Chapter 2 – Spatial Portrait

Object

Representation ID: 4981

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

WDH's response to Policies SS1 and H1 highlight that the spatial strategy should be refined to strengthen the plan's robustness. Given the need to support the County’s rural communities and address the existing affordability issues, the overall housing requirement should be at least 3,905 dwellings. Therefore, additional allocation sites should be identified, particularly within the larger villages to support their ongoing vitality. WDH's site at Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore (Reserve Site H1.a) is a suitable development site in the most sustainable 'larger village' settlement, and should therefore be allocated for development in this plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 5005

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

There is no information about population diversity or breakdown of demography

Object

Representation ID: 5257

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Heidelberg Materials UK

Economy paragraph 2 refers to Hanson Cement. In October 2023 Hanson re-branded to Heidelberg Materials. Please therefore replace 'Hanson Cement' with 'Heidelberg Materials'

Support

Representation ID: 5345

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: South Kesteven District Council

South Kesteven District Council welcomes reference to Stamford and its provision of facilities and services which, as well as the surrounding villages within South Kesteven, also acts as a service centre to villages on the eastern side of Rutland. The Spatial Portrait also acknowledges that Stamford is constrained by the Rutland/South Kesteven border which is growth limiting.

Object

Representation ID: 7001

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

With reference to the Waste Management text (page 11) we note that wastewater/ water recycling is not referenced. Rutland is served by twenty water recycling centres (WRC) within the county. Eleven of the WRC have permits with dry weather flows that equate to the number of people served by the WRC and so are at capacity. Applying flows from 2022 indicates that ten WRC could accommodate growth within their catchments. Some 7,800 new homes could be served using existing permitted flow capacity at the ten WRC. The biosolids from the WRC are managed outside of the county with all Oakham’s sludge being transported and treated at the Flag Fen (Peterborough) Sludge Treatment Centre, for example.

Object

Representation ID: 7430

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

The population projections for Rutland for the duration of the Plan have increased considerably since the 2020 Plan. Overall a 6% increase in the 2020 plan has increased to an 11% increase in the current plan. There is no robust explanation of how this scale of change has been arrived at and the degree to which the Local Plan can influence this projection. This discrepancy between population projections and dwelling numbers has potential implications across many policy areas, and it needs to be properly explained.

There appears to be an inconsistency in the projections between these population figures and the housing projections set out in chapter 6, suggesting either the population figures are an under projection or there are more dwellings projected than are needed to meet both Rutland’s current and projected need. This discrepancy is likely to be increased as windfalls are likely to be higher with the changes proposed through to SS4.

Object

Representation ID: 7571

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Paragraph 1 is welcomed, however, reference should
also be made to non-designated heritage assets and
archaeology.

Reference to non-designated
heritage assets and
archaeology should be
included in the first paragraph

Object

Representation ID: 7761

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: North Northamptonshire Council

Finally, it is worth mentioning a couple of factual points on page 12 of the Preferred Options document that would need updating for the next stage of the Plan.

Firstly, it would be worth noting in brackets that the Corby and East Northamptonshire areas are now part of the North Northamptonshire Council unitary authority.

Secondly, in Figure 2, the proposed number of homes identified for the Corby area should read 14,200 (not 14,500) with regard to the strategic opportunity figure, as per Table 5 of the JCS.

Object

Representation ID: 7815

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

At the outset there is no analysis of population data. With the benefit of the 2021 Census, some sort of demographic
account would have been expected.

Population figures seem to have increased markedly since the last (draft) plan, in 2020. The population is projected
now to rise to 45,038 by 2036 and 46,100 by 2041, against 41,700 and 42,200 respectively in those years from the previous plan, although the source of these projections - the 2021 Census results perhaps - is not stated. So, a roughly 6% rise forecast in the 2020 plan has now become an increase of over 11%. This will clearly have implications in many areas and must be fully explained. These figures should feed into the justification/requirement for extra housing, infrastructure, etc.

We are told that 36% of the population is retired and that by the end of the plan period 30% will be aged 80+. Again,
what is the source of these statistics and what are the implications? Where will the residential homes/serviced
apartments be located? If we need affordable homes for the less well off, then we also need bungalows and small
serviced apartments. The implications in terms of medical care and transport for the elderly are glossed over in this
plan when they should be central to the vision and policies for caring for our population.

The population projections are clearly fundamental to planning for the future of the county and for any new
developments needed. Full explanations and justifications for the figures are therefore essential to ensure that the
right housing is provided in the right timescales.

Object

Representation ID: 7838

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

This is a good summary of the general issues impacting the geography and demographics of the county.

However, it needs to show much greater recognition of the fact that Rutland is not an island … it is significantly dependent on what happens across its borders in neighbouring counties as these are the primary providers of employment, healthcare provision and waste management.

As such the section entitled “Duty to Co-operate” is insufficiently develop and requires greater development and enduring procedural systems emplaced to have a sustainable effect.

It needs to be significantly expanded to identify with greater clarity the specific actions that will be developed with our neighboring authorities. For Ryhall residents this particularly means joined up thinking with Stamford [South Kesteven/Lincolnshire] on Housing, transport, health and education. There are significant concerns about the deleterious impact of Quarry Farm/Monarch Park and the whole greater expansion of Stamford North. Without major improvement and expansion of primary care in Stamford and Rutland, the existing sub-optimal service will degrade to unacceptable levels.

RCC and South Kesteven Council must have a joined-up transport management plan to steer more traffic to the west of the town … possibly by building a Retail Park close to the A1.