Chapter 1 – Introduction

Object

Representation ID: 4517

Received: 20/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Christopher Jordan

Comment on RCC Statement in Chapter 1 - Introduction

“Withdrawal of the Rutland Local Plan 2018-2036

Work had previously been undertaken to prepare a new Local Plan covering 2018-2036. However, in accordance with Regulation 27 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 as amended, the Rutland Local Plan 2018-2026 was withdrawn in 2020”

The Plan was withdrawn after a vote by the full council on the 1st September 2021 not 2020. All links to the withdrawn plan and supporting documents have been removed from the local plan web page.

Support

Representation ID: 4859

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Uppingham Town Council

UTC welcome the RCC local plan recognising the importance of our Neighbourhood Plan and further urge RCC not to introduce anything in their local plan that could conflict in any way with the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan

Object

Representation ID: 5216

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr John Meara

I am unable to accept that the consulation process has been undertaken in a proper manner. It is surely unacceptable for the required 8-week consultation period to include the Chritmas and New Year holiday periods (I understand that an extension has been requested and refused). Further, one would have expected the county Council to convene public meetings to publicise the plan; this has not happened. The decision to severely limit the vailability of printed copies of the document would also seem to be designed to thwart meaningful consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 5277

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Tracey Chadwick

There has been an inappropriate amount of time and representation given to the local plan. To allocate just 8 weeks over the festive period to read and digest a significant amount of information is unreasonable. Also the plan is available on the internet only which is not inclusive to all residents and many will have missed the opportunity to have site and comment on the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5363

Received: 30/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Deag

The plan refers to the "Policies Map" on 23 occasions but none of the maps are labelled with this name and it is not used in the list of chapters, appendices and maps. To avoid confusion and ambiguity it would be good to label the maps with the name used in the text.

Object

Representation ID: 5440

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jonathan Mitchell

Considering the festive period residents are being given insufficient time to review and comment on the plan

Object

Representation ID: 5656

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

If this was truly a thorough meaningful consultation period, in which we were asked to absorb and respond appropriately to such a sizeable and significant document, we would never have been given such a narrow window of time.

Object

Representation ID: 5706

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Hart

This plan has not been communicated in an inclusive manner. A more pro active attitude should have been adopted to include those who have little expertise with using the internet. Also a campaign to include residents who do not readily think that their views matter against those with a vested interested in benefiting from these proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 5894

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Carol Brys

RCC should be ashamed of their obvious and cynical attempts to minimize engagement with the public. The website and timing seem designed to exclude or eliminate comments from the residents . More time should have been given to the residents to review this plan and actual humans should have been used to review the site functionality. It is difficult, if not impossible, to give the plan the review and consideration required in the time given.

Object

Representation ID: 5986

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Chadwick

Insufficient time has been given to residents to read and understand the policy due to the deadline being just a week after the festive period.

Object

Representation ID: 6014

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

A one month extension was requested to the consultation period by the local MP and 34 Parish Councils. The request was rejected by Cllr Gale Waller, which appears to demonstrate a lack of regard for meaningful consultation on a weighty and important document

The LP contains 11 Objectives, which would appear to be far to many . One has to question whether they reflect local issues or are a Local Plan template provided by consultants. The June 2022 Consultation feedback does not appear to be reflected in the priorities

Climate change should be an underpinning principle not a priority objective

Object

Representation ID: 6127

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lunn

There is a feeling that a lot of what is written is generic and the the plan needs coherent linkage between its policies and more clarity on implementation.

There is no feel for how the plan will be implemented, or details on timelines, deliverables, and performance measurement.

It feels also that it is being rushed through, despite the additional 2 weeks on statutory requirment's it is still a tight time line on a very busy holiday period.

Object

Representation ID: 6503

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Christopher Evans

It is unfortunate that the only response is object or support . OTC do not object per se to the Local Plan, rather the timeframe for public consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 6535

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

The plan period must ensure 15 years from the point of adoption.

Support

Representation ID: 6749

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

BPC recognises the need to review their Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan 5 years after adoption, i.e. commencing in 2024.

Object

Representation ID: 6948

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

i) The Plan contains no management summary, and every policy will need to be considered by the community.
ii) No documentary copies of the plan have so far been made available without charge to parish communities.
iii) It has been stated by senior officers that the Local Plan is intended to be” Community Led” but the first we see of the Regulation18 Local Plan is about 400 pages available to read off a computer screen.
iv) Most of the policies are presented (including environmental and climate change policies) with a presumption in favour of development with vague and subjective lists of caveats.
v) There are numerous conflicting policies.
vi) The Plan contains many mentions of the NPPF but very few of them give a reference to the NPPF paragraph referred to and none state how the paragraph concerned will be interpreted by the Rutland Local Planning Authority.
vii) There is no evidence that any thought has been given by the author of this Plan concerning
how the proposed policies will be understood and interpreted by Development Control in order to implement the policies in the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7067

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

Clearly a Local Plan needs to consider a wide-ranging number of important policies as is indicated by the 10 chapters in the plan. However, RPC feels there needs to be a clearer assessment of which are most appropriate to the needs of the county and prioritisation of those most likely to impact the majority of the population. Our view is that most important are:
· Housing
· Infrastructure [Health, Transport and Education]
· Climate Change & Environment
This is not to say the content of other chapters is unimportant, but in seeking to do everything is likely to lead to a failure to fully and satisfactorily deliver those that are most important.

Object

Representation ID: 7113

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Maskell

i. The value and ‘weight’ allocated to approved Neighbourhood Plans is of fundamental importance, and must not be devalued. I suggest defined stringent procedures are introduced to limit applications for planning permission that seek to overrule or ignore approved Neighbourhood Plan conditions.
ii. RCC Planning Department consideration of planning applications should identify any part of the proposal where it overrides any aspect of a current “made” Neighbourhood Plan, and, if recommended for approval, should justify any decision that is counter to the “made” plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7274

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Hugh C Palmer

Neighbourhood Plans are “protected from speculative development for 2 to 5 years where these plans allocate at least one housing site”. Comment: Edith Weston has an existing Adopted N/P and a New updated N/P in the final stage of adoption. The NPPF is strongly supportive of N/Ps and the protection of communities from unwanted development - The Edith Weston N/Plan constraints have been ignored. (they are legally enforceable and backed by the NPPF.)

Object

Representation ID: 7535

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF are pleased that the Council have recognised the need for the Plan to cover a period of 15 years from adoption. We would highlight that plan-making can take time and would encourage the Council to consider whether the Plan period should be extended to 2042 or 2043 to ensure that this will still be the case even if there is an unexpected delay during the plan-making and Examination process. It will be
essential that the evidence base covers the full plan period and as such HBF suggest there is merit in considering this issue now.