Policy SS3 – Development within Planned Limits of Development

Object

Representation ID: 4987

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: 5027

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Pigeon Investment Management

It is noted that the Planned Limits of Development (PLD) associated with Oakham has been extended so that the majority of the site which benefits from planning permission reference 2022/0336/MAO is now included within the PLD. However, a portion of the north westernmost part of the site is excluded. It is considered that the PLD should be amended to ensure it accurately reflects the application site associated with the above-mentioned permission.

Support

Representation ID: 5157

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Agree with the approach

Object

Representation ID: 5259

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Bisbrooke Parish Meeting

Extraordinary Village Meeting Bisbrooke November 2023,

The removal of the Planned Limits of Development from around villages gave rise to considerable concern because Bisbrooke has no community facilities other than a church; there is no employment within the village; there is no regular public transport .
Increased car usage will put unacceptable pressure on the already inadequate roads which serve the village.
It is considered that the planned limits should remain around small villages . Speculative satellite housing development around small villages would be detrimental to their visual appearance and not in keeping with the traditional incremental growth of settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 5613

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

The addition of the small piece of land in a green field beside the water at the bottom of Weston road , in Edith Weston makes no sense - this is NOT residential curtilage. I believe this needs consultation and clarification.

Support

Representation ID: 5807

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Seems reasonable

Support

Representation ID: 6304

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Please try to follow this objective in the future.

Support

Representation ID: 6345

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support and agree with this summary.

Object

Representation ID: 6522

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

The definition of Larger Villages is fundamentally problematic, as PLDs are really important for sensible planning for medium sized and smaller settlements also. Protections are not adequate, given the highly variable quality of planning decisions under the current plan. The criteria for 'Larger' are arbitrary and inconsistently applied, creating uncertainty and wriggle room for unscrupulous development in the future.

Object

Representation ID: 6573

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Through Policy SS3, the proposals map for the draft Local Plan should include a new PLD boundary specifically for the brownfield (previously developed) land at St George’s Barracks. The main barracks site is a large development area which will become vacant from 2026. As such, a meaningful future use of the site will be required to avoid it remaining vacant.

A PLD boundary for the brownfield land at St George’s Barracks would help to guide future policy, planning guidance or development proposals brought forward on the Site and help to deliver homes that do not encroach towards Edith Weston.

Support

Representation ID: 6675

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Jan Warren

Your PLD as currently drawn will go a long way to protect the important rural scene for the coming years.

I strongly support the Planned Limit of Development line as shown on the map in the current Regulation 18 draft local plan. It will play a vital role in protecting the open and rural aspects of Belton in Rutland and ensure it retains its unique rural character and approach.

Support

Representation ID: 6676

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Edmund Nickless

I write in support of the proposed five modest changes to the Belton in Rutland PLD, and specifically in opposition to any suggested change, at this time, to the present PLD boundary south of the former Belton House Care Home.

Support

Representation ID: 6687

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Joanna Needler

I strongly support the planned limit of Development line for Belton in Rutland as shown on the map in the current Regulation 18 draft Local Plan. It will go a long way in maintain and protecting the surrounding fields and the outline of our beautiful village.

Support

Representation ID: 6761

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We support the proposed modifications to the Planned Limits of Development.

However we are concerned about the lack of a Policy statement regarding Backland Developments, We ask that a statement similar to that used in the Barrowden and Wakerley Neighbourhood Plan Policy BW8 be incorporated in the Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 6872

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Robert Clayton

Support the current PLD, set out in the draft Reg 18 Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 6880

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Pru and David Griffiths

Number of people: 2

I am in support of the PLD line for Belton as shown in the Draft Regulation 18 Local Plan. It is an important policy to protect our historic village.

Support

Representation ID: 6908

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Steele

I support the proposed PLD that aims to preserve green space, wildlife & rural environment of Belton-Rutland. It’s vital that the PLD is strictly maintained. Any & all consultation on such matters should be clear & public, which in my recent experience of Belton Parish Council has not been the case.

Support

Representation ID: 6991

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

Development of Towns
We support the expansion of our towns as these are the areas which can sustain this growth as they provide good local transport, and trains stations in the case of Oakham. We would support Uppingham’s Neighbourhood Plan ambitions to increase their allotted new housing numbers. The proposed indicative housing supply for Uppingham should be specified as a minimum figure.

Object

Representation ID: 7027

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Preston Parish Meeting

With particular reference to Preston village, the residents are concerned about the lack of a PLD for the village (Planned Limit of Development).

Preston residents had always understood that such a PLD existed to protect the village, and its absence is a considerable cause for concern, particularly given policies SS4 and H8 (at least) which may allow for developments outside the normal policy of restraint. Reassurance that the current village boundary will be maintained is a priority for the village.

