Object

Representation ID: 1553

Received: 18/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Smith

Development in additions to 3 recent new developments which have already expanded the size of the village. An additional 144 dwellings will bring additional stress to the village infrastructure, which is below where it needs to be with a village of this size. Middle of the village where amenities are located is very narrow and already experiencing too much traffic. School is stretched and underfunded, and no capacity. Only one place of worship in the village and the library is not a public library, it is a memorial. Not acceptable to increase the size of the village but this huge number, as the village will not be able to support another influx of residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1554

Received: 18/04/2024

Respondent: Chris Reeds

Number of people: 2

Road safety – A151 is dangerous, with high accident potential, poor road surfaces. Pressure on overstretched village resources – for example GP pharmacy overwhelmed, parking issues during school drop off and pick up, obstructions and hazards parking outside shop.
Lack of social housing for retired people in existing new developments where no bungalows have been built to meet disability and accessibility needs meaning few options to stay in the village as needs ignored. Impact on the sewage system which was not designed to cope with excessive development in a large scale.

Object

Representation ID: 1574

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Ian Astley

I would like you to record my strongest possible objections to site SKPR 247 - for 144 new dwellings in Corby Glen. The village is already undergoing an increase in dwelling numbers equating to 50% of the extant village size. As a member of the Corby Glen Neighbourhood Plan team, I understand well - and agree with - economic and housing need reasons for villages to grow. However, the ongoing 50% increase in size will already have a detrimental effect on the aesthetic feel and community life of the village, as well as overwhelming local amenities and exacerbating existing road traffic congestion and safety issues. A further increase - as proposed by SKPR-247 - will enhance these negative impacts to the point of permanent and irreversible damage to the local area and community. I urge SKDC to refrain from building SKPR-247 and to seek alternative solutions.

Object

Representation ID: 1575

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Allan Roberts

This plot of land if given the go-ahead, added to 3 current developments will effectively double the size of the village. I have a grave concern that the utilities which are already at their limits will not be able to cope. Also of concern is with increased numbers that will need to use the local doctors surgeries and both primary and secondary school placements. What is being done to ensure these services will not be “maxed out” and will be able to cope with the doubling of the village in the space of about 5 years.

Object

Representation ID: 1588

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Ash Sykes

Number of people: 2

Angian Water had 16,000 sewage discharges into our rivers and coastline, nearly 19000 hrs in 2023. Further house building without improvement to infrastructure can only lead to further damage to our environment. Water companies are clearly not going to make the necessary investment as can be seen all over the country. Doctors Surgery's already at capacity, we have two surgery's here in Corby Glen that are full to capacity. Schools full, Corby Glen schools over subscribed. Without serious upgrade in infrastructure there should be NO further development and with the existing on going building of some 250 plus houses. The very nature of ongoing development starts to change the village away from what the local residents want. We oppose this planning application and hope that the planning committee see sense and deny the application outright.

Object

Representation ID: 1597

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Angela Chambers

I am very sorry to read the proposed plans for another 144 dwellings in our village! I moved here 30years ago into an average sized village where everyone knew each other we had a doctors coop and village shop! There were lots of clubs to join and they were all well supported also small primary and secondary schools!! The latest developments don’t appear to mix in the village at all except perhaps to take advantage of our superb doctors!!! We are in the process of having to close our WI after almost 100years due to lack of support although we have put leaflets through the doors of the new dwellings! also the traffic on the A151 has increased as well as the village!! It’s ridiculous to give planning permission to yet more dwellings!!!

Object

Representation ID: 1600

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Paul Seery

Th Corby Glen Neighbourhood plan, recently adopted, took note of the latest, ongoing developments which will increase the village size by 66% and it stressed that this growth should be allowed to ‘bed in’ and allow the planners to understand the impact on village services, traffic, sewage, flood risk, etc. before any consideration of further large-scale development is made. Given that clear position stated in the Neighbourhood Plan it was surprising to see this proposal for a further 144 dwellings included in this round of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1601

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Tracey Lamming

I wish to object to the draft local plan, the village has experienced a massive expansion and we’re not half way through those developments. Having community cohesion and identity is very important and another 144 houses will only be detrimental for the village. The majority of houses currently being built are larger 3-5 bedrooms and very expensive which is out of reach of our young people to buy. Again the current development does not have any bungalows for our elderly residents. For our local population we need space for industry and businesses with local jobs rather than another 144 larger houses for richer people moving into the village who commute out to work.

