Plans for up to 66 homes in a Rutland village come before councillors when they meet tomorrow night.

The application from the Muller Property Group concerns 3.46ha of paddock land to The South Of Stapleford Road, Whissendine.

The outline application to Rutland County Council said the homes would range from two-to-four bedrooms, including bungalows, linked homes and detached buildings.

The aim is to create "a distinctive and high-quality development which adds to the overall character of the village".

The choice of housing would also "meet the needs of the area, whilst enhancing the site's environmental assets".

The application said the development would be 'sustainable' with bus links and footpaths.

Also promised, were a network of green corridors, plus attractive and safe streets, as previously reported by Nub News.

A report by council planning staff for tomorrow's meeting of the county council's planning and licensing committee has recommended members refuse the application.

It said: "The site is outside the Planned Limits to Development but a small section is allocated for development in the Submitted Local Plan approved by Full Council in February 2020.

"There have been many objections to the development. Issues of policy, archaeology, highway safety, flooding and residential amenity have been considered but the policy issue is overriding in this instance.

"There is no justification for the development of this wider site and there are no material considerations in this instance that would justify outweighing the development plan. The applicant has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Lead Local Flood Authority that the site can be sustainably drained of surface water."

Recommending refusal, the report further noted how the application did not meet a range of council planning policies and objectives.

"The site is outside the Planned Limits to Development for Whissendine where new housing has to be demonstrably essential for a rural worker or similar operational needs.

"There is no justification in this instance for setting aside the development plan and there is no overriding need for this level of affordable housing in Whissendine."

The reasons continued: "It has not been demonstrated that up to 66 dwellings can be accommodated on the site having regard to appropriate densities, urban design principles, ecology and highway safety.

"The development would thereby potentially result in a cramped form of

satisfactorily to prevent additional flooding issues in the village. The scheme would result in a net loss of biodiversity."

Whissendine Parish Council also objected to the scheme.

It said: "The Parish Council would be pleased to see this application rejected because: it is outside the village envelope, it is historically important; the increased risk to road safety the pressure on limited infrastructure and the increased risk of off-site flooding that is likely to result from a development of this scale in this location."

Furthermore: "This site acts as a holding site for rain water, with increased surface area due to ridge and furrow. The village is vulnerable to flooding in the centre from the Whissendine Brook and the Parish Council would wish to see as much waterholding land as possible retained to reduce the time it takes the water to reach the flood plain and cause the brook to back up. Any drainage schemes that rely on use of local water courses will exacerbate the flood problem."

The parish council added: "The infrastructure and services that exist within the village are not believed to have capacity to cope with a large development in this location."

Similarly, the planning officers' report also noted 62 individual letters of objection, whose objections focussed on the greenfield site, flooding concerns and the scheme being an over-development of the site, which would increase the size of the village by nearly a fifth. The scheme would also generate too much traffic and place too much pressure on infrastructure.