Policy EN10 - Rutland Water Area

Support

Representation ID: 4612

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Agree

Object

Representation ID: 5113

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Empingham Parish Council

RCC should review the line of the Rutland Water Area to include only land that directly contributes to the protected wetland status and extend the Empingham village PLD to the west beyond the cemetery eg to Sykes Lane.

Support

Representation ID: 5117

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England supports this policy as it acknowledges the importance of the designation of Rutland Water as both a SPA and a RAMSAR site, and highlights the importance that development in this area should be carefully designed and located to ensure that it does not adversely impact the nature conservation features of the site and associated species.

Support

Representation ID: 5126

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Victor Pheasant

The Rutland Water Area of August 2019 shows an extension of Empingham village west on the Whitwell Road. As I am sure you appreciate trees etc have grown, the extension of the village would be in a hollow, would not be visible from the south side of the Rutland Water and the view north from the Whitwell road would not change significantly, or adversely affect the landscape since it is screened from the west until the civil cemetery.

Neither JC nor I recall the August 2019 Review being put out to parishes for comment. Hopefully it did inform RCC officers and Councillors. However the review does imply that the eastern end of Rutland Water is not part of the Wetlands protection area or SSSIs. If it is part of the SPA it should be entirely within the remit of local planning authority to amend the limit of the RWA .

EPC is confident that trying to ensure people have access to good quality essential services, eg medical services, is far more important than any theoretical potential damage to the landscape and to include sites to the north and south of Whitwell Road in the Local Plan.

Incidentally if long term planning is desirable RCC would be better thinking in terms of 50 years forward reviewed/updated, say every 3 years, irrespective of central government. It might then have policy planning staff to do the work and avoid the necessity of contracting consultants to produce lengthy reports bulked out by recording history and extensive use of acronyms without a glossary of terms.

Continuing the present policy on the Rutland Water Area might well lead to unwanted development of temporary buildings (holiday lodges). Rutland has more than enough of such buildings eg at sites off the A606 at Barnsdale and the AI at the Woolfox Golf and Country Club. Leisure/tourist activities are dangerous for small communities and can easily lead to dependence. Unless carefully managed they neither achieve sustainable development or develop strong and vibrant communities

Object

Representation ID: 5217

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

The wording 'Minerals development.... will not be permitted unless the reasons for development outweigh the likely adverse impact, taking into account the requirements of relevant legislation and guidance’
Is rather weak and a good example of how the plan overall seeks to avoid legal challenge. It is understood that it is central government who would probably have the final say here, but the wording should be stronger in an attempt to prevent further damage arising from mineral extraction and related activities. We look to the Council primarily to safeguard local interests against external interference, after all.

Object

Representation ID: 5766

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Rob Waddington

Limit development around Rutland Water to the existing approved areas and do not encroach into current undeveloped areas. Do not allow development in Barnsdale Wood, Rutland Hall and areas nearby it as this is the main and remaining unspoilt beauty/natural spot in Rutland. Please keep it that way.

Support

Representation ID: 6454

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

This policy needs to be at the forefront of all development of St George’s Barracks as it is so near Rutland Water

Object

Representation ID: 6609

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Susan Shepherd

The Rutland Water Area is should include more of the South shore encompassing the area between Edith Weston and Manton to incorporate the areas adjacent to the Lyndon Nature reserves and the Rutland water Cycle path along the south side of the water.

Support

Representation ID: 6864

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust supports this policy as it clearly emphasizes the importance of the designated nature conservation features of Rutland Water and the valuable assemblages of species within it.

Object

Representation ID: 6906

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wild Rutland

Agent: Savills

When looking at the emerging polices map in conjunction with the consultation document, it can be seen that
a portion of the Wild Rutland site is located within the Rutland Water Area, but not included as a Recreation
Area.

Although Wild Rutland will be a tourism-based use, it is not linked with ‘Rutland Water’, and additionally is not
owned by Anglian Water. It is therefore considered that the Wild Rutland land should not be included within
and linked with the Rutland Water Area, but have a designation of Countryside. It is considered that the other
policies within the consultation document, including specific policies relating to trees and ecology etc are
sufficient to address the area north of Rutland Water, under separate ownership.

In conclusion, we OBJECT to the designation as shown and recommend that the Wild Rutland site is removed
from the Rutland Water area boundary.
We trust that the above assists; please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries

Object

Representation ID: 7377

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The Landscape Review of Rutland Water Area evidence base document confirms that there are some proposed changes to the Rutland Water Area (RWA) following a landscape review. The proposed changes to the designation area include an extension to the west, which includes the eastern part of ‘Land at Uppingham Road’.

