Policy E1 – Strategic employment land allocations

Object

Representation ID: 5180

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Mostly supported, apart from the land at Morcott which seems to be employment land on its own. It should be expected that employment land will encourage commuting from elsewhere. Ketton already seems to be becoming an employment hub, is close to the A1 and therefore a sensible site for development. A small amount of employment land at Morcott does not seem warranted.

Object

Representation ID: 5606

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Strutt & Parker (Cecil Estate Family Trust)

Agent: Strutt & Parker

Whilst we support the inclusion of the employment sites identified we object to the policy by way of its omission of Tinwell Business Park, Steadfold Lane a n existing 1.26 ha employment site providing a range of light industrial, storage and office sapce.

Object

Representation ID: 6648

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr George Weightman

A call for sites submission has been made for a allocation to faciliate the expansion of the owner/occupied Wireless Hill Industrial Estate. The allocation for the expansion to the Wireless Hill Industrial Estate would take into account local business needs to create the conditions for a existing owner/occupier business to invest, expand and adapt. It would address the specific locational requirements of an existing business with existing infrastructure and marketplace access.The allocation would have multiplier effects for existing connections to existing businesses in Rutland, increasing capacity to serve other businesses in Rutland, and for job creation in multiple sectors.

Support

Representation ID: 6981

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

Support that there is no reference to business units in the old quarry.

Object

Representation ID: 6982

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

Policy E1, which provides the strategic employment allocations, is not supported by an appropriate evidence base demonstrating how each site is ‘suitable’, ‘available’ and ‘achievable; for development in accordance with the NPPG. No assessment has been made as to the development potential of each site, taking account of site and policy constraints. Therefore there is no certainty that the sites could deliver sufficient employment land to meet identified needs. Further, there is no employment land trajectory to demonstrate when the employment sites will deliver new floorspace. It is therefore unclear whether the sites will meet the short, medium and long term needs of Rutland.
In addition, there are no specific site allocations for office development which provide for the quantum of office space identified within the Employment Needs Evidence. The one allocated site which provides for office uses (no identified floorspace) is in Oakham and therefore would not meet the dispersed needs of the County as a whole.
It would also increase the need for commuting to the detriment to sustainability.

Object

Representation ID: 7042

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Ann Lea

While we rely on brownfield sites for the maintenance of our life style, they should be grouped together not scattered piecemeal across our gently lovely agricultural landscape.
The Al trunk wad is such a source of air and noise pollution already Therefore factories warehouses + sustainable energy generation plants should all be grouped alongside it.
This would help to limit:
a) the amount of heavy traffic on our local loads
b) Sound pollution across our peaceful county
c) Possible contamination of our agricultural land with poisonous substances and
d) Unsuitable compounds seeping into the water table
We need to understand and value what we have more thoughtfully

Object

Representation ID: 7061

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Sarah Gresty

I support this to a degree however:

The poor quality land on Great North Road side of Quarry Farm should be considered as a Retail Park, in order to help reduce traffic congestion in Stamford.

We are very lucky to have a thriving town centre in Stamford, out of town shopping centre's may help a little to reduce traffic but they do nothing for the business’ in the town centre. You just have to look at Grantham to see what out of town shopping areas have done to the centre there. I know Stamford is not in Rutland but residents of Ryhall, Casterton, Essendine and Ryhall Heath are closer to Stamford than Oakham and this should be taken into consideration for residents this side of the A1. There must surely be cross boundary considerations in some if not all aspects of the local plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7102

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

The NPPF Paragraph 2.8 sets out the requirements for “Achieving Sustainable Development” in relation to economic activity.
The current RCC draft local plan does not provide any strategic employment sites within easy reach of the Quarry Farm/Monarch Park housing allocation, thereby failing to provide sustainable employment opportunities for the residents.
Reliance on SKDC Local Plan to provide such employment centres would be inappropriate for the reasons given in relation to the SKDC local plan above. In any event, there seems to be a shortage of suitable employment land/buildings within Stamford, even taking into account land currently allocated for employment use (see Stamford Neighbourhood Plan).
Travel to employment sites within the existing Stamford built-up area, is likely to contribute to further traffic congestion in the town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 7220

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Graham Baker

I do not understand why land off Glaston Road, Morcott, has been proposed as a strategic development site for light industrial and small scale logistical employment. The site is poorly served by public transport and would inevitably increase traffic flows on the A47. Is there a demand for employment or services in that location that would necessitate building in the countryside?

Object

Representation ID: 7338

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

This matter of economic growth and its relationship to housing growth is discussed within the August 2023 SHMA. Though its recommendations in this regard are quite equivocal, the conclusion of the August 2023 SHMA is that ultimately the baseline job forecast within the ELR suggests a level of housing requirement in excess of the minimum amount, though it does not say by how much and suggests that determining this is an exercise for the plan-maker. But it is clear from Policy SS1, which adopts only the minimum LHN figure as the housing requirement, this recommendation has not been taken on board by the local planning authority.

