Policy E8 - Local Visitor Economy

Object

Representation ID: 4778

Received: 16/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Julie Park

Stop the scourge of Air bnbs and holiday let’s in Rutland, local housing for local people only. No second homers.

Support

Representation ID: 4870

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Burley Parish Meeting

I Agree with objectives "A" - "D"

However (with the exception of Rutland Water) visitors have limited access to the country side. There are insufficient public foot paths and bridle paths. Especial north of Oakham. If a Land owner wishes to change the use of land than I would strongly suggest that they are encourage to permit public footpaths or rights of way in exchange for approval. The Land owner gains and so do all the people of Oakham and the Villages. "Quid Pro Quo"

Support

Representation ID: 4975

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Edwards

I fully support this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 5019

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

Agree - villages around Rutland Water could be good sites for additional (appropriate) tourist attractions

Support

Representation ID: 5194

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported. Tourism within the UK for UK citizens is to be encouraged, particularly if it can be done in a way which is environmentally sustainable.

Support

Representation ID: 5301

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

Although we need to support a Local Visitor Economy we should control the numbers of holiday lets and Air BnBs especially whilst there are insufficient affordable properties available to rent by younger people who work within the Local Visitor Economy.

Support

Representation ID: 6310

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

I am very much in favour of this - but I think that you do need some ability to refuse less appropriate applications even if they comply with the below.

Object

Representation ID: 6398

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Higginbottom

Policy conflicts with NPPF and will not support rural economy. Suggest policy amendment to ensure compliance with NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 6432

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

This should be considered in the development of St George’s Barracks

Support

Representation ID: 6457

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Dennis Stanley

This needs to be set in the context of a Rutland tourism strategy ,do we have one. Tourism in my experience can be good and bad for the area and we need to understand what we feel is in the best interest of the area. do we want more 2nd homes air band b caravan parks or do we want high spending overseas visitors , high quality restaurants or local take aways What do we mean by high quality its to vague.

Support

Representation ID: 6553

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

I Support the policy as far as it goes. However current quality is poor (even the 'flagship' Rutland Water cycle route forces cyclists onto busy roads near Manton). Footpath network is very limited and fragmented in terms of improved connectivity between villages, not along roads. New dedicated cycle routes could be a major draw and economic benefit. Rail links, including a station at Luffenham would make the County more open for tourism and business.

Object

Representation ID: 6875

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Whitwell Parish Meeting

As we all know tourism is an important part of our economy, however policy E8 makes no reference to the adverse impacts it can have on small villages, the most obvious one being the increased traffic that can severely diminish the quality of life through noise, pollution and disturbance. This should be written into the policy.
Loss of amenity and traffic considerations are written into policy EN10 para (d and e) for Rutland Water and should be included for all tourism developments.

Support

Representation ID: 6904

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wild Rutland

Agent: Savills

Although we broadly support the inclusion of a policy based on the economy and tourism, we propose the
following minor amendments:

“d. provide new tourism provision and initiatives in or on the edge of Oakham and Uppingham or in a
location justified by the provision proposed and the larger villages which would also benefit local
communities and support the local economy.”

With the addition of the abovementioned changes, we SUPPORT this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 7010

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Stoke Dry Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

General support for Policy E8. However, concern is raised that it may be interpreted by Development Control Officers as precluding development away from towns and villages when as set out above many elements of the rural area are popular and draw tourism due to their scenic locations or include activities which require a rural location.

We suggest that the final paragraph of E8 is amended as follows:

“Sustainable rural tourism development of an appropriate scale and use which utilises the conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings in the
countryside will also be supported where they are located adjacent to or closely related to the towns and villages which respect the setting and character of the location. Development that is further removed from existing towns and villages will be supported where the development is of a nature which requires a more rural location."

Object

Representation ID: 7065

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marlen Godwin

We appreciate that tourism is an important part of our economy, however policy E8 makes no reference to the adverse impacts it can have on small villages. Whitwell where we live has had plenty of impact. Our home was designed to give is a window looking to the water. In the last years, and for six months of the year we see a huge, plastic , water park. But the worse ‘sore’ is the most obvious one being the increased traffic that can severely diminish the quality of life through noise, pollution and disturbance. This should be written into the policy.

The wrappers of food, plastic drinks and cans, plus other waste, make their way into our roadside drains, which tragically deterred water running away during this most recent flood, and are also a concern.

Sustainable tourism is important, and Rutland needs to consider this when we also know that Rutland Water is a bird sanctuary, and bird breeding ground.Loss of amenity and traffic considerations are written into policy EN10 para (d and e) for Rutland Water and should be included for all tourism developments.

Object

Representation ID: 7077

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tony Godwin

Tourism
As we all know tourism is an important part of our economy, however policy E8 makes no reference to the adverse impacts it can have on small villages, the most obvious one being the increased traffic that can severely diminish the quality of life through noise, pollution and disturbance. This should be written into the policy.
Loss of amenity and traffic considerations are written into policy EN10 para (d and e) for Rutland Water and should be included for all tourism developments.

Object

Representation ID: 7402

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

This policy is unambitious and is also at odds with the Economic Strategy. If we are to attract a younger age group into the County, we need to present Rutland as vibrant and promote the visitor economy much more vigorously than this policy defines. There are many natural and cultural opportunities for Rutland to make use of. Much more ambition needs to be defined in this policy. We should utilise examples from other similar Districts and Counties.

Support

Representation ID: 7477

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: The British Horse Society

The policy supports local tourism. Equestrian tourism (bring your horse on holiday) is an increasingly popular and lucrative business. With the recognition of the decline in the farming economy, models such as https://www.cholseyfarmriding.co.uk/ enable landowners to diversify. The equestrian industry generates over £5 billion of consumer spending, £6,887 per horse per annum (BETA, 2019) to the economy, benefitting local economies where equestrian activities thrive.

Support

Representation ID: 7556

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

Support the policy as far as it goes.

However current quality is poor (even the 'flagship' Rutland Water cycle route forces cyclists onto busy roads near Manton). Footpath network is very limited and fragmented in terms of improved connectivity between villages, not along roads. New dedicated cycle routes could be a major draw and economic benefit. Rail links, including a station at Luffenham would make the County more open for tourism and business.

Support

Representation ID: 7744

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Anglian Water supports Policy E8- Local Visitor Economy. The supporting text recognises the role that Rutland Water plays as an attraction and centre for visitors as well as being a leisure hub for both visitors and local residents. The over 66% support for new tourist attractions indicates a broad level of support for further development.

Support

Representation ID: 7929

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

E8 Local Visitor Economy - Support