Policy INF1 - Infrastructure and connectivity

Object

Representation ID: 4766

Received: 06/12/2023

Respondent: Matt Parkinson

RCC has adopted a positive attitude towards disability and the transforming adult community care agenda (homes not hospitals for people with a learning disability or Autism).


However I am not convinced that the provisions are in place to meet this growing need WITHIN Rutland and that any new local plan should cater for this need.

Support

Representation ID: 4824

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Should not CIL monies collected by RCC be used for the benefit of the Village/Town where the development took place not just be put into a central pot for use anywhere. Parish Councils do get a proportion of the CIL money (10%.25%), but this is normally not enough to any major infrastructure projects.

Support

Representation ID: 4853

Received: 21/12/2023

Respondent: ANCER SPA Ltd

If Rutland County Council wants housing and employment targets to be met, it will have to take a realistic attitude to the extent that CIL, planning obligations and other policy principles costs can be borne by a development. Therefore, robust viability assessments of proposed developments will be critical. The Council’s Whole Plan Viability Study should be seen as a flexible document that needs to be updated on a periodic basis.

Support

Representation ID: 4874

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Burley Parish Meeting

You can put in the infrastructure but if the Doctors are not going to be there, what's the point. It is so hard to get an appointment perhaps you need to provide a combined NHS and Private Doctors Centre, otherwise the Pharmacies are going to become a larger provider of our needs, this will have major implications for the quality of care for our residence especially those who need special care. Its not money, it not buildings it is the lack of activity inside the buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 4926

Received: 29/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Murdo Ross

Utilisation of Oakham Rail Crossings - a medium-term forecast of rail transport movements by hour should be published in support of any planned housing development in Oakham (eg. Brooke Road) that will increase the use of the existing crossings and the associated traffic congestion

Support

Representation ID: 5001

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

WDH is committed to funding and delivering the infrastructure required to support development, and in that regard WDH’s response to Policy SS3 highlights how an increased level of growth in the large villages will support existing and new services and facilities.

Policy INF1 makes reference to CIL. However, the plan is likely to be subject to the forthcoming planning policy reforms, which have made reference to a new Infrastructure Levy, which the RLP will need to consider. Notwithstanding that, WDH note the importance of ensuring that CIL Schedules (or their replacement) are kept up to date throughout the plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 5024

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

But there needs to be very clear plans as to how healthcare provision will be increase to meet a growing population so this plan must tie in with health service developments, plans for dentists and other non medical health provisions especially with the age of the resident population of Rutland

Support

Representation ID: 5127

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: National Highways

National Highways is unlikely to support S106 contributions for infrastructure improvements to the Strategic Road Network in most cases. The text should be expanded to include highways improvements secured under Section 278 of the Highways Act.

Support

Representation ID: 5222

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported

Object

Representation ID: 5653

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

It is all too easy for a developer to pay CIL and then create a development without appropriate infrastructure. There needs to be a much more robust statement in the Plan from Rutland County Council which states that the CIL collected on a specific development will be used to enhance the infrastructure on that particular site. If CIL is banked and then used for appropriate facilities somewhere else in the county, rather than in accessible distance from the development, then we are just creating more traffic and another estate without local facilities and opportunities to interact as a vibrant community.

Support

Representation ID: 5787

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Dinah Hurwood

On the subject of transport connectivity I suggest that the A6003 be subject to HGV weight limit between the A47 roundabout outside Uppingham through to the roundabout at the top of the hill in Rockingham so that they use the A43 link; thereby stopping the thunderous lorries which pass through Uppingham town every day, Caldecott and Rockingham and other smaller villages when there is a blockage on the A6003.

Object

Representation ID: 5899

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Carol Brys

It's all well and good that you are talking about adding facilities for health care, but unless doctors are paid an actual living wage that reflects the value and gravity of their roles, there will be no one to fill them. Despite the wealth of this county, pensioners should NOT be forced into using private health care.

It is not just new developments that need safety measures for pedestrians and cyclists. Our village has no effective safety measures on its main road and it is a matter of when, not if, someone is gravely injured or worse.

Object

Representation ID: 6006

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

The Priorities listed do not appear to reflect those highlighted by respondents to the June 2022 Local Plan Public Consultation

CIL money does not appear to have been used for "major infrastructure development", to date. GP provision and the development of an effective, value for money Council are priorities

CIL money needs to make an impact for all Rutlanders. Use must be transparent. CIL must not be wasted on white elephants, or non-essential community projects. In a rural area car use is going to be high and people are not going to cycle or walk to towns to shop

Object

Representation ID: 6244

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Johnson

The Issues and Options consultation referred to in the plan showed that improving healthcare infrastructure provision was the number one priority and affordable housing number two.
Why, therefore, is Healthy and Well priority three and not one?
Also, why is a County for Everyone, (affordable housing), priority four and not two?
Should not Rutland’s five infrastructure priorities be aligned with those from the Issues and Options consultation?

Support

Representation ID: 6366

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

The CIL should be prioritised towards the communities most affected by the development.

Object

Representation ID: 6401

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Little Casterton Parish Council

There is much in this Local Plan that needs complete rethinking as it appears the only objective is to meet a housing quota by dumping the proposal on a local community area that cannot support it, as such we cannot support this aspect of the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 6494

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Bill Deayton

The words in the policy are supportable but the reality has to support stated objectives. There should be no further housing development, regardless of size, without contribution to the development of services. Medical and dentistry are the obvious ones but schools, roads, leisure facilities, cycle and walking routes all apply, as does economic development to offer suitable levels of employment.