Object

Representation ID: 7397

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

This policy should not include sites inconsistent with other policies in the Plan. The case made above concerning Chapter 7 Economy indicates that the Employment site at Glaston Road, Morcott should not be included in Policy E1 just because it has been offered up by the owner. The evidence base referring to the Glaston Road site is inaccurate.
The roadways are narrow, in some cases too narrow for an HGV to pass safely. The roadways pass very close to buildings and pedestrian routes. Permission for development which increased the use of HGVs on this site would be unsafe and irresponsible.There are many existing locations for this type of activity in Rutland, several of which are undersubscribed. There seems no logic in allocating another site for this purpose.
e. The site is relatively isolated and not adjacent to any other industrial site. It occupies a high position on the ridge above Morcott and would be highly visible to traffic.

Support

Representation ID: 7447

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

CPC acknowledges the importance of employment locally. In many ways, it is at the heart of producing Sustainable Communities. We agree the thrust of Policy E1 of identifying strategic employment sites, although note there are very few in the larger villages, apart from in Ketton. We also support Policy E3 of protecting existing employment land and premises for the same reason.

Object

Representation ID: 7614

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Paula Johnstone

In a small and immature commercial property area such as Rutland the quality and quantity of information gathered is very low and of poor analytical value. Partly due to the few transactions that take place. Unlike in a mature and active market in major economic centres such as Greater London and SE England where there is extensive transfer of data from agents on transactions and therefore the information gathered is of great importance and value both qualitative and quantitative. In a small and immature commercial property area such as Rutland the quality and quantity of information gathered is very low and of poor analytical value. Partly due to the few transactions that take place. Such is the paucity of information and data, that in drafting the report that the analysts (Iceni) have to make broad and sweeping generalities and assumptions which are in part inaccurate or otherwise misleading. At best the data is unreliable.

Greater reliance should be given to local and regional commercial property agents recommendations, rather than ill informed distant organisations who have little or no experience within this area.

The infrastructure in Rutland villages does not lend itself to major development or commercial units. There is plenty of room to expand existing commercial facilities without encroaching on an already depleted agricultural existence

Object

Representation ID: 7685

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

The land at Steadfold Lane, Ketton has previously been submitted as part of the Call for Sites process. The Site has been assessed as part of the Employment Needs Evidence but has not been allocated because of the suggested surplus of employment land identified. The Employment Needs Evidence states:
Recommendation – Although broadly suitable as an extension to the sites south there are other more appropriate opportunities in Ketton which should be considered for employment development initially.
This assessment recognises that the Site is suitable, available and achievable for development.
3 Best Little Building Co. Ltd are in immediate need of a new Site for the provision of a new headquarters building having outgrown their existing premises. They are an established local business already based in Ketton and have been unable to secure any other available land to relocate their business. Best Little Building Co. Ltd have a direct interest in the land submitted as part of the previous Call for Sites exercise. The Site is therefore ‘available’ and ‘achievable’ for development immediately. There are no known viability issues with development of the Site.

Object

Representation ID: 7691

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Cavendish Gospel Hall Trust

Agent: Andrew Beard Planning

Existing City Hall site, Ketton.

Site should be allocated within Local Plan interactive mapping as PDL employment / community use.

The interactive policy map shows the site and its immediate neighbour washed over by countryside. This is in our view devalues the significant contribution this site close to Ketton makes for community facilities and employment.

It is a mixed-use site, which should be identified to reflect the following planning principles:
1. Full and effective use of existing PDL sites. NPPF 123 – “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and
other uses, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions”.
2. NPPF 97(d) – “To provide the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should:
(d) ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise, and are retained for the benefit of the community;

The existing site should be allocated as an existing mixed use scope for its whole curtilage to allow enhancement of employment and community facilities at an existing site close to Ketton and already operating as such with established trip generation and use.

Object

Representation ID: 7877

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Within this proposed policy, the Uppingham Gate site of 6.8ha is proposed for a range of employment uses.
However, the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Submission Draft, in its policies HA4 and BE1, allocates the Uppingham Gate site for mixed use development, to include not only B class employment uses, but also an element of retail and housing development. The rationale being that the wider range of uses is necessary to ensure that delivery of the B class employment uses on the site is financially viable. The preliminary Uppingham Gate masterplan proposals for the site demonstrate that the number and range of jobs provided by retail/care home/leisure as well as the Class B2 and E small business units, meet the overall Local Plan employment objectives.

Support

Representation ID: 7921

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

Policies E1 - Sites for Employment- Support

The poor quality land on Great North Road side of Quarry Farm should be considered as a Retail Park, in order to help reduce traffic congestion in Stamford, allowing residents living on the west side of town to be able to have a local centre, alongside the current garage and garden centre and other businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 7997

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr PJRS Hill and Pikerace Limited

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

This policy should include the promotion of commercial/employment proposal at Woolfox as an allocation, comprising a minimum of 20 hectares/50 acres of primarily brownfield/previously developed land along the western frontage of the site to the A1).

This part of the Woolfox site comprises large areas hardstanding areas and former runways associated with the former RAF Woolfox and as such falls within the definition of Previously Developed Land as per the definition in the Framework (annex 2): “Land
which is…occupied by a permanent structure…and any fixed surface infrastructure.“

At the Regulation 18 Submission in mid-2023 the promotion of this part of Woolfox involved a larger area for commercial/employment use fronting the A1 comprising 100 hectares/250 acres. This representation supersedes that proposed last summer and is a significant reduction in area and limited to B1, B2 and Class E uses (see accompanying Appendix 1).