.uk). This presents a valuable opportunity to oppose these allocations before they proceed further.

Statutory and Policy Context
•By allocating SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 at such scale, the draft Local Plan undermines the Neighbourhood Plan’s legally recognised provisions for proportionate growth, thereby conflicting with both statute and national policy.

Conclusion
The proposed housing allocations at SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 are contrary to planning principles of sustainable development, would overwhelm local infrastructure, and fail to adequately reflect heritage, landscape, and environmental sensitivity. I urge SKDC to remove these allocations at this stage and instead prioritise proportionate, locally endorsed development strategies embodied in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4269

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rob Willson

These proposals are wholly inappropriate for the following reasons:
1. Scale and Pace of Development - The proposed 437 additional houses represent an excessive and disproportionate increase in a short period of time.

2. Inadequate Sewerage and Drainage Systems- The existing foul sewer system is already struggling and not functioning correctly. Adding hundreds of new properties will significantly worsen the situation. Residents have already experienced problems with flooding and standing water, and the proposed development would exacerbate these risks.

3. Lack of Market Demand - There are houses already available on the current development within the village that remain unsold.

4. Lack of Amenities and Infrastructure - The village does not have the amenities or services to support such a large population increase. Facilities such as schools, GP surgeries, shops, and public transport links are already limited.

Proposals are out of proportion for the size of the village, rely on infrastructure that is already failing, and are inconsistent with the sustainable growth principles set out.

Urge SKDC to refuse these applications.

•The proposals would result in the loss of agricultural land, wildlife habitats and greenfield sites
•Such large-scale development would permanently alter the historic and rural character of Corby Glen

Object

Representation ID: 4271

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Rachael Willson

These proposals are wholly inappropriate for the following reasons:
1. Scale and Pace of Development - The proposed 437 additional houses represent an excessive and disproportionate increase in a short period of time.

2. Inadequate Sewerage and Drainage Systems- The existing foul sewer system is already struggling and not functioning correctly. Adding hundreds of new properties will significantly worsen the situation. Residents have already experienced problems with flooding and standing water, and the proposed development would exacerbate these risks.

3. Lack of Market Demand - There are houses already available on the current development within the village that remain unsold.

4. Lack of Amenities and Infrastructure - The village does not have the amenities or services to support such a large population increase. Facilities such as schools, GP surgeries, shops, and public transport links are already limited.

Proposals are out of proportion for the size of the village, rely on infrastructure that is already failing, and are inconsistent with the sustainable growth principles set out.

Urge SKDC to refuse these applications.

•The proposals would result in the loss of agricultural land, wildlife habitats and greenfield sites
•Such large-scale development would permanently alter the historic and rural character of Corby Glen

Support

Representation ID: 4295

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands

Agent: Fisher German

Fully supports the proposed allocation of the land fronting Bourne Road and Swinstead Road, and the proposed delivery of circa 293 units.

This allocation has latent ability to provide housing in the first 5-year period, despite the Council’s assessment of the site suggesting deliverability is in the longer term (5-10 years)

Generally supports the proposed site-specific criteria.

Object

Representation ID: 4310

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Chris Colsy

While I appreciate the need for sustainable housing growth, I believe this development is inappropriate for the following reasons:

Overdevelopment and Strain on Infrastructure
The scale of the proposed development is excessive and will place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure. Roads, public transport, schools, healthcare services, and utilities are already under strain, and this development would exacerbate the problem significantly.

Traffic and Safety Concerns
Increased traffic from the development will worsen congestion and heighten the risk of accidents, particularly in an area already experiencing high traffic volumes. The local road network is not designed to support this level of growth.

Impact on Environment and Wildlife
The proposed site is home to various forms of wildlife and serves as a valuable green space for the local community. Development here would lead to irreversible environmental damage,

Loss of Local Character
The development is out of character with the surrounding area, The design and density of the proposed housing would undermine the local identity and heritage of the community.

