Object

Representation ID: 2248

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Henry Jones

The residents of the village, its infrastructure, and the wildlife that inhabits the area would all be dramatically impacted by the population increase that would come as a part of such a development being approved.

I believe there to be a number of different locations which would be far more suitable for any such developments.

Object

Representation ID: 2263

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Clare Jordan-Bird

As stated in Table 1: Economic, Social, and Environmental Challenges "Need to protect and enhance local wildlife, its habitats and important natural features" - due to the current level of protected wildlife that inhabits this selected area of land I feel that this goes completely against this statement. You absolutely cannot protect and enhance the wildlife by destroying its very habitat.
Colsterworth treatment plant will not be able to accommodate the proposed allocation.
This site is a greenfield site.
The village cannot sustain this level of growth and goes against everything in the existing Colsterworth Neighbourhood Development Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 2264

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mark Ramage

1. The access route to the proposed site might not be sufficient or suitable to serve a site of 70 houses.
2. The site is part of the green belt boundary to the south of the village and is an area identified as protected.
3. There is significant wildlife, including protected species, on the site.
4. A recent development adjacent to Bourne Road is nearing completion and yet to be occupied, and the overall impact on the village is not yet understood.
5. Planning approval is already in place for a site to the north of the village, which, with the new proposal, would mean nearly double the planned increase.
6. The village amenities are already stretched and likely insufficient to cope with the volume of additional residents.
7. There will be a significant increase in traffic using the congested high street and back lane as a thoroughfare to amenities.

Before further expansion is considered, it is imperative to address these pressing issues and uphold the principles outlined in our neighbourhood plans.

Object

Representation ID: 2311

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Oliver Cooper

I strongly object to the new houses south of Bourne Road. This is because it is very very dangerous. Because it is close to a bus stop. This is important because more cares will form traffic jams and crashes. The field next to the Coop would be better because it did have planning on it when people my age get older we have to cross that road and it isn’t just me that has to cross it everybody in the village has to. Because they have to cross it to get to the bus stop.

Object

Representation ID: 2544

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Colsterworth Collective Action Group

The land highlighted for potential development is not suitable, would negatively impact the village, it’s residents, wildlife and risk lives. Importantly, it fails to meet or deliver the ‘development principles’ set out for its development in the Draft Local Plan (page 201). Concerns and objections based on existing development, better places to build in and around Colsterworth, village amenities not equipped to cope with population growth, pedestrian access to amenities, transport and highway safety, biodiversity, and conflict with the Colsterworth Neighbourhood Plan

Object

Representation ID: 2545

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Colsterworth & District Parish

Strongly object to the land allocation of SKPR-120 and suggest alternative considerations. More suitable allocation which CADPC believe should be reconsidered i.e SKPR-237 which should also include adjacent land off Bridge End, Colsterworth which had previous planning permission (S13/1931).
Most importantly any development will have a detrimental impact on existing infrastructure which is already at capacity in terms of education, healthcare, water and sewage, road networks, communications, community hubs and the already limited amenities and services.
Objection also reflects concerns regarding the longer-term plan for SKPR-232.

SKDC must re-consider these allocations as any development on land east of Stamford Road (SKPR-120 and SKPR-232) requires a “masterplan” to effectively create a whole new village requiring its own infrastructure and facilities which is not in the proposed allocation policy.

Object

Representation ID: 2561

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Carol Bond

Boundary changed than that put through the appraisal process without information to explain this decision beyond mitigating impact on the highway network or identifying how it changes the site appraisal. Farm track is incapable of being used for the site of 70 houses. Recommendation disregards the view of the village as expressed through the Neighbourhood Plan. Impact of existing new development have not yet been understood. There is already pressure on facilities. Village facilities are located to the north meaning consideration to pedestrian and cyclist safety will need to be given. Pedestrian access via a PROW is unable to provide suitable and safe junction design. More suitable sites are available to meet required need across the plan period (sites SKPR-78, SKPR-127, SKPR-237).