Object

Representation ID: 1605

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Julian Muir

I would like to register my objection to further housing in Corby Glen off the Bourne Road. I appreciate the need for further housing but I need you to appreciate the damage done locally by approving the planning to once a small village that is slowly becoming a small town. I have already had to suffer anxiety and stress of houses built on the south side of Bourne Road less than 50 yards away but further housing even closer will cause mental torture.
There is clearly not enough facilities to accommodate a further 144 properties.

Object

Representation ID: 1606

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Sally Franklin

Number of people: 2

We wish to lodge our strong objections to this proposed addition of 144 homes to our village. We have already seen a doubling to our housing stock which is still unfinished, with many properties not yet built or sold.
We have yet to see whether the infrastructure of the village can support the 3 substantial developments already underway, and quite frankly, another development is property overload and Corby Glen will lose its village identity.

Object

Representation ID: 1622

Received: 18/04/2024

Respondent: Lesley Young

Scale of additional proposed development is not proportionate to the village environment or infrastructure.
Primary school is over subscribed, and no doubt secondary school would be. GP surgeries and dispensary are struggling with demand. Existing recent developments are sufficient given lack of local work opportunities and amenities. Travel is essentials due to lack of village amenities. Residents on the A152 will be subjected to increased traffic noise, inconvenience, and pollution.
Should also note that there is a large development in Colsterworth only 5 miles from Corby glen. What research has been carried out that supports the need for further housing in this area. The David Wilson project has been scaled back in time as there is insufficient demand for housing as planned.

Object

Representation ID: 1699

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jenkins

I also object to the additional housing allocation for Corby Glen. This village has recently seen the addition of a large number of new houses and local infrastructure is already under strain.

Object

Representation ID: 1743

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Paula Muir

With the recent 66% increase in housing which is currently ongoing in Corby Glen, this requires time for the village to adapt to such a significant increase, both socially and physically. At this time it is too soon to consider a further large-scale housing expansion; an expansion which would not be in line with the SKDC vision for villages which states, “All villages will retain their diversity and vitality, with thriving communities, well planned and carefully managed development”. Being “carefully managed” will require Corby Glen to first of all adapt to the current significant developments and the challenges this will bring over the coming years in terms of the village infrastructure: GP services; schools; shops; community centre; sewage systems and for the community to successfully integrate and become one. Corby Glen will soon become a small town but without the necessary amenities a small town would require to function adequately. This will impact negatively on our local community. What is required is time to manage the changes we currently face before a further large scale development can be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 1745

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Gillian Hartley

Number of people: 2

You already have 3 developments in Corby Glen ongoing at the moment which will increase the population by over 50% putting extra pressure on the doctors surgeries which are already at full capacity. also losing the beautiful countryside. The exra traffic through main St for the local shop is already causing congestion. the potential of 144 dwellings which will probably have 2 cars per household will be horrendous. The field in question is extremely wet in the winter months and floods due to the clay conditions. The field is also home to much wildlife including Bats and Deer. their is also a pond with possibly newts present. The field is also a bridle path which is used by many residents. We moved here in December 2023 looking forward to the open field at the side of our house. No mention of this planning draft! Corby Glen has a lot of history as a village and I suggest it stays as a village NOT A TOWN!

Object

Representation ID: 1831

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: James Walsingham

This serves email as a voice against any more large scale residential development allocation in Corby Glen. With 3 recent developments, enough is enough. I mirror views of the parish council, ward member and Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group which will have been sent to you by the consultation deadline.

