Policy SS2 - Requirements for planning applications

Object

Representation ID: 4986

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Policy SS2 simply repeats the provisions of the NPPF, which is contrary to the Government’s guidance in relation to plan making. The policy should, therefore, be deleted.

Support

Representation ID: 5156

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Agree with the approach

Object

Representation ID: 5551

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Is this really necessary or relevant as a policy of the development plan? Are these not simply validation requirements?

Object

Representation ID: 5633

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Debra Asher

RCC – Back up the words of your Local Plan – make them meaningful for the whole county. Protect Quarry Farm

Object

Representation ID: 5786

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Community based neighbourhood plans are an excellent way for development to happen where it is wanted and the proposed local plan seems to be in conflict with this in some instances

Object

Representation ID: 5801

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Storey

There is no need for Rutland CC to include a major development at Stamford North. This is unfair on existing Stamford residents adjacent to this land, who will suffer the congestion and lack of services, when Rutland will benefit from the profit of 650 rates etc. but with none of the inconvenience.
Rutland CC should drop Stamford North and concentrate on the much larger St Georges Barracks with little impact on and bio-diversity.

Support

Representation ID: 5968

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

The Policy should also address situations where developers seek to revise planning conditions after planning approval has been granted. This should include situations where developers seek to pass responsibility for a private developments (infrastructure, etc) to RCC, with the potential to increase costs for the Council Tax payer

Support

Representation ID: 6346

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support this approach.

Object

Representation ID: 6569

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Comments made on behalf of the DIO as part of a full written response to Rutland Council. Representations should be read in context and not in isolation.
Policy SS2 is not needed as it is covered by both the national and local level validation requirements and does not set anything by which development can be assessed as compliance is simply met by having a valid application. Should the Council wish to include such guidance then it should be in the form of supplementary guidance or as supporting text within the Local Plan. The Policy should be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 6760

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

SS2
We question whether this statement is redundant as the requirement for Design & Access Statements is specified within the NPPF

Object

Representation ID: 7115

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Maskell

New measures successfully introduced during the planning application process to tip the balance in favour of securing approval of permission should never be allowed to be reversed subsequent to the approval of the original planning permission being granted. It appears this is a frequent ploy by developers.

Historic approval of a planning application successfully submitted for development outside the planned limits of development should not be allowed to be used to establish an acceptable precedent in support of a proposed new adjacent development outside of the limits of planned development. Any such new application should be justified solely on its own merits.

Support

Representation ID: 7287

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The requirement for ‘proportionate’ information is welcomed. This Policy should be supported by an up-to-date local validation list.

Object

Representation ID: 7391

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

. Far too many planning applications are submitted without consultation with neighbours which leads to rancour and an excessive number of objections. In addition to the provisions of this policy we believe that SS2 should make it clear that all applicants are required to certify that they have properly consulted with their immediate neighbours prior to their application being submitted. Each neighbour consulted with should be listed in the application. We believe that this would result in far less time wasted by Planning Officers and staff in dealing with objections and would reduce the load on the Planning Committee so that it was able to devote sufficient time to major or disputed developments.

Object

Representation ID: 7406

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

This Policy is superfluous, replicating other policies in the plan and the national/local validation checklists, and
should be removed.

Object

Representation ID: 7509

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

We would add to this policy: Planning applications must be supported by sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate compliance with all relevant policies included in this plan “and any relevant Neighbourhood Plan”

Object

Representation ID: 7898

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

Would comment that any development at Stamford North is an agreed Masterplan and submitted as a joint application. Any development proposed on the cLWS should not be permitted, and alternative options are available.