Object

Representation ID: 8086

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Lyddington Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy CC8 details opportunity areas for small to very large scale renewable energy developments. Lyddington is surrounded by such areas.

It is unsound because the policy and its associated Policies Map have no relevant or robust landscape or visual impact evidence. The policy is therefore not justified by evidence; not effective in guiding the location of renewable energy developments; and is contrary to national policy which requires such evidence.

Policy CC8’s opportunity areas should be deleted unless, and until, the landscape and visual impacts of such proposals have been properly evidenced, consulted upon and then examined.

********************************

Object

Representation ID: 8123

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Stephen Baker

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A significant number of areas surrounding Lyddington are marked as potential sites for windfarms and solar cells. If all the windfarm sites in particular were developed as per the plan, views from the village would be heavily dominated by wind turbines and impacted in a very detrimental way for the village residents. Also, nearby Eyebrook reservoir is used by migrating birds in Autumn and Spring, and used by large numbers of wildfowl that visit for the Winter. As is known from elsewhere, wind turbines are a potentially fatal hazard for migrating birds.

Object

Representation ID: 8136

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Mr David Vickery

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy CC8 is unsound because it is missing the vital evidence to justify the opportunity areas for renewable energy. That is, there is no adequate landscape or visual impact information on which to base the location of the opportunities areas on Policy Maps 47 and 48.

The policy should be modified to delete the opportunity areas, or the proper and relevant evidence should be produced and new areas drawn up.

Object

Representation ID: 8141

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: John Winchester

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The latest plan seems to have SPLATTERED the whole surrounding countryside of Lyddington as designated for potential wind farm or solar farm developments. There is no common sense that supports such a widespread hap-dash approach to designating sites like this.

Having viewed the interactive map, I can merely envisage a landscape of large propellers and solar panel glare that will blight the Rutland countryside in all directions from any of the properties in Lyddington.

It shows no element of logic or good thinking. You need to abandon your plans for designating the lands surrounding Lyddington in this way. The local plan needs to reflect its wide countryside appeal to aid the development of the county. These unsound revisions to what appears to be any southfacing sites in the south of the county should be retracted from any plan moving forward for adoption

Object

Representation ID: 8161

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Jenny Grevatte

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Further concerns are the plans for renewable energy around our village in the draft plan, fields surrounding the village and along the A 6003 have been identified as potentially suitable for solar and wind farms, with turbines over 50 m tall. These developments could dramatically change our landscape. We consider that these proposals require further evidence, will not be effective in planning for the future of the village, and are contrary to national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8174

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Mr John Wright

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Further concerns are the plans for renewable energy around our village in the draft plan, fields surrounding the village and along the A 6003 have been identified as potentially suitable for solar and wind farms, with turbines over 50 m tall. These developments could dramatically change our landscape. We consider that these parts of the plan are unsound as they are not justified by the Councils published evidence, will not be effective in planning for the future of the village, and are contrary to national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8187

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Brock

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I note that land either side of the A6003 between Caldecott and Uppingham appears to me to be marked as suitable for wind turbines. From a tourism point of view, this would seriously impact the setting of Rockingham Castle, and would endanger Dambuster commemoration flights over the Eyebrook Reservoir.

Object

Representation ID: 8200

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The interactive map shows potential wind and solar farms all over the place; as you say in this paragraph many of these sites will be inappropriate. Did no-one do a common-sense objective assessment of this?

Object

Representation ID: 8232

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Mrs Dinah Hurwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy CC8 - As already stated potential sites for wind farm and solar farms have been dotted all over the map of Rutland. Lyddington has been surrounded by these sites, I believe this is unsound because there appears to be no evidence given as to why these sites may be suitable.

Object

Representation ID: 8256

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Read

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object to the use of greenfield and agricultural land when there is unused roof space that could accommodate this development.

Object

Representation ID: 8266

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mr David Vickery

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy CC8’s opportunity areas for renewable energy should be deleted until an adequate landscape visual assessment specifically relevant to the impact of wind turbines and solar PVs has been carried out.

