Object

Representation ID: 4101

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Gillian Sandon

As a resident of the village of Corby Glen I write to voice my very strong objection to the possible building of so many more houses in this village. And it is a village , and always has been, not a small town.

The impact that further developments would have on the life , character and sustainability of this village would be profound, and unfortunately detrimental in so many ways.

Lincolnshire is a sizeable and beautiful county, with surely many other better sites for development to take place, and of course everyone deserves a home. But in the case of Corby Glen, enough is enough, and I ask please that the Planning Department investigate and chose other sites in areas that have not already seen their share of redevelopment.

Object

Representation ID: 4114

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: James Walsingham

Objection is based on the thinking of the Neighbourhood Planning Group

1. Once the latest David Wilson Homes housing is completed, the village will have expanded to around c.730 dwellings
2. Neighbourhood Plan - identified overloading of the village’s infrastructure, the challenge of providing local employment opportunities, the impact on traffic and pedestrian safety, and the failure to address the village’s deficit in Open Space.
3. Question whether it is appropriate to allocate 19% of SKDC’s new housing allocations to the larger villages.
4. The indicative housing densities on the two proposed sites leave no space for business units/new retail outlet.
5. Very concerned about the increased traffic resulting from the new allocations.
6. Serious problems with the sewage system.
7. Policies associated with each of the proposed new sites seem to comprise a tick box list of SKDC’s standard planning requirements for rural developments.
8. Deficit in Open Space

Serious concerns about the further allocation of 293 houses (SKPR-233) to Corby Glen, over and above the 144 houses (SKPR-247) previously allocated.

Insist both allocations are removed.

Object

Representation ID: 4115

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Victoria Wakefield

Number of people: 2

These proposals represent an unjustifiable impact on our village, the local community and our rural environment.

With houses long built but unsold, it does not appear that the homes on the recently built/ still being built estates appeal to the assumed intended market. There is no reason the 437 new homes would be any different.

Corby Glen has poor public transport links, and very few services and amenities and even less, employment opportunities within a twenty-minute commute. This village is not a desirable location for people wanting access to local employment or local services/ facilities. So, we question who these properties are intended for, as they do not offer the type of accommodation those already living in the village have a need for.

We further object to these proposals on the grounds of:
•Loss of Rural Character
•Strain on Infrastructure
•Traffic and Safety from Construction and Beyond
•Impact on the Rural Environment

The size of the proposed housing estates is inapposite for this rural area and we request that the planning committee consider the long-term consequences of these developments and reject the application in its current form.

We urge a consideration of development of brownfield sites as an alternative.

Object

Representation ID: 4120

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Martin

The scale of these sites far exceeds the modest, incremental development supported by the Neighbourhood Plan.
•In March 2022, 199 dwellings were approved between Bourne Road and Swinstead Road (likely overlapping SKPR 233).
•In January 2021, permission was granted for 66 homes near the fire station.

This level of growth is already stretching local infrastructure.

While the Reg18 Draft Local Plan notes design aspirations for SKPR 247—such as retaining hedgerows, providing pedestrian links, and sensitive landscaping—these measures do not resolve the deeper issue of inadequate infrastructure.

•Education
•Healthcare
•Transport
•Utilities
•Community facilities

Grounds for Objection
•Contravenes the adopted Neighbourhood Plan.
•Represents unsustainable cumulative growth.
•Threatens nationally significant heritage assets.
•Exceeds infrastructure capacity in education, health, transport, and utilities.
•Fundamentally alters the identity of a historic Lincolnshire village.

Conclusion
I urge the Council to remove SKPR 233 and SKPR 247 from the Local Plan. At the very least, decisions should be deferred until:
1.A full infrastructure capacity study is undertaken.
2.A heritage impact assessment is completed.
3.The allocations are reconsidered in the context of the Neighbourhood Plan.
4.The allocations are reconsidered with other developments being built including the national grid going right through the village.

Object

Representation ID: 4121

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Patricia Miles

Technical and infrastructure concerns:
1) Environmental problems as the sewage and waste water facilities were NOT built according to the approved plans.
2) Oversubscribed schools
3) Healthcare capacity is already limited with the local GP surgery so busy that patients are required to give a minimum of 7 days' notice to obtain prescriptions. With such a massive population growth this will only make the situation worse.
4) Local amenities such as shops and community halls will risk being overwhelmed
5) There is insufficient public transport for the proposed population.
6) Corby Glen has no Banking or Post Office facilities except the rural Post Office Van

Natural Environment and Rural Communities:
Act 2006 and the NPFF requires developers along with LA to protect and enhance biodiversity

Conflict with the Corby Glen Neighborhood Plan:
Formally adopted in Feb 2023, after being overwhelmingly endorsed in a local referendum with 92.5% in favour.
The plan emphasizes careful, incremental growth which is supposed to respect the scale of the village and its historic heritage. Large and immediate growth such as these proposals, especially SKPR-247, are contrary to the community led vision that was set out in this document, and accepted formally by SKDC.

Object

Representation ID: 4136

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Sara Smith

I am writing to formally object to the proposal to build 437 new homes in Corby Glen SKPR-247 & SKPR 233.

Since the latest development by Allison Homes, David Wilson and NCHA we have endured revolting odours from the foul sewer on Swinstead Road. This has been going on for 2 years and is completely unacceptable. The last thing we need is more and in my opinion, poor quality expensive housing. As a community we need to see;

Existing drainage issues are resolved
Developers are held to account for keeping to their approved plans.
Infrastructure is properly considered before new homes are approved.

