Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

The NPPF requires the Local Plan to provide a spatial framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social, and environmental priorities. It states that strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale, and design quality of places, and make sufficient provision housing, employment, retail and leisure and other commercial development. Establishing a clear spatial strategy directs development to those locations which are suitable for sustainable development and economic growth. Defining the spatial strategy underpins the scale and distribution of development which will meet the identified needs for the County for the plan period.

The above approach is intended to meet the minimum housing requirement set out in the Government's calculation of Rutland's Local Housing Need (LHN). However, it is recognised that there are limits to the continued development being added on to the edges of existing settlements. Equally, the Future Rutland Vision looks to a longer time period than the proposed plan period for the Local Plan.

The spatial strategy included in the adopted Core Strategy 2011 has been reviewed to assess whether it remains appropriate. The new spatial strategy recognises the following key roles and relationships of the County's towns and villages:

Oakham is the main town of the County, with range of job opportunities, higher order services including retail, leisure and health facilities for the surrounding rural area and has good public transport links. Existing commitments and new allocations for housing and employment development will seek to sustain its prominence as the main service centre serving the villages in Rutland for shopping, employment, and local services.

Uppingham is the second largest settlement in the County and also serves a rural hinterland through the provision of a wide range of services and facilities within the town. Despite a positive approach to allocating land for housing and employment development in the made Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan, past rates of development in Uppingham have been lower than envisaged through the Core Strategy DPD plan period to date.

Uppingham Town Council are reviewing this made Neighbourhood Plan and propose additional housing and employment land to be allocated to meet the needs of the town for the new Local Plan period. The Local Plan seeks to provide the strategic context to enable locally determined, appropriate additional allocations to be made through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan.

Oakham and Uppingham are the most sustainable locations for new development and therefore allocations for the majority of new houses and job opportunities will be located in the towns.

The Rutland County boundary with Lincolnshire is close to the town of Stamford in South Kesteven. Evidence has shown that the most appropriate location for the future growth of the town of Stamford is to the north of the town. This development needs some land located in Rutland in order to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable development. This plan therefore includes a proposal for land to form the western end of a larger urban extension to the north of Stamford.

The County's larger villages are defined as those which may have a number of key local services such as a shop, public house, community centre, school and/or recreation and leisure spaces. However, some of these facilities are commercial operations and may close (or open) during the plan period without the need for planning permission. The background paper identifies that villages with more than 150 homes and a population of more than 300 people can sustain a local shop or public house and a community centre and recreation spaces. Therefore, these villages are identified as the Larger Villages where a limited amount of development may help to maintain or enhance their vitality, support existing community facilities, and meet local needs. The spatial strategy lists the larger villages and allocations for small and medium scale housing development are made in some of these villages. (see Chapter 6 Housing).

There are also a large number of smaller villages and hamlets spread across the County. The small villages and hamlets are defined as those with less than 150 houses and a population of less than 300^[1] people. These villages have few or no local facilities and the scale of development required to bring such facilities to the village is likely to be much larger than the existing settlement pattern would accommodate. Promoting development in these villages would not encourage sustainable patterns of growth. In these locations development will, therefore, be limited to small scale infill and redevelopment opportunities.

The Issues and Options consultation asked about the spatial strategy for housing growth under Issue 2. Most of those responding to the Issues and Options consultation responded to this question with the majority of respondents (41%) opting for the option to continue with the Core Strategy apportionment of growth between the towns and the villages.

As a result of the consultation responses the Council committed to reviewing and updating the settlement hierarchy which underpins the spatial strategy.

The background paper considers the merits of retaining the existing settlement hierarchy of towns, Local Service Centres, Small Service Centres and Restraint Villages

Background paper on Spatial Strategy for New Development (2023)

CS2 - The spatial strategy

CS3 - The settlement hierarchy

CS4 - The location of development

To promote sustainable development in the countryside, the NPPF expects housing to be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The NPPF also says that planning policies should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs and policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services.