The justification mentions a 'key' ridgeline that e is located to the south of ‘Land at Uppingham Road’ and therefore the site at ‘Land at Uppingham Road’ itself does not play a strong landscape or visual role in contributing to the RWA. Appendix 4 includes site photographs from the fields which are proposed to be within the RWA boundary extension. The site photographs clearly show that Rutland Water is not
visible from the site.

The Landscape Review of Rutland Water Area does not include any Zone of Theoretical Visibility or topographical work. ‘Land at Uppingham Road’ is situated a considerable distance from RWA, with the A6003 acting as a
physical barrier. The site is also somewhat lower than the ridgeline at circa 95-100m, whilst the base of the
ridge slope commences at 120-125m.

‘Land at Uppingham Road’ does not contribute towards the setting of RWA and therefore the proposed revisions to the RWA boundary should not include ‘Land at Uppingham Road’.

Object

Representation ID: 7411

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

The RWA designated area should be reviewed or the Policy amended to recognise that there are opportunities for sustainable development other than the types listed in the Policy within the RWA. For example, the RWA includes land north of Whitwell Road, Empingham immediately adjacent to the physical fabric of the village. This area has no relationship with the Rutland Water foreshore.

Hereward Homes support the comments of the Parish Council.

Object

Representation ID: 7589

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

This policy also provides the opportunity to reference the
rich heritage of Rutland Water Area and its numerous
heritage assets and their settings.

Historic England would be very happy to assist with wording.

Support

Representation ID: 7627

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend an extra criterion is be added to this Policy explaining that no development should pose a threat to or lead to potential pollution/deterioration of Rutland reservoir and nearby/connecting watercourses.

The LPA and developers should also be aware that there are two newly designated bathing waters in Rutland water and appropriate measures that adhere to bathing water criteria should be taken when planning in and around these areas.

1. Rutland Water Whitwell Creek - Bathing water profile
2. Rutland Water Sykes Lane - Bathing water profile

This policy mentions minerals development, we support the section of the policy which states that minerals development will not be permitted if it has 'unacceptable adverse impacts' on the environment and water supply. However, it is not clear what the definition of 'unacceptable adverse impacts' is and at what point the reasons for development would outweigh any impact on the environment, as protecting the environment would be imperative to us. Additionally minerals development may require permits to discharge or abstract water in the process, in which case the Environment Agency should be consulted.

Object

Representation ID: 7752

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

On Policy EN10 - Rutland Water Area – we cannot support the limitation to ‘small scale’ criteria the Policy seems to be applying. For operational infrastructure, development is necessarily required by regulators to meet environmental objectives and in the NPPF is classified as ‘essential infrastructure’ precisely because without in the event of a storm or flood event taking out its function there could be significant public health risks. The requirement for HRA provides the necessary protection without the policy unnecessarily limiting or preventing essential works Necessarily the scale and importance of Rutland Water to regional water supplies means that works and new assets may themselves need to be large in scale.

Object

Representation ID: 7753

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

We welcome Policy EN10’s support for recreation, sport and tourist uses and development at and near Rutland Water in principle.
The Policy though is slightly confusing and as worded an appears contradictory.
With regard to our last comment above we do not agree that the whole of Rutland Water should be a valued landscape in policy terms. It will make consenting far more challenging including for our solar and renewable energy ambitions which as we point out is an Achilles heel for the county.
Anglian Water would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council on a sound approach to developing Policy EN10 including alternatives as the consultation document acknowledges that no alternatives to this policy have been considered. We understand that alternatives to this policy will be considered in the context of an up-to-date evidence base.
We recognise that the policy seeks to provide control over development at Rutland Water. However, this policy in isolation does not explicitly recognise the importance of the tourism function of Rutland Water. The policy could be read to be overly restrictive in the context of tourism development. previous comments made on policy E6 of the previous plan are attached for reference

Support

Representation ID: 7951

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

EN10 Rutland Water Area - Support

Object

Representation ID: 8034

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Gooding

Mapping for Manton and the PLD evidence report do not seem to correspond - The difference between the two set out PLDs would determine whether development of the site off Cemetery Lane could go ahead as soon as the plan is approved, or whether development would only be allowed in the ‘exceptional circumstances’ of a housing shortfall.
Also RWA boundary has not been changed to reflect PLD changes and therefore seemingly illogically, some areas to the North and Northeast of the village within the changed LPD now lie within the RWA, and so have hardly any options for development. Previously the LPD and RWA were seemingly more tidily coincident.
The interactive map shows a potential wildlife area to the West of lower Cemetery Lane, but sadly a caravan site has been approved on this area!