Policy SS8 - Residential development in the open countryside

Support

Representation ID: 4559

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Corby

Support in General, however large scale detached properties should not be considered as 'essential need'!

Support

Representation ID: 5163

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported

Support

Representation ID: 5239

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

It is essential that these policy requirements are very strictly adhered to in order to prevent the development of large, stand alone properties in the open countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 5281

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Tracey Chadwick

This policy needs to be in place to project the character of rural Rutland. I would like to highlight that the proposal for Land off Mill Lane, Cottesmore is for open market housing and does not meet with the exceptions specified in this policy for allowing development in the countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 5529

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Allen

The Dovecote site is a particular case where policy should make a way for proposals that can secure the asset with a long-term purpose through enabling development. We would suggest that Policy SS8 would benefit from an additional bullet point provision, as follows:

New-build open market housing will only be permitted in the open countryside where the proposal is for the following uses and which specifically meet the requirements of NPPF and subject to the relevant policies of this plan:
• As enabling development to the extent that they secure the future re-use of heritage assets that are otherwise disused

Object

Representation ID: 5815

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Residential development should have much tighter controls

Support

Representation ID: 5995

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Chadwick

A vital policy to help keep Rutland rural. Land off Mill Lane site is in open countryside and does not meet any of the special requirements listed here, so therefore should be removed from the plan as a potential site for development.

Object

Representation ID: 6763

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We would ask that a requirement similar to the second part of SS9 is included in this Policy.

Both SS8 and SS9 could share the conditions of the second part of SS9 about developments being required to demonstrate sub-para (a) to (h).

Object

Representation ID: 7076

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tony Godwin

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? If the limit is the boundary around the existing buildings then every piece of ground outside of these will be ‘open countryside’.
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. This would not contravene the NPPF on development in small villages by stopping development of any kind as you will still be allowing small in-fill and conversion of existing buildings schemes. Can villages not have the option of retaining their PLD’s if they wish?
The concern is that many of the planning conditions designed to limit development in small villages and help them to retain their character are very subjective and will not be capable of standing up to a determined builder or developer particularly on appeal.

Object

Representation ID: 7256

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

New build in the countryside for proposed gypsy sites should not be a general exemption but should be limited to identified sites. Policy H10 identifies such sites and subject to any conclusions drawn from the Regulation 18 consultation and changes made these should be defined in SS8.

Object

Representation ID: 7355

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Policy SS8 states what residential will be permitted in the countryside. It is clear that this policy however fails to consider the provisions of Policy SS1 which enables ‘greenfield sites adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of Oakham and Barleythorpe, Uppingham and the Larger Villages… [to] be released in exceptional circumstances"

To ensure consistency across the strategic policies of the Plan, it is therefore recommended that further clarity is set out in Policy SS8 to enable residential greenfield sites adjoining Planned Limits of Development to come forward, either where there is a clear local housing need to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites or where sites are allocated through a Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7395

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

s80 applications for a residential unit in isolated locations with buildings of “exceptional quality and design”. A clear and definitive policy is required which will avoid applications being approved where they are an extension of the village beyond the PLD. A more robust policy will give more authority to the planning department to successfully control inappropriate applications.
the numbers of dwellings permitted under s80 must be counted in the statistics as “windfall” or other in meeting the housing need numbers.

Object

Representation ID: 7436

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

A further issue relates to the role of the Countryside. In the smaller settlements the countryside plays a critical role in removing the PLD designation in that the PLD is not needed as the presumption is that all land surrounding these settlements is countryside and therefore free from development pressure (except where there are the exceptions relating to small scale re-development, infill and rounding off explained previously).

Thus it could be argued the Countryside in the smaller villages, which is a fundamental restraint policy is theoretically the main protection against development, has greater weight than in the larger villages where it has the PLD to protect it first and only after that is the countryside considered. Overall applying the PLD, a policy with a long history in Rutland, consistently across all its settlements does seem to have some strength. We consider having two different approaches could make it easier for developers to find ways round both these policy approaches.

Object

Representation ID: 7495

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marlen Godwin

The paragraph relating to SS8 states :-
‘Policy SS8 applies to any land falling outside PLD’s and small settlements covered by policy SS1, is referred to as open countryside, even if it is technically previously developed land’.

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? If the limit is the boundary around the existing buildings then every piece of ground outside of these will be ‘open countryside’.
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. This would not contravene the NPPF on development in small villages. Can villages not have the option of retaining their PLD’s if they wish?
The concern is that many of the planning conditions designed to limit development in small villages and help them to retain their character are very subjective and will not be capable of standing up to a determined builder or developer particularly on appeal!

Support

Representation ID: 7512

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing Parish already has a number of residences that lie outside the PLDs of the main village, and would not wish to see substantial additions to these but we believe the policy offers sufficient safeguards.

Object

Representation ID: 7700

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Policy SS8 sets out very restrictive circumstances when new-build open market housing will be permitted in the open countryside and this is not consistent with the wording of Policy SS1.

It is important that the policy wording of SS8 is reconsidered to allow for the important flexibility set out in Policy SS1 or that Policy SS8 is cross referenced with Policy SS1 to explain the circumstances when SS8 would not apply.

Object

Representation ID: 7862

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Minor inconsistency – the policy is stated to apply to new build but the third bullet talks about conversions,
which are actually covered in SS10.

Support

Representation ID: 7904

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS8 Residential Development in the Open Countryside - Support