Development within Planned Limits of Development

Planned Limits of Developments (PLDs) define the extent of existing built-up areas of the main towns and larger villages in the County. Development within PLDs is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to compliance with detailed polices in this plan. It should not, however, be assumed that all land within the PLDs has potential for future development. PLDs have the following functions:

• define where development will be acceptable in principle because it meets the objectives of delivering sustainable development;
• prevent inappropriate development (or encroachment) across into the countryside and open areas;
• control the scale and location of development by establishing the limit for the outward expansion of settlements;
• encourages sustainable redevelopment within settlements

The PLDs defined in the Local Plan have been reviewed and updated in accordance with new criteria set out in the Rutland Planned Limits of Development Review report 2023. In addition to the criteria and methodology set out in the review the PLDs have also been amended to include within the boundaries:

• site which are under construction or where planning permission has been granted.
• sites which are allocated for development in this Local Plan or made Neighbourhood Plans to 31.03.23

Defining PLDs help to maintain a sustainable development strategy by focusing the majority of new development in the County's most sustainable settlements, where there is better access to services facilities and job opportunities and better transport links.

Development in small villages and hamlets without a Planned Limit of Development

Rutland has a large number of very small villages and hamlets which have few or no services, facilities, or job opportunities. Many of these settlements have a rural character that often merges into the surrounding countryside. These settlements are not sustainable locations for housing growth. Therefore, Planned Limits of Development have not been defined around them and no land has been allocated for development.

Despite this, there may be opportunities for local, very small-scale development to take place to support the viability and vitality of the village in accordance with the NPPF. Such development will be limited to infill sites, rounding off and through re-use and redevelopment. Any housing development that is permitted in these locations will be 'windfalls' to the housing land supply.

Very small-scale development means that which is proportionate in scale and density, and complementary with, the size and character of the settlement and its surroundings. It is expected that housing development on such sites will usually be 1-2 new dwellings, although exceptionally there may be sites which yield up to a maximum of 5 dwellings.

Any development provided through this policy also needs to be in keeping with the rural character of the locality. Care should be taken that such development, does not harm open spaces or gaps that make a positive contribution to the character of the village, including views and vistas, particularly sites identified as Important Open Spaces. Careful consideration also needs to be given to the cumulative impact of new development which can, over time, erode the character of rural settlements and/ or lead to the coalescence of groups of buildings to produce a more 'urban' form.

Development of isolated sites outside the existing pattern and form of a settlements will not be considered acceptable.

Definitions

Previously developed land is defined in the National Planning Framework.

Infill development is defined as a small gap within a continuously built-up frontage.

small scale (for the purpose of this policy) means development of 5 dwellings or fewer)

In Issue 6 of the Issues and Options consultation we asked whether the PLDs should be reviewed. 65% of those responding to this question agreed that they should be reviewed. You also told us that reviewing the PLDs should provide some flexibility to allow for some organic growth and to include new allocations.

We have commissioned a review of the methodology and criteria for establishing and reviewing PLDs and a full review of PLDs for the two towns and the 21 Larger Villages. This is reported in a format which allows comments to be made on each proposed boundary change.

To remove all PLDs and rely on criteria-based policies; to review all PLDs including those for the small villages and hamlets.

The preferred approach which has resulted in policies which provide a combination of PLDs for the towns and larger villages and criteria-based policy to help determine applications for small infill, windfall, and redevelopment proposals on a site-by-site basis in the smaller villages without a PLD. This approach allows for some flexibility to allow for very small-scale growth in appropriate locations.

Landscape Sensitivity Report (July 2023)

Planned Limits of Development (PLD) Review (October 2023)

CS3 - The settlement hierarchy

CS4 - The Location of Development

SP5 - Built development in towns and villages

The NPPF advises plan makers that the supply of a large number of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided that they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities.

In November 2016, the Ministry of Defence announced that the St George's Barracks site located between the villages of Edith Weston and North Luffenham would close. The timetable for the site to close has been extended and it is now expected that it will be vacated in 2026.

The site is significant in size, extending to about 265 hectares. About a third of the site in the northwestern corner comprises military housing, a community shop, workshops, aircraft hangers, open space and sports and recreational facilities and infrastructure associated with its current and former military uses. This area of the site would be suitable for re-use and or redevelopment once the site is vacated. The remaining site is subject to ecological, geological and heritage constraints which would significantly restrict opportunities for re-use or redevelopment.

This site includes extensive areas of airfield land, technical buildings, and housing and community and leisure facilities for use by service personnel. With the expected closure of the barracks, there is an imperative to plan for the future use and development of the site which also accommodates a Grade 2* listed structure (Thor Missile site) and a significant area identified as a mineral safeguarded area.

