Policy INF2 – Securing sustainable transport

Support

Representation ID: 4826

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

A major change is needed with how Bus transport is delivered in Rutland, for instance it can take 2 hours to get a bus from Ketton and the doctor's surgery in Uppingham and back. There is a total lack of regular, timely bus services in the county compared to many other local authorities in England, giving the population no incentive to use the bus.

Support

Representation ID: 5023

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

More cycle paths are needed through the county - there are many roads where cyclists are at risk because of speed of traffic and width of roads. A much better cycle infrastructure should be developed to link up villages with places of work

Support

Representation ID: 5121

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England is supportive of the inclusion of provision for walking and cycling. We suggest there is a strong link to Green Infrastructure, for example cycle and pedestrian routes should incorporate verges or boundaries of natural habitat and street trees to connect to other habitats and green spaces.

Support

Representation ID: 5223

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

OK as far as it goes. I am not sure how realistic it is for a developer to influence rail and bus services though (not at all probably). Sustainable transport is not really a (land and property) planning issue, other than prescribing locations for development in an attempt to reduce transport need (not at all guaranteed). In reality, the Council probably has to intervene in a variety of ways to reduce the amount of car travel in the county, and it won't be easy. The Rutland Bus Improvement Plan is a start.

Object

Representation ID: 5313

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Ann Lewis

Public transport is woefully inadequate but then the Local Plan boasts that there are more car owners here than any other town in the East Midlands. This is hardly a boast! Car owners are a major problem in our town!

Support

Representation ID: 5669

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton Parish Council

Agent: Mary Cade

But with reference to point f). Ketton, like other communities in the East of the county look to Stamford for their services and facilities. Our bus service is woefully inadequate – we can only travel to Uppingham or Stamford, but not in the evening or on Sundays. Attending a doctor’s appointment in either town by bus requires at least 2 hours. Ketton to Oakham takes almost 2 hours by public transport (2 buses or bus and train), and one would need to leave Oakham by 4pm to get back the same day.

Object

Representation ID: 5999

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Bob Blakeborough

The 650 Stamford North dwellings will be so far from Stamford town centre that services such as shops, schools and GP surgeries will be almost impossible to reach on foot, adding thousands of extra car journeys to the town’s roads, contrary to Policy INF2 ‘Securing sustainable transport’ that requires:
a) minimising the distance people need to travel to shops, services and employment opportunities.
b) encouraging travel to work and school safely by public transport, cycling and walking.

Calling for a ‘Transport Assessment’ or ‘Transport Statement’ won’t change this fundamental problem with the siting of the Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development.

Support

Representation ID: 6368

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Agree. But again I think The Council also needs to review recent development proposals where these criteria have not been met - and make some effort to put things right.

Support

Representation ID: 6386

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Lewis

I welcome the ambition set out in this policy. It is vital that that new developments deliver on criteria for enabling sustainable travel.

Support

Representation ID: 6497

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Christopher Clark

Hardly anywhere in Oakham is more that 15 minutes walking time from the town centre. To encourage walking perhaps signs could be put up giving an estimated walking time from that location to centre and have the maps in the centre with concentric circles again giving estimated walking times.

Object

Representation ID: 6876

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Whitwell Parish Meeting

Policy INF2 should contain a paragraph regarding co-ordinating public transport services i.e. bus service timings fitting in with train departures etc.

Object

Representation ID: 6920

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Clayton

The state of the roads in Rutland is not good, particularly here in Morcott, where Willoughby Road is in a dreadful state and the bend at the bottom dangerous after the
flooding.
Additionally, the A47 has old trees overhanging which urgently need cutting. One tree has recently fallen across the A47 and it is potentially dangerous. (Policy ENS - protection veteran trees)
Also: the proposed Container Storage at Rutland Point on the A47 is fraught with potential danger on the A47 as this stretch of road is a high accident site proved by FOI results.
The width of the A47 is not wide enough for large vehicles passing and turning which is already a problem.

Object

Representation ID: 6990

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

There is no specific strategy around road expansion or an arterial road strategy.
There are a significant number of Parish’s adversely affected by large volumes of HGV’s and speeding cars. This issue will be exacerbated by increased employment land and increased quarrying, however there appears to be no ambition at County level to admit there is a problem now and will be in the future and how they intend to mitigate that risk. This county is in need of an arterial strategy which could take the whole of the Local Plan period
To implement. There is no reference to discussions with Highways England and A1
Future developments and how they may affect this plan.
Currently each of the parish’s affected by traffic issues are dealing with it individually and in a piecemeal fashion and draining both County Council and Parish Council resources. There is no coherent strategy in this document focusing on remedying this issue.

Object

Representation ID: 7078

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tony Godwin

Policy INF2 should contain a paragraph regarding co-ordinating public transport services i.e. bus service timings fitting in with train departures etc.

