Policy SS4 – Infill and rounding off development in smaller villages and hamlets

Object

Representation ID: 4526

Received: 28/11/2023

Respondent: Ian Mcalpine

I object to the drafting of the policy SS4, in relation to developments in small villages.
Under no circumstances should development by allowed outside the PLD. The proposed policy permits this under some very undefined circumstances, placing the villages at the mercy of the whims of planning officers. I cannot see why the current limits on development around small villages should be changed. This whole proposed policy should be withdrawn fro the new Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5158

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Agree with the approach

Object

Representation ID: 5260

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 regaular 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 villages would be detrimental to their visual appearance and not in keeping with the traditional incremental growth of settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 5397

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Michael Airey

The conditions for such development are unclear and subjective. This will lead to much debate and incerased costs for the council.

Object

Representation ID: 5639

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

We object to the removal of Planned Limits of Development. PLD's have been defined in the previous Local Plan and have served small villages well. Without PLDs there will inevitably be an increase in the number of speculative applications for development on the margins of the villages and the encroachment into open countryside. The conditions (a-g) create a number of loopholes which will make it even harder to limit expansion in villages which lack the facilities and infrastructure to support such expansion.

Object

Representation ID: 5772

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Thorpe by Water Parish Meeting

As a very small hamlet of 22 houses we are concerned about the removal of PLDs which have served a useful purpose in maintaining the rural character of small hamlets such as ours with little or no public services. There has been no call for further development beyond the current PLD. Without this limit, there is potential for unlimited development as we are surrounded by open fields. Any development brings with it increased vehicle traffic; our limited road access already gets congested at times. The proposed criteria to replace PLDs are ill-defined and thus very likely to be successfully challenged.

Object

Representation ID: 5808

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

We do not agree with removal of the planned limits of development in the least sustainable villages

Support

Representation ID: 6305

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Yes I support this.

Support

Representation ID: 6338

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I agree with this in principle.

Object

Representation ID: 6395

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

Summary of MPC e-mail submission of 7/1/24. MPC objects to the proposal to remove PLDs from smaller villages; this is likely to lead to significant development and expansion of these rural villages, encroachment into open countryside and increase in traffic and pollution to the detriment of the character of the County.

Object

Representation ID: 6459

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

PLDs should remain for all villages

Any proposals for amendments to PLDs should be discussed with the Parish Council/Parish Meeting/local community

Support

Representation ID: 6461

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Richard Lane

This policy should go futher and promote sites for self build / custom build homes for local people. It addition, it should adopt the recommendation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government independent review (August 2023), that 10% of all new homes might be 'custom and self -build' projects.

Object

Representation ID: 6692

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Abbey Developments

Agent: CMYK Planning Ltd

The policy should not limit itself to the small settlements listed in Policy SS1c. The policy should recognise that there will be other opportunities for infill development on locations not listed in the policy such as Harrier Close, Cottesmore which offer the opportunity for infill development on a number of parcels within the existing large residential development which does not have a Planned Limits of Development designation.

Recognising areas such Harrier Close would allow currently unused land to be used more efficiently and provide dwellings which would contribute to the council’s housing land supply.

The policy should also not restrict itself to a maximum of 5 dwellings for infill development as this does not recognise the potential for areas like Harrier Close.

Object

Representation ID: 6873

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Whitwell Parish Meeting

Can villages have the option of retaining their PLD’s if they wish?

(1) SS4 para(a) criteria totally subjective judgement and if an applicant goes to appeal, an inspector has no hard and fast policy against which to judge the application.
The idea of ‘evening-up’ parts of villages is open to many interpretations and makes things difficult for planning officers and inspectors alike. It also is problematic for applicants as they can incur considerable costs in making an application which has limited definitive policies against which to judge it and the chances of success.
What and how will the limits of each small settlement be defined? Will it be the existing village PLD? Will it be the conservation area boundary?
It is appreciated that some villages may want some flexibility over development, but others such as Whitwell would prefer to stay with the PLD system as now.

Object

Representation ID: 6893

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Sir Alan Duncan

The infill and rounding-off criteria are so vague as to threaten the essential integrity of some of Rutland's smaller settlements. It makes expansion almost inevitable.
It would be a grave error not to retain the Planned Limits of Development which currently applies to some of Rutland's traditional villages. I believe you should undertake to retain PLDs for certain designated villages and hamlets, even though you might wish to remove them for larger ones. Only a PLD will provide adequate protection for the preservation of hamlets with a unique character. I am advised that there is no obstacle to you introducing a hybrid scheme which retain PLDs in some cases. I would urge you to ensure that a cul-de-sac hamlet such as Thorpe by Water continues with its current PLD.

Object

Representation ID: 6896

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Carolyn Cartwright

I consider that this policy should be revised to retain planned limits of development around the identified small settlements. In most cases there is no overriding need for new housing at all, given that there is little or no employment and where local services are absent. Where there is local support, consideration should be given to amending the PLD so as to allow very small-scale infill development within the amended boundary, as has operated well in the past. This would ensure certainty in the decision-making process and avoid endless speculative applications.