Given past failures to enforce planning conditions or to resolve ongoing problems, I have no faith in South Kesteven District Council’s ability to ensure that this development will be managed properly or in the best interests of the community.

Comment

Representation ID: 4192

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mark Croft

Further house building will reduce the quality of life for existing residents. We have tolerated the negative impact of building work for several years already, and the Local Plan proposals would extend such disruption (dust, noise, large vehicles, parking, traffic, etc) for many years to come.

Local opposition to further development was made abundantly clear by Corby Glen residents when our Neighbour Plan was developed.

The Neighbourhood Plan talks about future development here only being granted with local support – not spoken to anyone who is in favour of the proposed changes.

Unknowns surrounding the future of Corby Glen. Another 144 houses are already proposed, with impacts to all the points above.

Key points/ concerns:
-Corby Glen is not a larger village in reality
-Public transport/traffic
-Existing new builds have taken longer to sell
-Sewers/smells
-Drop in water pressure
-Consider schools
-GP struggling
-Habitat displacement
-Flooding
-Visual Impact
- National Grid Powerlines - clash in proposals

In sum, this is far too much development and future uncertainty for this village to be expected to absorb.

Comment

Representation ID: 4193

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Jacqui Croft

Summary: Further house building will reduce the quality of life for existing residents. We have tolerated the negative impact of building work for several years already, and the Local Plan proposals would extend such disruption (dust, noise, large vehicles, parking, traffic, etc) for many years to come.

You will be aware that local opposition to further development was made abundantly clear by Corby Glen residents when our Neighbour Plan was developed.

The Neighbourhood Plan talks about future development here only being granted with local support – not spoken to anyone who is in favour of the proposed changes.

Unknowns surrounding the future of Corby Glen. Another 144 houses are already proposed, with impacts to all the points above.

Key points/ concerns:
-Corby Glen is not a larger village in reality
-Public transport/traffic
-Existing new builds have taken longer to sell
-Sewers/smells
-Drop in water pressure
-Consider schools
-GP struggling
-Habitat displacement
-Flooding
-Visual Impact
- National Grid Powerlines - clash in proposals

In sum, this is far too much development and future uncertainty for this village to be expected to absorb.

Object

Representation ID: 4216

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Debbie Long

Concerns:
-Scale of Development Concerns
-Infrastructure Capacity
Utilities: The existing water, sewage, and electrical infrastructure was not designed to accommodate such dramatic population growth.
Healthcare: Local GP services and healthcare facilities are already stretched
Education: Local schools lack capacity
Digital Infrastructure: Broadband and mobile coverage is already inadequate
-Transportation and Traffic
-Community Impact
-Property and Economic Concerns

I urge the Council to:
•Conduct comprehensive infrastructure impact assessments
•Stop or very significantly reduce the proposed housing allocation for Corby Glen and distribute development more evenly across the district
•Ensure infrastructure improvements precede any new development thus should be guaranteed before further homes are built
•Explain how a rural village is the best place for a further thousand plus residents
•Provide guarantees that water supplies will not be adversely affected especially waste/sewerage concerns.
•Explain why the money received by the council from developers is poorly spent In the area where the most impact is felt!

This level of concentrated development is inappropriate for a rural village and will fundamentally damage the community that residents value so highly. I request acknowledgment of this objection and to be kept informed throughout the consultation process.

Object

Representation ID: 4226

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Cllr Martin Hill

It is also contrary to the parish neighbourhood plan.

Corby Glen is an attractive village with a historic core and strong community spirit.

There is a primary school which is full and also a secondary school which has limited capacity.

Corby Glen has had its fair share of development over the years culminating in 440 properties in 2011. Permission was recently granted for an additional 300 houses which are currently under construction. There have been issues with inadequate infrastructure and the assimilation of such a large cohort into the community.

The new proposal to add an additional 437 houses would be far too much too soon which would take housing numbers from 440 to over 1100. Not proportionate.

In addition the proposed houses will be quite a distance from the village centre which will encourage vehicular usage to towns for local services- not sustainable.

The houses off Swinstead Rd will add further pressure to that narrow road

It is acknowledged that the District Council has to find additional housing allocations; revised plan proposals have reductions in Grantham/Deepings which could be allocated instead

In summary, I hope that the District council will reconsider their current proposals for Corby Glen in the revised local plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4280

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Sally Mardling

•Received one of the largest housing allocations of all the large villages.

•2024 Neighbourhood Plan- need to grow our village over a workable time scale

•Neighbourhood Plan group identified a number of issues- overloading of the village’s infrastructure, providing local employment, impact on traffic and pedestrian safety, and the failure to address the village’s deficit in Open Space.

•Appropriateness to allocate 19% of SKDC’s new housing allocations to the larger villages?

•The indicative housing densities on the two proposed sites (30 dwellings per hectare) leave no space for business units, or a new retail outlet.

•Concerned about the increased traffic

•Sewage system- related to inadequate piping to the waste water treatment works near the West Glen River.

•There is little or no reference to housing design/housing type, the proportion of affordable housing, housing for the elderly

•Neighbourhood Plan- the argument was made that Corby Glen has a deficit in Open Space

•Disappointed that little regard has been taken for our already struggling resources in the village.

•The Infrastructure and Delivery Plan and Project Schedule mentions flooding of the East Glen and West Glen but does not plan any infrastructure to protect housing and roads in Corby Glen.