Policy SS9 – Non-residential development in the countryside

Support

Representation ID: 4864

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Burley Parish Meeting

I agree with all objectives "A" through to "J"

Object

Representation ID: 5164

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

New activity must be co-located with existing sites and no new employment-intensive sites in rural areas.

Support

Representation ID: 5247

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

The policy criteria (a to j, and a to h) must be very strictly applied to restrict new small sites providing opportunities to expand easily into large sites. New developments should ideally be attached to those that already exist.

Object

Representation ID: 5419

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Should the title of the Policy be Non-Residential development in the Open Countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 5816

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Tighter control required

Support

Representation ID: 6306

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Supported.

Object

Representation ID: 6344

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I agree with b,c and would allow f and j, but the others seem to be too broad to support in principle.
All others seem to be valuing economic development at the expense of rural landscape and nature- this is short-sighted, as the value of nature capital has been historically undervalued and there is as climate emergency which needs to be prioritised (indeed a climate emergency has been declared by RCC). Only essential development should be permissible.

Object

Representation ID: 6998

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Cavendish Gospel Hall Trust

Agent: Andrew Beard Planning

Policy SS9 is not in accordance with NPPF 89, it should reflect the inclusion of community needs. This is missing and a clear error and omission. Employment is suitably referenced but community uses are not. Many PBCC churches are rural locations to serve rural congregations

Object

Representation ID: 7005

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Stoke Dry Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Policy SS9 suggests that permission will only be granted where it is for one of ten purposes as listed.

The Policy wording should be amended to remove “only” from the first sentence. At present by including “only” the policy appears to be seeking to exclude consideration of any other development not specifically listed. By removing “only” the Policy would read more positively

Criterion (e) is supported in principle.
However, the criterion includes a requirement that it is demonstrated that there are no acceptable alternative sites within existing permitted or allocated sites or as part of the redevelopment of a commercial site. It is suggested that criterion (e) is amended as follows:

“(e) new employment growth comprising sustainable rural tourism, leisure, or rural enterprise that creates local employment opportunities and supports the local economy and communities and where no acceptable alternative can be identified within existing permitted or allocated sites, or within or through redevelopment of
existing commercial premises. Where a proposal is of a scale or nature that clearly requires a countryside location or is associated with or is required to service an
existing rural attraction it will not be necessary to undertake an alternative site assessment.

This change would also better align with criterion ii of Policy E4 ‘Rural Employment’

Criterion (h) - This wording is too restrictive and that the policy should lend support for other forms of farm diversification projects in addition to waste management. It
may also be considered contradictory when read in conjunction with Policy E5

We ask that the wording is changed as follows:
“h) farm diversification generally and also that which supports waste management development.”

Object

Representation ID: 7231

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Colin Dodd

There are a number of ambiguous statements in planning policies SS9 and SS10.
The existing policies CS4, CS16 and SP7 provide a greatly level of clarity than the new policies and it is easier to see how a planning decision will be reached on planning applications. These new policies do not provide a robust or enforceable position with which to defend the county from unwanted development in the countryside.

The lack of clarity will lead to the ruination of rural Rutland, with farms becoming industrial estates warehouses and storage units, rather than being there to feed the nation and as custodians of the natural environment we all enjoy.

The new policies do not have the required level of clarity to provide a clear understanding of what development will and will not be classed as acceptable in the countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 7513

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing PC is supportive of non-residential developments for the purposes outlined in the policy, especially if they create local employment opportunities, but there must be safeguards to ensure that the scale of development and any traffic it generates is appropriate to the size and facilities of the existing community.

Object

Representation ID: 7679

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: South Luffenham Parish Council

Not Descriptive enough - would a “motor cross” site and impact on the landscape and environment be acceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 7684

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

The thrust of the Policy is similar to Policy E4 and therefore the same comments apply in relation to clearly defining how it can be demonstrated that development cannot be reasonably accommodated within or adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of towns and villages.
This Policy is overly restrictive in relation to the type of new development allowed in the rural area, and the circumstances in which such development would be permitted. The NPPF paras 88-89 are significantly more positively worded to support the rural economy and do not place the same restricts on the construction of new build development.
Further, in order for new build development to be acceptable it appears the Policy requires the assessment of buildings/sites across the whole County to establish whether there are suitable alternative premises. (re)locating employment development across a county wide area is unlikely to be acceptable for the majority of rural enterprise. There is no guidance in the NPPF that requires such an assessment to be made and therefore the Policy goes beyond the requirements of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 7905

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS9 Non-residential Development in the Countryside - Support