I would like to thank Mr Chamen (Rutland Times, July 17) and many others for their contribution to the high quality ongoing discussions taking place about how Rutland will look and feel in the future.

It is essential that we get the views of residents and we're pleased that so many people have taken the time to comment on the 20 year vision.

However there seems to be a basic misunderstanding which I would like to clear up.

These are not recommendations or even proposals. We have as much problem with some sections of the vision as some of the residents responding do. Let me explain why.

The starting point is that the Government is setting housing numbers for the next 20 years. To cut a long story short, this realistically means that Rutland will be instructed to build a number of houses over a certain period. Once that number is set, there will be little room for manoeuvre.

Local independent research has indicated a need for over 100 affordable houses a year.

These homes would be for people like the children of today, who will leave home in years to come but won't be able to afford a house in Rutland.

One hundred affordable houses a year adds up to 2,000 during the next 20 years, quite an increase when you consider that we only have around 15,000 homes at present.

However, whilst many think we need 2,000, the Government is likely to insist that we make land available for nearer 3,500. And there lies our (council and local residents) problem.

The 20 year vision has been put together to illustrate the amount of land that this number of houses would take.

It has blocks with capacity for houses on it. They are not recommendations. They are an attempt to work with the community at large to become aware of the issues and to seek reasonable and achievable solutions; to look at the implications on roads, schools, shops, parking etc.

It is an early warning for a more formal consultation based around a series of documents called the Local Development Framework that will start coming in to force in 2010/2011.

In the meantime, keep the comments coming in.

Attend the various briefing meetings on Saturday August 2 and let us know your views.

Don't just say no, give us your alternatives as it's quite unlikely that we're going to be able to ignore these Government targets and get away with building fewer houses than they want us to.

Roger Begy
Leader, Rutland County Council


Ten reasons why this fills me with disbelief

I am writing to express my total disbelief about Rutland County Council's Vision for the Future.

I notice on the council's website that there will be a public consultation on August 2 which consists of a bus going round the villages.

This is hardly a representative cross section of Rutland as I should imagine that the villagers would be only too happy for Oakham and Uppingham to expand as long as it does not affect their quaint way of life.

Given the unlikelihood of my seeing this bus, I thought I should let you know of my initial reactions to the Vision as this may be my only opportunity!

1. Having been a resident of Oakham for over 20 years I can confidently state that the attraction of Oakham is that it is a small market town with lovely historic houses on the edge of one of the most beautifully designed reservoirs in England.

Recent years have started to spoil this feature – the approach to Oakham from Barleythorpe has caused Oakham to be dubbed "Lego land" by many people, and I defy anyone not to get lost in the maze of identical brick houses that have sprung up on the north-eastern side of the town.

2. RCC wishes "to protect and improve the natural environment", so why are they planning to increase the population by building an extra 3,915 houses on green areas that are of great beauty and which are also environmentally sensitive .

3. We all know that we are also enduring a "credit crunch" where the prices of houses are falling and very few people are able to get mortgages.

Would it therefore not be more cost effective to develop old and disused buildings into apartments rather than build unsightly new ones?

4. RCC also states that growth within Oakham should be limited to areas within the bypass – why then propose the north-eastern site which would result in the bypass running through the middle of the town?

Very few cars keep below the speed limit on that road and yet the council is proposing that the population on the other side should cross it on a daily basis to reach primary schools and shops?

5. In this age of carbon emission awareness should the council not be looking at ways of decreasing the pollution emitted by the traffic in the town? Yet the 3,915 extra houses, as well as having their own carbon footprint, could increase the traffic by 8,000 cars (two per household is the national average). Do we want that commuting through the town centre every morning?

6. How will the education problem be addressed? Will the current primary schools have to expand? Where to? Or will another school have to be built? Again where and at what point in time?

Have Oakham primary schools even been informed of the possible expansion?

7. A further thought regarding the schools is the consideration that will be given to the safety of the children whilst all this massive construction work is going on? Brooke Road is already a very busy road at school time; construction traffic would make it a very dangerous place indeed.

8. The construction work would also massively impact on the town centre – an area that has finally quietened down after the bypass was opened.

9. It is interesting that with the increase of population there are no plans to increase any retail provision.

At a time when the government and media are trying to encourage healthy and local produce why are the council using up our farm land by building houses for people who will have to commute to bigger towns to do their shopping?

10. Why not develop the tourism aspect of Rutland?

There is minimal development at Rutland Water; practically no-one visits it during the week or in the winter months.

You can be assured that I will be following this development very closely and will work with my fellow Oakham residents in opposing these ill conceived proposals.

Natalie Thorp,
Oakham
via email