Public Opposition and Lack of Consultation
Many residents have not been adequately consulted about the development. Local opposition is strong, and proceeding without addressing these concerns would disregard the community’s views and best interests.

Object

Representation ID: 4376

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Helen Sandon

Heritage and Rural Identity at Risk
Corby Glen is rich in historical and architectural significance

Inconsistency with the Corby Glen Neighbourhood Plan

Conflict with Recent Planning Outcomes
The village has already undergone substantial growth: In March 2022, SKDC conditionally approved 199 new homes on land between Bourne Road and Swinstead Road (likely overlapping SKPR 233).

Further allocations would overwhelm the village’s ability to absorb change sustainably.

Technical and Infrastructure
11–16 school may become oversubscribed.
Healthcare capacity is limited. Public transport infrastructure is minimal; railway station closed.

Sewage issues are being experienced
Parking issues are a growing problem and anti social behaviour

Flooding
The land around Corby Glen tends to both flood and hold moisture

Overwhelming Scale and Loss of Rural Character
Two substantial allocations, totalling potentially over 437 new homes, would dramatically alter Corby Glen’s rural character

Summary: Reasons for Objection
Contradicts community-led vision established in the Neighbourhood Plan (adopted Feb 2024).
Unsustainable cumulative growth, exceeding the village’s capacity to absorb new housing.
Threatens heritage assets and their landscape settings.
Strains infrastructure—education, utilities, health, transport, amenities without sufficient mitigation.
Alters the core identity of a historic, rural community.

Conclusion and Request
I urge the Council to reject allocations SKPR 233 and SKPR 247

Object

Representation ID: 4447

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Resolve Bioenergy

Objection reasons:
1. Conflict with Settlement Hierarchy
- SKPR-247 and SKPR-233 would add a further 437 dwellings
Such disproportionate expansion conflicts directly with - SP1, - SP2, SP3

2. Inadequate Infrastructure Provision
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan fails to secure any firm commitments. Existing capacity is already under strain:
- Education
- Highway capacity
- Healthcare and community facilities

3. Unsustainable Transport Dependence
Minimal to no public transport provision.
- At 6–8 vehicle trips per dwelling, 437 homes would generate at least 2,800 additional daily vehicle movements.

4. Environmental and Biodiversity Impacts
The proposed sites adjoin sensitive ecological features, including hedgerows and priority habitats.

5. Availability of Preferable Alternative Sites
The Draft Plan and NPPF direct growth to main towns and brownfield sites.

6. Wider Service Catchment and Neighbourhood Plan Conflict
As a Larger Village, Corby Glen already supports surrounding settlements - Large-scale allocations risk overwhelming this capacity

Conclusion
These allocations are inconsistent with the Draft Local Plan’s own policies on settlement hierarchy, landscape protection, infrastructure capacity, sustainable transport, and biodiversity. The scale of proposed growth is excessive, disproportionate, and unsustainable.

Object

Representation ID: 4450

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Daniel Syddall

1. A Village Under Siege
Corby Glen had around 440 homes in 2020. Developers have already piled on 281 new homes; roughly 720 — a 63% increase in just four years.
Now the Council proposes another 437 homes, taking us past 1,150. That is a 160% increase in less than a decade.

2. Infrastructure at Breaking Point
No plan to cope with this expansion
Schools: oversubscribed
Roads: already congested
Healthcare: Local GPs are overstretched.

Told growth must be “infrastructure-led”. Yet the infrastructure is absent.

3. Car-Dependent, Unsustainable, Bad for Climate
No public transport, every new resident will need a car.

4. Environmental Harm
Habitat will be lost, fragmented, and degraded forever.

5. Alternatives Ignored
Government policy says growth should go to towns and brownfield sites first. Yet this plan chooses a rural village instead.

6. Wider Impact
More large-scale development piles pressure on services not just in Corby Glen but across the area

The Verdict
Proposal is double the size of Corby Glen
Plans are unsound, unjustified, and if approved will permanently damage the village and surrounding communities.