Development proposals for the re-development of the sites remain uncertain at the point of preparing the Local Plan, therefore no specific proposal is included for the site. However, the plan needs to ensure that a policy framework is in place to guide the development of proposals and to help ensure any redevelopment is sustainable and holistically planned and aligned to the spatial strategy set out in this plan. The site is therefore identified as a future opportunity area which would be the subject of a separate development plan (DPD).

Once vacated the site will become a major brownfield site. National planning policy requires councils to make the most effective and efficient use of brownfield land and it is expected that the Ministry of Defence will want to explore all opportunities for the re-use and reclamation of the site.

The barracks were established on the site of the former RAF North Luffenham airfield in 1998. They became the home of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in 1999, of the King's Own Royal Border Regiment in 2003 and of the 16th Regiment Royal Artillery in 2007. In April 2013 16th Regiment Royal Artillery received the Freedom of Oakham on behalf of the barracks. In July 2014 16th Regiment Royal Artillery moved to Baker Barracks, Thorney Island. 2 Medical Regiment, Royal Army Medical Corps and 1 Military Working Dogs Regiment, Royal Army Veterinary Corps moved into St George's Barracks later that year.

Prior to the Army taking over the site in 1998, it was used by the RAF. The station was built as a training airfield, opening in 1940. It was later taken over by 5 Group of RAF Bomber Command as a heavy bomber base and was expanded by the building of concrete runways later in the war.

From 1959 to 1963, North Luffenham was the base for PGM-17 Thor intermediate range ballistic missiles, operated by No. 144 Squadron RAF. The Thor missile site was listed as a Grade II* building in 2011.

When the RAF vacated the base, the gates from the main entrance were donated to the village of North Luffenham. The gates which bear the station badge were later erected at the entrance to the village's recreation ground.

The site includes a number of military buildings on the edge of Edith Weston and is also close to North Luffenham. The military heritage is deeply ingrained in the site including listed buildings related to the Thor missile site, current operational buildings, streets, spaces, trees, and landscaping and therefore what remains when the operational use of the site ceases will continue to be influenced by its military past.

There is already a community at St. George's and this will continue to be the case once operational use ceases. It is vital that the future of the community is well managed to ensure a sustainable future for current and future residents. Therefore, this Local Plan will look to ensure that the impacts of this change are well managed to deliver the best possible outcomes for the community through future joint working between the County Council, Ministry of Defence, and other involved partners in terms of planning for its future sustainable development in line with the spatial strategy set out in this plan.

Key issues include:

• the unique and important site is of national significance in its heritage.
• the specific nature of the site and challenges in relation to integration and improved access both across the site itself and to other settlements, supporting connectivity and future sustainability.
• the risk of fragmented nature of current infrastructure across the site and challenges around infrastructure specification and standard affecting opportunities for future public authority adoption.
• the relationship of new development to neighbouring communities.
• the scope for the retention and development of existing employment opportunities.

The St. George's site offers the opportunity to provide for appropriate employment as part of a comprehensive development proposal.

Q13 Option E of the Issues and Options consultation asked about meeting growth through a new settlement, although St George's was not specifically referenced. 18% of those responding supported this option.

Alternative options are to not consider St George's specifically but to rely on policy SS7. However, this approach does not enable the council to be proactive in the development of a positive planning approach for the site which engages the local communities and other stakeholders.

The Council has also received proposals for the development of a new community at Woolfox, adjacent to the A1 near Stretton. The proposal submitted through the Call for Sites has an expected capacity of at least 4,000 houses together with over 100 hectares of employment land. The scale and nature of the proposal is not considered to be deliverable within the context of the assessed employment and housing needs for Rutland for this plan period. Allocating a development of the scale and nature proposed for Woolfox would compromise the delivery of the proposed spatial strategy set out in this plan and potentially the plans of neighbouring areas.

A proposal of the scale and nature envisaged by the Woolfox proposal could only be considered on a sub-regional basis and justified as contributing to the needs of neighbouring authorities. At present, there is no opportunity to take such a proposal forward.

Like St George's the Woolfox site is also subject to environmental and geological constraints and similarly there are uncertainties and complexities to a development in this location. Unlike St George's, the Woolfox site is not considered to meet the definition of previously developed land.

This Local Plan does not, therefore, allocate the Woolfox site. It is recognised, however, that the site may contribute to meeting future development needs of Rutland, particularly if it is possible to develop a sub-regional basis for its consideration. Future proposals for this site would need to be assessed and considered either through the review of this plan or potentially beyond the current plan period.