Object

Representation ID: 7109

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Policy INF 2 – Securing sustainable Transport. The Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development will be located some 2 miles from Stamford Town Centre. Whilst we applaud attempts to encourage sustainable transport everywhere, including within the existing built-up area of Stamford, it is evidenced from recent completed housing developments on the periphery of the Town that the majority of occupiers will use their own vehicles to travel this distance. Also, given that most of the out-of-town retail facilities (including most supermarkets) are on the east side of the town, it is likely that an extra 650 dwellings will create additional traffic congestion within the Town Centre to an unacceptable level.
In addition, any vehicle travel to the wider area, particularly on a north/south axis will require an upgrade to access the A1 Stamford By-Pass. The Society understands that English Highways do not currently have any plans of timescale for delivery of such an upgrade. This is likely to mean either that the development will be allowed to proceed with sub-standard access links to the A1, or it will be delayed until English Highways have allocated funds for it.

Object

Representation ID: 7189

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Criteria point h) of this policy requires that developments provide levels of car parking in line with Council’s published car parking standards at Appendix 5.

However the shared / communal parking spaces appear excessive, for example of a dwelling with 3 habitable rooms will require total 3 ½ parking spaces. The provision of such a high number of car parking spaces will result in a car dominated development which can potentially be unsafe for non-car users.
A balanced approach to parking provision, when used as part of a package of measures, can promote sustainable transport choices and provide attractive and safe environments whilst ensuring that sufficient parking is provided to meet local needs.

Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy framework sets out that local parking standards policies need to take into account of a) the accessibility of the development b) the type, mix and use of development c) the availability of and opportunities for public transport d) local car ownership levels and e) the need to ensure an adequate provision of spaces for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles. There appears to be no evidence base put forward by the Council to show how these different criteria have been considered in the development of this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 7268

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

Most of these proposals are above and beyond the normal remit of a developer eg. Bus routes, rail facilities, cyclist tracks etc. How will this be funded and what will be the process for dealing with the matters which are not within the development itself. To take Bus routes as an example even if a short term solution is provided how will funding in the long term be guaranteed.

We note that in the previous “Issues and Options” Consultation Healthcare was classified as being No.1 Priority. However, Healthcare has been reduced to No.3 Priority in Rutland's Infrastructure Priorities. Why is this?

You comment in Chapter 2 that the proportion of the population aged over 80 years will rise by 1/3rd to 11.3% over the plan period. It is not clear, however, how this Local Plan will ensure that the right facilities such as Healthcare and Elderly Care are available to this segment of the population. It is also not clear how the policies set out will lead to an appropriate mix of housing types to meet their needs.

Object

Representation ID: 7419

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Vickers

Why doesn't Public transport feature anywhere in the plan?

Support

Representation ID: 7469

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

broad support to its aspirations and objectives.
CPC welcomes the emphasis on securing more sustainable transport, as set out in Policy INF2, by seeking to minimise distance people need to travel (clause (c)), and in seeking mitigating transport measures to encourage the use of public transport, cycling and walking in new development proposals (clause (d)).

Object

Representation ID: 7486

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: The British Horse Society

The policy mentions walking and cycling only, missing the opportunity to advocate for all vulnerable road users sharing new paths, particularly in the urban fringes, to avoid horses and riders/handlers being forced to be sandwiched between fast moving MPV traffic on the roads and cyclists who can enjoy MPV traffic free cycling/walking routes. Road crossings for pedestrians and cyclists could also include equestrians.
The government's Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy Safety Review says: "l.2 But safety has particular importance for vulnerable road users, such as walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The more people who use Active Travel, the fitter and healthier they will be, and the more their communities will benefit from lower congestion and better air quality, among a host of other benefits".

Object

Representation ID: 7492

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marlen Godwin

Policy INF2 should contain a paragraph regarding co-ordinating public transport services i.e. bus service timings fitting in with train departures etc. It would help to see these also referenced on the tourism web site as it may encourage day trippers to use public transport rather than cars to make their way to Rutland Water, perhaps even an incentive for families?

Object

Representation ID: 7633

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Peter Vickers

Public transport - no reference is made anywhere to this anywhere. How can this be?

Support

Representation ID: 7811

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We note Policy INF2. We support the emphasis on sustainable transport.

However, this is incompatible with the high levels of growth in Policies SS5 (St George’s Barracks) and H1 (reserve site H1.b) in an area with extremely limited public transport services.

Object

Representation ID: 7846

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Alicia Kearns

Little work has been put in place to consider how we might reduce car use or increase electric vehicle charging stations within our county.

Support

Representation ID: 7970

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

INF2 - Securing Sustainable Transport – Support

Object

Representation ID: 7980

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Will there be a need for additional public/town centre car parking (with EV charging points) and should
this be included in the policy? Requirement for the layout of roads in new developments to facilitate access for delivery
vehicles, possibly including drones, needs to be stated.

Object

Representation ID: 7988

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

Why aren’t there more school buses? Better provision might reduce traffic congestion at drop off and pick up times: Uppingham Community College has considerable issues with this.