Support

Representation ID: 6946

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Cristian Durant

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

Our client is supportive of Policy SS4 and it is clear that this policy supports the appeal application of Land West of
Apple Gate House

Object

Representation ID: 6992

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

PLD’s have a most important role in preventing continuous expansion of our villages. We do not want to see any relaxation to PLD’s unless Neighbourhood Plans support this, and this Section should be re-appraised in the light of many Parish’s objections.

Object

Representation ID: 7004

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Stoke Dry Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Stoke Dry is identified as being a location for ‘small scale redevelopment and infill opportunities only’.

Concern is raised regarding the inclusion of the ‘up to 5 dwellings’ restriction. The Policy includes a criteria which states that any proposal must reflect the existing scale
and density of the settlement which can be readily used to assist in the consideration of whether a proposal is too large or out of character.

Placing a 5 dwelling limit pre-judges site size, potential and relationship with the existing settlement. It may also hinder the redevelopment of previously developed sites which could accommodate a greater number and would not be viable at that level.

We suggest that this limit is removed so that site numbers are considered on their merits of the particular site and so ‘design led’. An alternative to the removal of the wording would be to include an additional sentence to note that this is a guide or stating point but higher numbers may be supported subject to appropriate justification to demonstrate why a particular site may accommodate more than 5.

Object

Representation ID: 7073

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tony Godwin

Development in small villages:-
I’m concerned about the abolition of PLD’s in small villages and the quality of life which is being affected by the increasing traffic on the A606.
Development in small villages:-
(1) SS4 para(a) includes ‘ a site which will complement or enhance the existing settlement edge’ This is a totally subjective judgement and if an applicant who has been refused goes to appeal, an inspector from the Planning Inspectorate has no hard and fast policy against which to judge the application.
The idea of ‘evening-up’ parts of villages in the way it is currently proposed is open to many interpretations and makes things difficult for planning officers and inspectors alike. It also is problematic for applicants as they can incur considerable costs in making an application which has limited definitive policies against which to judge it and the chances of success.

Support

Representation ID: 7158

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr D Young

Agent: Mair Land & Planning Consultants Ltd

We support Policy SS4 but also consider that an appropriate strategy would be to allow residential
developments, which meet an identified housing need that can be demonstrated on submission of a planning application. This would provide flexibility within the plan and ensure local housing needs can be meet. Development in these villages will help to maintain and enhance their vitality whilst supporting existing community facilities, and should therefore be supported where it complies with the local planning policy position.

Object

Representation ID: 7168

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Kate Wood

The word ‘and’ between parts f. and g. of the policy which means that all of the criteria must be met in order for planning permission to be granted for development. I therefore comment on each of the criteria below.

Small scale development is defined as 5 dwellings or fewer. Small scale should be defined by the criteria and should be referred to as minor development (up to 9 dwellings).

a. Complementing can have various meanings and it may be appropriate to clarify the meaning of complement, i.e visually, socially, or environmentally.
b. The existing pattern of development throughout a village can vary, so this should be further defined. Is the council referring to pattern in terms of layout (ribbon, cul-de-sac, back land)?
c. Other than the sites identified as Important Open Spaces and Frontages, other open spaces and gaps should be clarified as being public open space. It should be clarified how a gap would contribute to the character of a village, otherwise it might be the case that those wishing to object would assert that all gaps contribute to the character of the village.
d. It is difficult to think of a way that new development would not support or enhance the vitality of the local community, this criterion would seem unnecessary.
e. Clearly the extension of a village by rounding off development at its edge would not maintain the form of the settlement, so development proposals would rely on demonstrating a complement to the form and character. Presumably this criterion is aimed at preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the area?
f. This criterion could potentially undermine the requirement of the NPPF to boost the supply of housing. It could also result in early development preventing any further, yet perfectly acceptable, development from taking place until the end of the plan period. Limiting the size of development to minor rather than major development should be sufficient to maintain and support the vitality of the settlement.
g. It makes sense to consider landscape and visual impact for development at the edges of villages to help assimilate such development into the character of the settlement.

Unusually, the criteria do not include any reference to the provision of landscaping as part of such development, particularly rounding off development.

There is little explanation in the policy as to the difference between rounding off development of a village and, say, extending a village and why extending a village is necessarily unacceptable.

The policy should be more aspirational in encouraging
and supporting small scale development.

It should be noted that the number of dwellings to be delivered through the eventually adopted Local Plan, whichever spatial strategy is agreed, represents the minimum number of dwellings to be delivered, not a maximum.

Object

Representation ID: 7293

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton and Tinwell Joint Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Whilst we recognise that this policy follows patterns elsewhere in the UK, and that there is some detail given as to the conditions to be applied, we feel that removing planned limits for smaller settlements could lead to difficulty in arguing against development creep out from these settlement areas. We are not convinced that the wording in the policy would be sufficient to prevent this.