Support

Representation ID: 7028

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Cronin

I wish to register my disapproval to the suggestion that the Belton in Rutland village envelope should be extended closer towards the A47 on land next to Littleworth Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 7043

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Oakham South Action Group

Policy SS3 focuses on development within the PLD so the emphasis is on building within the new PLD and not infringing this alike H1.2 at Brooke Road

Support

Representation ID: 7056

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Belton-in-Rutland Parish Council

The Parish Council support the changes to the PLD for Belton in Rutland, which showed minimal change to the PLD

Object

Representation ID: 7095

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Wilkin

It is crucial that RCC adheres absolutely to planned limits of development rather than allowing developers to deviate from these limits as has happened on developments in the past.

Object

Representation ID: 7161

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Ms S Morris

Agent: Mair Land & Planning Consultants Ltd

With refence to the plan submitted alongside this representation, we propose that the defined Planned Limits of Development for Braunston-in-Rutland, amended and redrawn. Therefore, including the subject site off Knossington Road, is within the Planned Limits of Development

This site forms a logical infill development and by amending the Planned Limits of Development, would
enable a development of two dwellings to be brought forward, to support the delivery of new homes
in line with the identified local housing need.

Furthermore, the proposal, as an infill development, if located within a ‘small settlement’ would find
support from Policy SS4 in that the site forms an infill plot within a substantially built up frontage, is of a proportionate scale and density and reflects the existing pattern of development, does not harm or erode the public amenity of open spaces and does not have an adverse cumulative impact on the settlement (criteria for
development in small settlements under Policy SS4).

Therefore, to apply consistency across the plan the Planned Limits of Development for Braunston-in-Rutland should be amended to include the subject site, which is located within the built up area of a sustainable settlement, albeit it being a Larger Settlement where policy SS1 applies.

Object

Representation ID: 7194

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

The spatial strategy should be refined. The wording of this policy should be updated to ensure the PLDs / policies map reflects any forthcoming Neighbourhood Plan allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 7207

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Silverley Properties Ltd

Agent: Turley

In line with their promotion of Land to the rear of Hilltop Cottage, Essendine Road, Ryhall, Silverley advocate that the site should be included within the settlement boundary of Ryhall as part of the allocation of the site for small scale residential development and public open space.

Object

Representation ID: 7352

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Given the need for housing above the LHN, a flexible approach should be taken to the Planned Limits of Development in order to ensure that sufficient
housing can be accommodated during the Plan period.

The requirements for Policy SS1 set out above, enable ‘greenfield sites adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of Oakham and Barleythorpe, Uppingham and the Larger Villages… [to] be released in exceptional circumstances where it is demonstrated that they are needed to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land’, it is considered that in these instances larger scale adjustments to the Planned Limits of Development may be required to achieve the necessary level of housing growth.

Indeed, it is reasonable to ensure that growth should firstly be focussed around the most sustainable settlements, such as Oakham, to ensure that any greenfield development would meet the other objectives of the Plan. However, it is recommended that the supporting text for Policy SS3 is therefore amended to ensure consistency across the strategic policies of the Plan and any Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7407

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

Hereward Homes consider that this policy should be removed and replaced with criteria-based policies for new
development within and on the edge of settlements. The Policy imposes a greater constraint on development
than in smaller villages and hamlets as set out under Policy SS4 where there are no PLDs. It is unclear why the
Council are treating higher order settlements in a more restrictive way.

Support

Representation ID: 7434

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

The Final Report of the Planned Limits of Development Review (October 2023)
includes several relatively minor changes for Cottesmore which the PC has no concerns with, although the wording on Cott. 3 (where the Allotments are located) are ambivalent in that it could be interpreted and has been locally as a ‘de-designation of the Important Open Space’. We are assuming the designation solely relates to the area being removed from the PLD, in which case the CPC supports this proposal.
the Review does not show is any ‘room’ within the PLD boundary for development, seemingly something beyond the scope of this Review. Had it done so, it may have come to different conclusions about the development sites to be included or not included in the Local Plan itself.

Object

Representation ID: 7493

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marlen Godwin

The main area of concern for us within the Draft Local Plan relate to the abolition of PLD’s in small villages and the quality of life which is being affected by the increasing traffic on the A606.

Noise pollution has just increased and continues to be an issue.

Development throughout the county needs to consider the sustainability of the homes and drainage, especially after this last week’s flooding. It is imperative to know where ‘natural’ excess water flowed before adding more homes. Plus the number of affordable homes is still lacking despite assurances by developers.