Object

Representation ID: 8270

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Mair

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I support the concerns raised by Lyddington Parish Council regarding Policy CC8 Renewable Energy. In summary, my concerns are:

Policy CC8 details opportunity areas for small to very large scale renewable energy developments. Lyddington is surrounded by such areas. It is unsound because the policy and its associated Policies Map have no relevant or robust landscape or visual impact evidence. The policy is therefore not justified by evidence; not effective in guiding the location of renewable energy developments; and is contrary to national policy which requires such evidence.

Object

Representation ID: 8281

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Martin Brayshaw

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This plan is totally at odds with your affirmed plan to uphold Rutland's rural character and unique rural identity. Taken on the evidence of the Policies Map half the county could be given over to solar or wind farms; very few of which will be immediately adjacent to the industrial sites which represent the primary users of such power.

Object

Representation ID: 8353

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Ms Emily Gardiner

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The areas identified for potential wind turbines and solar PV on the high ground adjacent to the A6003 would significantly affect the long-distance views of the Grade I listed Rockingham Castle in the neighbouring Local Planning Authority (North Northamptonshire).

Object

Representation ID: 8384

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Network Rail

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy CC8 - paragraph 'a' considers the impact of proposals upon surrounding environments. Renewables schemes such as wind farms and solar farms can have impacts on railway operations (such as glint and glare from solar panels that can distract train drivers and obscure signals). We consider that the impact on railways should also be considered in this section

Object

Representation ID: 8404

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Estate SUPPORTS the principle of a policy focused on renewable energy within the emerging local plan. It COMMENTS however that an additional bullet point consideration should be added to the existing text, to state “… the use of and for this purpose would not be compatible with existing heritage or environmental designations”. This is important to ensure no existing built or natural heritage is negatively impacted as a result.

Support

Representation ID: 8406

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Policy CC8 - Renewable Energy
Renewable energy will play a key role in ensuring the UK achieves the net zero carbon target by 2050 we therefore support this policy. The policy identifies areas where renewables are ‘more likely to be supported’ some of these are within flood zone 2 and 3. Any critical infrastructure associated with renewable projects should be designed to
be above the flood level, we therefore support criterion a which states flood risk needs to be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 8425

Received: 30/10/2024

Respondent: Mrs Melissa Jones

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The imposing of wind farms and 50 foot turbines would have a devastating impact on the wildlife and beauty of this conservation village.

We consider that these parts of the plan are ‘unsound’.

They are not justified by the Council’s published evidence, will not be effective in planning for the future of the village, and are contrary to the National Planning Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8428

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Jim Horton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The proposed renewable energy installations could degrade the quality of life for Lyddington residents. The attractiveness of Rutland as a tourist destination may be diminished due to the visual and environmental implications of these installations. The proximity of the proposed sites to Eye Brook Reservoir, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, raises concerns about potential harm to local wildlife, particularly migratory birds. Consideration of alternative sites must be given.

Object

Representation ID: 8430

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Peter Martin

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

PV and wind turbines offer scope for renewable energy but site selection must be carefully considered and impact on Conservation Areas and similar high status locations avoided.

Object

Representation ID: 8431

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Louise Cooper

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I have lived in Lyddington for over 23 years, and am an advocate for solar panels and wind generation. I have installed solar panels on their grade 2 listed property and triple glazed windows to reduce energy consumption and protect the planet. I believe that preserving conservation areas and listed buildings is pointless if the planet is left to burn. However, there are numerous industrial and farm buildings nationwide that could be covered with solar panels, and there should be no need to cover important farmland in solar panels. I question the purpose of creating a conservation area to then surround village with wind turbines and solar panels, as it would have an adverse visual impact on the surrounding landscape.

I have concerns about the proposed locations for renewable energy generation infrastructure in Lyddington, Rutland, as outlined in Policy CC8 and the Policies Map of the Pre-Submission Version of the Local Plan (Reg 19). The inclusion of opportunity areas surrounding Lyddington does not adequately consider the impacts on the landscape character, visual amenity, biodiversity, heritage assets, and historic landscape. The National Planning Policy Framework only permits renewable energy infrastructure where it is appropriate in scale, located in areas that do not contribute positively to the objectives of the designation, is sympathetically designed, and includes necessary mitigation measures.