Object

Representation ID: 1879

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Alexandra Muir

With the recent 66% increase in housing which is currently ongoing in Corby Glen, this requires time for the village to adapt to such a significant increase, both socially and physically. At this time it is too soon to consider a further large-scale housing expansion; an expansion which would not be in line with the SKDC vision for villages which states, “All villages will retain their diversity and vitality, with thriving communities, well planned and carefully managed development”. Being “carefully managed” will require Corby Glen to first of all adapt to the current significant developments and the challenges this will bring over the coming years in terms of the village infrastructure: GP services; schools; shops; community centre; sewage systems and for the community to successfully integrate and become one. Corby Glen will soon become a small town but without the necessary amenities a small town would require to function adequately. This will impact negatively on our local community. What is required is time to manage the changes we currently face before a further large scale development can be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 1904

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Sally Mardling

Concerned the map does not include recent developments. Corby Glen has seen a substantial increase of 65% in housing stock in the village over the last few years. An additional development of the proposed 144 houses would only compound the villagers' concerns already raised in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1978

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Pam Gurney

Number of people: 2

Great concern that the village is beginning to spread out exponentially with no thought for the following: infrastructure being able to cope with current population, doctor surgery capacity, school capacity, local shop facilities, bus services, volume of cars, and water pressure.

Infrastructure has to be dealt with otherwise it will be unbearable to live here any longer.

Object

Representation ID: 2011

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Lawrence

SKPR-247 is undemocratic. The Neighbourhood Plan highlighted the 3 ongoing large developments within Corby Glen which, when completed, will provide nearly 300 additional houses and increase the size of the village by 66%. TheNeighbourhood Plan outlines the many reasonable and legitimate reasons why further development should be precluded .

SKPR-247 fails to take into account current ongoing development.

SKPR-247 will not serve the local population. Few of the houses currently being built are being bought by people living within the local area.

Local infrastructure cannot cope with the current population.

SKPR-247 will lead to over development and will increase greenhouse gases, global warming and local pollution.

SKPR-247 will change forever the rural nature of the local area and decimate the local community. Once developed this land will never be able to return to arable land and Corby Glen will be transformed into nothing more than a commuter estate.

Object

Representation ID: 2013

Received: 30/05/2024

Respondent: Frances Evans

Corby Glen has in recent years undergone extensive expansion in the number of houses and I feel that the village has taken its fair share of housing development.

No major improvements, extensions of the number of spaces have been made to the 2 schools in the village.

The character of the village is at risk of being completely lost.

The countryside surrounding the village should be treasured and not thought of as another big development site. The landscape looking at the village from distance and from within has already dramatically changed.

The village of Corby Glen offers many services to local villages, such as doctors surgeries, schools etc. This must be taken into account when considering the pressures further housing will put on these vital services

To view the edges and landscapes of a traditional Lincolnshire village as mere greenfield development sites and not truly value what they offer the village and surrounding villages is very shortsighted and unfair to the village

Object

Representation ID: 2041

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Calvin Flowers

Number of people: 2

It was only a few weeks ago that the village plan was put forward to the community and this was not mentioned in the plan, which I find concerning, as this should be something mentioned in a village plan

We currently have the construction of 350 plus houses going on in Corby Glen, which has increased our housing stock by 66%.What is very concerning about this is that these aren't even finished yet and we are trying to push through the next development.

Already the doctors rooms can't cope with wanting times up to 5 weeks, school capacity will struggle and the local high street traffic will increase with people queuing to use the shop and amenities around the square, which will result in stress for locals

In summary, moving this development to an outlying village would be benefit this village and the environment. Plus it would benefit the country and county as a whole, as we would be uplifting more communities, rather than taking advantage of Corby Glen to profit.

Object

Representation ID: 2075

Received: 22/05/2024

Respondent: Penelope Campbell

I’m not quite sure what SKDC are trying to do to Corby Glen, which was a perfectly normal Lincolnshire village with a few local amenities. We are in the midst of 3 new building sites ( omitted from your leaflet) increasing the number of new houses to 250 doubling the size of the village. Surely this is enough for Corby Glen to have done its bit to help the housing crisis. Corby Glen has always been a village not a town, which has a long history of being just that, and where one of the oldest sheep fairs has been held for the last 785 years. The amenities here would be unable to cope with even more housing and therefore people. The doctors surgery struggles as it is, the small shop in the centre of the village would be swamped and the congestion there would be even worse than it is already. The schools are over subscribed for 2025. The houses currently being built have been slow to sell. Allison having had to reduce there prices very considerably and David Wilson pausing construction until some are sold. Please, please SKDC don’t ruin our village any further, we don’t have the infrastructure to cope.

