Policy SC5 - Designing safer and healthier communities

Object

Representation ID: 5104

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

NE suggest the policy be expanded to include the health benefits of GI. Green and blue spaces can have a positive impact on preventing health issues through providing opportunities for more active and healthy lives. GI can supply other health benefits by helping to address some of the environmental causes of poor health, such as poor air quality, by filtering particulates, and reducing urban summer temperatures by cooling the air. A range of considerations have been listed including the green in 15 target: everyone has access to a variety of good quality GI within fifteen minutes’ walk of their home

Support

Representation ID: 5205

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported

Support

Representation ID: 5305

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

Criterion c) requires that there is sufficient space in a development for gardens, or allotments, to grow food - this could be at odds with strict policies on housing density H3.
Links to Green and Blue infrastructure and Corridors should also be included in c).

Support

Representation ID: 5510

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

And would also add that provision should be made for footpaths linking any development to potential new developments, rather than build all the way along site boundaries so that there is no possibility for access paths to future sites.

Support

Representation ID: 6526

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

It is essential that Healthcare provision in Rutland is substantially improved. Empingham Medical Centre is one of the 4 surgeries in the county and needs to relocate to larger premises not only to cope with its current list ,swollen by transfers from failing practices in Stamford and Oakham, but to accommodate the additional 1625 patients that the Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development will create [ie 650 home with 2.5 occupants]. Oakham Memorial Hospital must be developed to offer a wider and more frequently provided range of services to meet the national guidance of providing healthcare closest to home.

Support

Representation ID: 6620

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICS

The ICB welcomes a HIA approach and will work with partners in Rutland to support this. How has the 50 or more dwellings been reached? Are there benefits to this or can a proportionate approach not be done across all or at least everything above 10 dwellings?

Object

Representation ID: 7183

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Persimmon Homes support this policy, however, would suggest the trigger for submission for Health Impact Assessments (HIA) for residential developments be increased to 100 dwellings.

Developments of 100 plus dwellings will be of a sufficient size to provide more open space and infrastructure on site. Criteria points a) to d) of this policy will ensure that health and safety will be at the forefront of the design of a development.

Criteria b) of the HIA part of this policy states that HIA’s should be carried out using the Council’s Agreed template for HIA. Having searched the Council’s website this document could not be found. To enable full comments to be provided on this policy a copy of this template needs to be publicly available.

Object

Representation ID: 7265

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

Safer, healthier, communities. This must include access to vital services like healthcare, elderly care, police and emergency services and the impact any development would have on demand and hence access to these services which is already limited. This policy should refer to Rutland Infrastructure priorities. This should be over and above that covered in INF1.

Support

Representation ID: 7321

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The thresholds for the requirement of a Health Impact Assessment (Major development proposals of 50 or more dwellings or of 0.5ha or more for other types of development) are supported.

Object

Representation ID: 7368

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Policy SC5 and the supporting text and evidence base, do not however include any evidence or justification
for the specific HIA thresholds set out. Given the lack of evidence informing Policy SC5, it is considered that the proposed thresholds for the need to undertake a health
impact assessment are too low for development in Rutland. Instead, health impact assessments should relate to strategic development, generally where Environmental Impact Assessments are also required, or for Major Infrastructure Projects (as set out within Figure 2 of the Planning Practice Guidance). The policy
should also be more explicit in confirming the type of HIA required for the scale of development proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 7521

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

It is disappointing that the policies for sustainable new
developments do not include requirements for footpaths and cycle-ways to connect to existing facilities and facilitate non-car transport. Apart from connectivity for new
developments there is a glaring existing need for a dedicated footpath and cycle path beside the busy main road between Uppingham and Oakham, on which traffic
travels at high speed. The policy on sustainable transport deals only with electric cars and charging points

Object

Representation ID: 7801

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We have concerns that this policy is too vague and generic.

Support

Representation ID: 7938

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SC5 Designing Safer & Healthier Communities - Support