Chapter 11 – Infrastructure and Delivery

Object

Representation ID: 5939

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire and Rutland Bridleways Association

why in INF3 do you refer to walking and cycling yet ignore horse-riding for which Rutland is nationally renowned? Central Government guidance over the years has urged \Councils not to make this error.

Support

Representation ID: 6625

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Comments made on behalf of the DIO as part of a full written response to Rutland Council. Representations should be read in context and not in isolation.

The DIO believe that the Council should take a flexible approach to the funding of infrastructure improvements depending upon the size and scale of development. The use of CIL (or alternative mechanism) is supported, and the DIO agree with the Council’s intention to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan and to undertake viability testing for new policies and development proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 6643

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Gray

In principle I would support the plan if, consideration was first given to infrastructure so that a good quality of life could be guaranteed to present and future residents of the county. This would have to include improvements to medical facilities, leisure provision and improved traffic flow, as at present all these points are inadequate for the present population without any growth.

Object

Representation ID: 6832

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Kate Parker

The draft Plan Q&A notes it is “not just about new homes and jobs. We also need infrastructure including schools, healthcare, public transport, roads, utilities, parks and leisure facilities. These are all important to support growth. The plan will set out clearly what infrastructure provision is needed when new homes and businesses are being built”.
It then seems that such is not in the Plan but in the ‘Infrastructure Delivery Plan’ (IDP). The draft IDP refers to the Leisure Needs Study (Nov 2021) and notes “the key issue in terms of built facilities is to secure community access to a pool within Rutland”. However, it fails to advise on the actual ‘delivery’ of such infrastructure.

The issue has been long standing and particularly since the Catmose pool closed in 2020 – one that was then already undersized (Cabinet 1 Oct 2013). As the Retail, Leisure and Town Centres Study (Oct 2023) confirmed, the County is wholly reliant on private leisure facilities at Uppingham and Oakham with limited public access (21%).

If, as the draft Plan anticipates, the County will grow to a population of 46,000 then, at open space standards of 10.4 sq m swimming pool per 1,000 population, there will be a shortfall of 306 sq m of water (allowing for limited access to private pools). There will be a similar shortfall in schools, healthcare, public transport, roads, utilities, etc. The draft Plan or IDP provides little to demonstrate delivery of the necessary infrastructure or how the CIL rates will be sufficient to pay for them.

Object

Representation ID: 7107

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

SCS has severe concerns and reservations that throughout this infrastructure and delivery policy there is an assumption that the physical infrastructure, the community infrastructure and the green and blue infrastructure will somehow miraculously appear to support the 650new householders. Stamford infrastructure is currently severely stretched, and 650 additional households will be catastrophic in terms of all three identified infrastructure sectors. Chapter 11 does not give any details concerning the community infrastructure or the green and blue infrastructure that will undoubtably be necessary for 650 households.

Object

Representation ID: 7212

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Nigel Blackburn

The focus on electric vehicles , large and small does not take into account others energies like hydrogen. Is the infrastructure for what is outlined actually deliverable and clear enough in a reasonable time frame.

What guarantees are there that the policy be adhered to and not deviated to.

Object

Representation ID: 7631

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

There is not a drainage strategy for the Rutland area in the Local Plan. This should be considered and would include how/where development would connect to mains Water Recycling Centres (WRCs), identified Water Framework Directive (WFD) waterbodies, WFD impacts, as well as communication with AWS who can help develop the drainage strategy and provide more information on WRC capacity and sewer network connections.

AWS indicates that there is sufficient capacity at existing WRCs to accommodate housing growth proposed but have identified three main WRCs in Rutland which will require investment in the future (Oakham, Cottesmore and Empingham).

It should be highlighted again that Rutland is a water stressed area, and some WRCs in the area have been close to exceeding their permit. Discussions should take place with AWS to ensure they have planned works in place for existing WRCs to be able to take on foul flows from new developments and to protect the water environment in the area.

It is important to remember that if the WRC has capacity but is still spilling, it suggests a deeper issues and the works may not be able to take on additional flows. This should be discussed and resolved prior to development through consultation with AWS.

Object

Representation ID: 7756

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Any new development should be phased appropriately to align with any required new or upgraded water and water recycling infrastructure provision. It important that developers have early discussions with our Pre-Development Services team so we can make sure the right infrastructure is in place at the right time. We want to ensure our assets enable the delivery of sustainable and resilient growth, whilst minimising capital carbon. Appropriate phasing of development means that Anglian Water is able to deliver the necessary infrastructure on time to serve the development and enable further sustainable growth. When either DWF or P-TAL are absolute constraints on growth in a catchment then the Council could take the view that sites may be developable over the Plan period, but not deliverable within a five-year timeframe.
Essential infrastructure such as water and water recycling infrastructure, is critical to facilitating and enabling growth. We welcome policy support for essential infrastructure provision to ensure that growth can be delivered in a timely manner. This includes the vital role which Rutland Water plays in supporting sustainable communities and development.

Object

Representation ID: 7837

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Alicia Kearns

Detail is woefully lacking and is needed on how future development will impact existing communities and infrastructure. Many of Rutland’s villages, such as Caldecott and Greetham, have had issues with HGVs driving dangerously on unsuitable roads. Measures to mitigate this longstanding problem should be included in the Local Plan.
Whilst the forecast shift away from cars to more sustainable modes of transport is an admirable aim, plans must be included for if this shift does not occur, or if population growth sees the total number of cars increase despite the proportion of people using cars decreasing. Plans to mitigate traffic and improve existing bottlenecks and dangerous roads should be expanded on and improved.
Additions should be made to the Plan set out plans for waste management and recycling.

More detail should be included on plans to upgrade local General Practices as Rutland’s population grows and our demographics shift.

Object

Representation ID: 7978

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

It should be made clear that, while new developments should address infrastructure needed to support them, there may be a need also to consider the impact on existing infrastructure and the possible requirements for more widespread changes.

Is the IDP formally part of the local plan? If so, it is essential that it be made available for consultation at this stage.