Object

Representation ID: 6598

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Susan Shepherd

In the consultation , healthcare was identified as the number 1 priority yet comes in at number 3 in this plan policy. With the focus on the environment and housing provision the critical needs of both healthcare and education within the county has been overlooked.

Object

Representation ID: 6630

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

The DIO do not agree with the statement in Policy INF1 that 'it is assumed that all development proposals will be viable' as this will not be the case for all sites. Some locations, especially brownfield opportunities such as St George’s Barracks bear significant abnormal costs associated with demolition and site remediation. These will have an impact upon scheme viability and the ability for all measures to be delivered on site and in full. Given this is discussed at the National Level, there is no need to duplicate this point within Local Plan Policy and it should be removed.

Support

Representation ID: 6639

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICS

Rutland's Infrastructure Priorities - We understood healthcare to be top priority which the IDP (Section 18.2) has indicated however reading the list it reads as though this is in a priority 3. Could it be made clear if this is a list in order of priority or simply a list of the top priorities in no particular order.

Object

Representation ID: 6723

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Amanda Bloomfiled

Health: I feel the health aspirations are vague. We have an ageing population, and we need to be attracting healthcare research and outreach centres for medicine and dentistry into the county. Medical provision is over stretched and our own teaching facility, with a walk in clinic would be really useful instead of having to go to Corby for urgent care- which is difficult to get to if you haven't got a car. We need to harness rural health solutions such as mobile buses for dental, audio and medical screening and basic treatments. Village halls could also be utilised for health promotion.

The special school should not be shut- this would be a crime to all special care populations.

State schools need to be supported and the leisure centre reinstated to reduce obesity and prevent alzheimer's through movement and excercise. You could put a multi-disciplinary health clinic in the leisure centre.

Object

Representation ID: 6930

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Caldecott Parish Council

The proposed local plan does not recognise the impact of growth upon infrastructure outside of the immediate area. This applies particularly to the impact of development on arterial roads such as the A6003 which travels through Caldecott and which cannot cope with the inappropriate nature and quantity of traffic from recent growth and further significant issues (safety/quality of life) which will be caused by the development levels proposed within this plan and those of neighbouring authorities.

This point should be explicitly referenced in relation to policy INF1 in the local plan and addressed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan should prioritise the specific projects related to the issue of arterial roads though historic village settings and identify the funding mechanisms to support improvements and/or bypass routes during the life time of this Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7035

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr John Fowler

Firstly I would like to state that I think the tone and content of the plan is very good.

I would however like to see a sharper focus on infrastructure. Particularly provision of another GP practice for Oakham. It’s obvious that the current practice is already overwhelmed.

Secondly indirect developmental assistance. Many go to Stamford for “more upmarket supermarkets such as Waitrose and Sainsbury’s “ Both have in the past sought sites in Oakham. The model has been proved many times with for example a John Lewis or M&S coming to a location. It feeds footfall and encourages others to invest and visit.

I hope this is useful

Object

Representation ID: 7108

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Policy INF 1 – Infrastructure and connectivity This policy identifies the requirement of developers to pay CIL. However, it is not clear to what extent CIL contributions from the developers of Quarry Farm/Monarch Park will contribute to the wider infrastructure costs of SKDC and LCC in relation to the North Stamford development.

Object

Representation ID: 7118

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Maskell

A priority policy of the RCC Local Plan should be to ensure excellence of the provision of NHS and wider medical service in Rutland. A further GP surgery is badly needed in Rutland.

Object

Representation ID: 7144

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Jacqueline Towl

We need better medical provision, GP's and better use of Rutland Memorial Hospital.

Support

Representation ID: 7177

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire Police

Key Points:

Rutland County Council are requested to work with Leicestershire Police by consulting with them on large-scale applications, firstly to gain their perspective from a
design front and secondly to understand whether the associated growth would produce a need for additional policing infrastructure. If this is the case then Leicestershire Police will assess each application on an individual basis, by looking at the current level and location of available officers and then the demand associated with that development.

Areas including public space, shop frontages and appropriate security such as shutters should include sympathetic design and be in keeping with local architecture, whilst still providing effective security. Other key areas where planning can support the local
businesses includes the night time economy. Effective planning including lighting and use of CCTV, if required will reduce the risk of crime and disorder.

Currently Rutland County Council have a number of S106 Agreements in respect to new developments within the Rutland County Council area in support of Policing. Also, no CIL funding is provided towards Policing, resulting in only statutory funding via the Policing precept and Government and S106 obligations. Where new demand is placed on Policing resources due to expansion Leicestershire Police, Rutland County Council and people within Rutland County area would benefit from support of the provision of S106/CIL and future S106 bids will be considered in support of Policing provision within the Rutland County Council area.

Object

Representation ID: 7198

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

AH is supportive of this policy aspiration, however, considers that for the delivery targets to be met, a flexible approach is required. Robust assessments of the viability of proposed developments will be critical and should be considered alongside and as updates to the Council’s Whole Plan Viability Study.

Object

Representation ID: 7267

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

The Plan states that “ It is recognised that improving accessibility and providing realistic alternatives to car travel in a rural area like Rutland is particularly challenging. Residents without access to a private car can be isolated and have significant issues in accessing employment, education and training as well as other services and facilities. Therefore, the location of new development can have significant impact on achieving sustainable patterns of travel and accessibility”. We believe that significant new development in rural areas, such has Manton, has not taken into account the substance of the above statement.

Object

Representation ID: 7280

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Clayton

As Rutland's retired population is 36% healthcare for the elderly should have priority.
It has been sometimes difficult to access in the past for my late husband.