Incidentally, regarding the debate over ‘flexibility’, it is surely true that planned limits are either there, or they are not – there is no point in having a set of limits which are flexible, as that means that the inherent control within the idea of planned limits disappears. We wonder, somewhat cynically, whether the 65% of respondees on this topic who favoured flexibility were made up of county residents, or if they were corporate bodies?

Object

Representation ID: 7335

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The analysis presented in the Small Sites Windfall Study demonstrates that the provision of small windfalls has been heavily led by rural settlements and the positive policy framework provided by the PLDs is likely to have had a significant influence on that. Through deletion of the PLDs at many rural settlements, it is unlikely that these will continue to sustain the level of windfall seen historically and that as such, the assumed windfall allowance of 25 dpa is likely to be over-optimistic in light of the emerging local plan’s more restrictive approach.

Object

Representation ID: 7390

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

Removal of Permitted Limits of Development (PLD) from the Smaller Village category is an error as it has unexpected consequences. The distinction that everything outside the PLD is in open countryside does not offer the necessary level of protection from unwanted and unwarranted development. The potential for uncontrolled growth of Small Villages rather than organic growth through infill should be avoided by the restoration of the existing PLD. The policy does not adequately reflect the nature of Rutland’s Smaller Villages: In many Smaller Villages 5 dwellings would be considered to be an unacceptably large development which would be considered disruptive and inappropriate.
The meaning and importance of the PLD should be emphasised and the concept applied without exception. Rather than viewing the PLD as a concept which can be avoided in certain circumstances it should be very clear that any development beyond a PLD is not acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 7435

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

This is clearly counter intuitive in that it suggests the smaller villages, which are by definition those which should not face development pressure, are seemingly to have less protection than the larger settlements. It is not clear why there has been this change – it certainly has not been asked for by any community submissions and wasn’t included in either the 2017 or 2020 Reg.18 Plans. Planning policies are supposed to provide elements of clarity and certainty- by altering the way the PLD works (for both settlement groupings) it removes this clarity.
The 7 largely subjective clauses in SS4 will make the consistent interpretation of planning applications very difficult for development control to apply. If the smaller villages are going to be faced with development being approved that meet these criteria and there-by effectively building in the countryside then developers are going to find these possibilities (particularly the rounding off concept) a very attractive proposition when it comes to seeking to try and justify development beyond the PLD in the larger villages, where after all development is supposed to be concentrated.

Object

Representation ID: 7461

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Policy SS4 is inconsistent with Policy SS1 and greatly increases the scope for development in the small villages beyond that indicated by Policy SS1.

To merge and confuse the limiting planning policies for small villages with the more limited development polices in open countryside and actually to increase the development opportunities in the open countryside through the application of conditions (a) to (g) in policy SS4.

Conditions (a) to (g) because of their lack of clarity and the very different interpretations which can be placed upon them by landowners, the village community and planning case officers, will impose an impossible determination task on Development Control and will cause increased friction between the planning department and the communities in the small villages.

. Conclusions
Clipsham Parish Meeting object to this policy and to all references in the text to it. It is recommended that this policy is removed from the local plan.

The conditions or “provisos” (a) to (g) in Policy SS4 will enable developers to make planning applications and perhaps also to successfully appeal against Local Planning Authority refusals given the vagueness and difficulty in determination of these conditions.

Object

Representation ID: 7494

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marlen Godwin

Para(a) includes ‘ a site which will complement or enhance the existing settlement edge’ This is a totally subjective judgement and if an applicant who has been refused goes to appeal, an inspector from the Planning Inspectorate has no hard and fast policy against which to judge the application.

The idea of ‘evening-up’ parts of villages in the way it is currently proposed is open to many interpretations and makes things difficult for planning officers and inspectors alike. It also is problematic for applicants as they can incur considerable costs in making an application which has limited definitive policies against which to judge it and the chances of success.

Object

Representation ID: 7831

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Policy SS4 is inconsistent with Policy SS1 and greatly increases the scope for development in the small villages beyond that indicated by Policy SS1.

Disagree that PLDs have not been defined for the small villages and hamlets. Planned limits should be retained.

Policy SS4 is most likely to lead to a massive increase in the development of small sites, mostly around the
periphery of the small villages.
If small villages and hamlets should have incremental growth, then the planned limits should be reappraised. The PLD’s as already defined for the small villages should remain as they stand at present.

Conditions (a) to (g), because of their lack of clarity and the very different interpretations which can be placed
upon them, will impose an impossible determination task on Development Control and is confusing and does not protect the countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 7840

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Alicia Kearns

Planned Limits of Development (PLD) are important to ensure sustainable and community friendly development. They allow for a presumption against development outside of the PLD. The lack of inclusion of PLDs in the Local Plan is of great concern and should be addressed, particularly for small villages. Existing PLDs should be integrated into the new Local Plan.