Object

Representation ID: 2186

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Corby Glen Neighbourhood Plan Group

Whilst we accept the need to build more houses, requiring the allocation of additional dwellings in settlements across South Kesteven, we have serious concerns about the proposed allocation of 144 new homes to Corby Glen. These concerns are regarding
- the new allocation comes on top of an ongoing 66% expansion of the village
- Negative impact on sustaining a thriving and inclusive community
- Overloading of the village’s infrastructure
- Lack of employment opportunities
- Traffic and pedestrian safety
- Community safety
- Lack of Open Space

Object

Representation ID: 2187

Received: 18/04/2024

Respondent: Tom Wragg

Reconsider SKPR-247 and explore alternative solutions that prioritise the well-being of our community and environment. Preserving green spaces, mitigating traffic congestion, maintaining community character, ensuring adequate infrastructure, and respecting public opinion should be guiding principles in any urban development initiative.

Object

Representation ID: 2190

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Gwyneth Roper

Concerned to see the decimation of such an important Village. Other Villages have been able to maintain their status and have avoided mass over-development, instead, choosing small clusters of houses which have been absorbed easily. In the past twelve months we have absorbed THREE housing estates, around 300 homes - resulting in the doubling of the population. No provisions/consideration has been given to the fact that the Village hasn't the infrastructure to cope with these. It seems little or no consideration is being given to saving habitats of many species.

Now an additional 144 homes are proposed.

Why can't it be possible to split the amount of housing requirement in these areas to smaller developments spread amongst the outline Villages.

Object

Representation ID: 2191

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Debbie Long

Opposed to a further increase to the structure of the village as at present the downsides considerably outweigh the benefits. We already have difficulty getting into the doctor, we have no local hospitals to cater for this growing population, public transport is non-existent, our traffic pollution will be dire (hate to think what the grading is now) as most people have to have a least one car, we are becoming less able to grow enough food, yet as one of the main agricultural counties we seem to prefer to build rather than feed the country.

Object

Representation ID: 2197

Received: 21/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Anthony Miles

The diagram SKPR-247 is incorrect and misleading as you have omitted the current three developments. These developments have increased the village population by approximately 60%.
Despite our concerns about the current development and the associated increased load on our two shops, and the health services, the three developments have commenced. As no provision has been made for additional services we are already experiencing Health and Safety issues with the increased village population.
The land is important for local wildlife and has significant drainage problems.

Object

Representation ID: 2207

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Daniel Syddall

Corby Glen's current infrastructure is ill-equipped to accommodate further development.
The allocation of funds from developers seems disproportionately directed towards neighboring areas, neglecting the needs of Corby Glen. This lack of investment in our community's infrastructure is concerning and undermines the promised benefits of development.
The proposed housing developments not only threaten the historical character of Corby Glen but also pose environmental risks. Encroaching upon agricultural land and disrupting local habitats undermines the ecological balance of our village and diminishes its natural beauty. The susceptibility of proposed development areas to flooding raises serious safety concerns for current and future residents. Further housing expansion contradicts the wishes expressed in the Corby Glen village plan, which was endorsed by residents earlier this year.

Object

Representation ID: 2209

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Matthew Evans

I strongly object to the site put forward in the plan on the following grounds.
• Green field- this would be the third significant green field development in a small village in a short period, changing the village not to mention the carbon implications of the change of use.
• Impact on existing houses- the location of the site will have a huge detrimental impact on the houses (particularly views) which border this site (St Johns and Walsingham), previous developments have at least been away from existing residents and caused minimal disruption to those people.
• House devaluation for the above-mentioned householders
• General service capacity and developers walking away with their profit before issues realised and then the taxpayer picks up the cost (sewage works, primary school capacities which will be exceeded). This has not been realised from existing developments yet. No more development until the new status quo achieved and understood.
• Village character on the brink of being lost.

Object

Representation ID: 2211

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Patricia Miles

The diagram SKPR-247 is not up to date and misleading. You have not included the 3 current developments on the south side of the Bourne Rd. When completed these three developments will have increased the population of our village by about 60%.
Despite my concerns about the current development and the associated increased load on our two shops, schools and the health services, the three developments are now underway.

No provision has been made for additional services and we are already experiencing Health and Safety issues with the increased village population.
The land is important for our local wildlife and has significant drainage problems.