Whilst large amount of evidence was prepared to support the previous proposal for the site it is expected that a new evidence base will be required as part of the preparation of the separate plan for St Georges

CS6 – Reuse of redundant military bases and prisons

Operational facilities in Rutland form an important part of the local economy and community. Sites generally include extensive areas of land and buildings including ex-airfields, technical buildings, community, and leisure facilities for use by service personnel, as well as military housing.

Development in connection with the use of military bases and prisons will normally need planning permission with the exception of some special arrangements concerned with national security and defence urgency and enforcement.

Sites are often located in remote countryside locations where new development would normally be restricted; it is recognised however that some flexibility may be needed where development is needed for operational purposes. Policy SS6 for operational uses of military and prison sites recognises the need to be flexible in considering proposals which are necessary for the continuing operation of such sites. Site boundaries within which the policy applies are shown on the Policies Map. Operation uses will not be expected to extend beyond these boundaries. The policy also allows for the alternative use of an individual building or part of a military base or prison where it is small in scale and would not adversely affect the use of the area for operational purposes.

Proposals for the re-use of a redundant military base or prison other than St George's (which is covered by a separate policy) are likely to be significant and may need to be considered via a review of the local plan or through the development of a separate Development Plan Document. Policy SS7 sets out the key requirements that need to be considered for any alternative uses of the remaining military base or prison setting out criteria relating to the re-use of existing land and buildings, disturbance to local communities, protecting the countryside, landscape and ecology, accessibility, design and construction, renewable energy, and energy efficiency. The detailed requirements of any alternative uses would need to be the subject of a master plan or development brief or through a development plan document and must be based on robust evidence. Proposal will be subject to publicity and consultation. Major proposals, beyond those proposed within this plan, would need to be considered in the context of the spatial strategy and are likely to trigger the review of this local plan.

No questions were included on this topic in the Issues and Options consultation.

No alternatives have been considered.

None

CS6 - Reuse of redundant military bases and prisons

SP11 - Use of Military Bases and prisons for operational and other purposes

Housing

To promote sustainable development in the countryside, the NPPF expects housing to be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. In the absence of special circumstances, local planning authorities should avoid permitting new isolated homes in the countryside. Exemptions to this are made within NPPF for specific types of housing.

Policy SS8 above is intended to preclude the development of new-build open market housing which, for strategic reasons, is not needed in the countryside. The policy does not, however, preclude the development of specific types of open market housing in rural locations; for example, dwellings resulting from the conversion of rural buildings. It would also not prevent alterations to, or extensions of, existing buildings. There is a significant lack of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites across the County which is the reason for the inclusion within this policy.

Policy SS8 applies to any land that falls outside PLDs and small settlements covered by policy SS1, is referred to as countryside, even if it is technically previously developed land.

Non- Residential uses

The NPPF supports the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings.

The Local Plan makes provision for development that is essential for the efficient operation of agriculture, horticulture, equestrian or forestry and that which has an essential need to be located in the countryside.

The Council will generally encourage the change of use of suitable existing buildings for agricultural purposes to related uses supporting rural growth such as small craft workshops, rural diversification and Agri-tech uses. The Council will also permit additional, small-scale extensions or ancillary new development where it can be achieved in accordance with the criteria set out in the Policy.

To be ancillary, the scale of new development would not be expected, either individually or cumulatively, to exceed 50% of both the volume and the footprint of the existing building unless it is clearly demonstrated that a larger development necessary and appropriate in the location.

Policy SS9 also recognises that there are forms of outdoor recreational and sports development, including the expansion of existing facilities, which are of a land extensive nature such that the countryside is the only appropriate location. A critical requirement for this type of activity will be avoiding development that is visually intrusive to the form and character of the wider countryside setting.

The policy also recognises that there is scope for agricultural diversification to provide waste related development (such as facilities for anaerobic digestion and other forms of composting) and mineral development, provided that essential criteria are met to ensure mitigation to acceptable levels of impact can be achieved.

It should be noted that certain changes of use of agricultural buildings to dwelling houses and to commercial uses do not require planning permission, subject to prior approval of the local authority in respect of certain matters. Further details are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

This matter was not considered at Issues and Options consultation.

To have no local policy covering these matters and rely instead on National Planning Policy Framework

None

CS4 -The location of development,

CS16 - The rural economy,

SP6 - Housing in the countryside,

SP7 - Non-residential development in the countryside,

SP13 - Agricultural, horticultural, equestrian and forestry development