Support

Representation ID: 8459

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: RWE Renewables UK

Agent: Stantec

RWE supports the basis of the policy, that renewable energy schemes will be supported subject to the direct, indirect, individual, and cumulative impacts.

RWE also supports the use of a spatial designation to indicate areas of in-principle support for solar energy generation, which provides a degree of certainty to the market and roots the provision of renewable energy infrastructure in the spatial plan for the local authority area. Often this type of area-based designation is reserved for other forms of development and this
choice reflects the focus on mitigating the impacts of climate change in the Council’s Vision
and Strategic Objectives.

It is not clear however, what benefit the Opportunity Area designation provides schemes for the following reasons:
▪ The wording ‘more likely to be supported’ in relation to schemes within the identified Opportunity Areas is too subjective to provide additional certainty that schemes should be directed to these locations.
▪ A scheme will not benefit from the Opportunity Area designation if the proposed use of any agricultural land is shown to be necessary.
Some benefits of a scheme, such as the ability for agricultural production to continue during the operation of the energy generation, or whether it can recommence after the end of life of the energy generation equipment without significant impact on the quality of that
agricultural land, would currently result in the proposal not benefitting from the Opportunity Area designation
There is a need to provide a clear justification for the suitability of developments sites for
solar proposals where they are not within the identified Opportunity Areas. T

Object

Representation ID: 8485

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Ruth Skinner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In regard to Potential Wind Turbine areas and Solar panel areas on high ground around the village - the main concern is for any additional hard surface area draining down into the village. And also the risk of bird strikes to migratory birds flying over to the Eyebrook reservoir.

Object

Representation ID: 8502

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Sally Nieuwenhuys

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are emailing to register our concerns that fields around Lyddington have been identified as potentially suitable for solar and wind farms on a very significant scale. Not only would they be visually unappealing, but they could have a massive impact on birdlife and wildlife more generally. There must surely be more appropriate sites.

Object

Representation ID: 8503

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Phil Houghton

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are concerned about the proposed locations of renewable energy generation infrastructure as set out in your draft Consultation plans. Lyddington is designated as a village of national importance, a conservation area and contains two scheduled monuments. Eyebrook Reservoir is designated as an area of SSSI with statutory protection. This restricts development but you are considering the development of extensive wind farms. Do not blight our beautiful countryside with easy fix solutions.

Object

Representation ID: 8504

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Annabel Sharpe

Number of people: 2

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Renewable Energy indicating areas suitable for both wind power and solar power around Lyddington village ……… some thoughts. All of the areas suggested suitable for wind turbines are in fact unsuitable. Turbines on the land adjacent to the A6003 would have a hugely detrimental effect on the local bird population which benefits from the Eyebrook Resevoir ( as in death ) , especially our resident Lyddington owls .
Noise the aesthetics of turbines to most people is negative.

Object

Representation ID: 8557

Received: 22/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Shaun Whyman

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In regards to wind farms and solar panel development along the A 6003 not only would this fundamentally change the character of Lyddington it would seem to be at odds with the the Site of Special Scientific Interest at the Eyebrooke Reservoir and would have a negative impact on many of the fauna in the area especially the birdlife.

Object

Representation ID: 8559

Received: 23/11/2024

Respondent: Robert Dale

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

There is concern relating to the plan to seriously consider allowing the building of wind turbines and solar farms along the A6003 between Uppingham and Caldecott. That road is higher than the surrounding countryside and if approval was given for such developments, it would be very obvious to the entire surrounding area. The solar farm in Uppingham is a good example of how such important facilities can be positioned with the minimum visual damage.

Object

Representation ID: 8609

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The majority of Anglian Water Services operational sites are not included on the policy map for ground based solar or wind turbine locations.

AWS would welcome confirmation that as our sites are set out in statutory plans for water and water recycling, they are included as operational sites for the purposes of bullet 4 relating to solar energy proposals?

Subject to clarification on bullet 4 and AWS’s statutory Plan, AWS may consider seeking Modifications to the Policies Map and CC8 to ensure that there is positive policy support for renewables at and adjacent to vital infrastructure sites. Please regard this a holding objection to the Plan on the grounds that the policy constrains renewable energy opportunities too tightly.

Object

Representation ID: 8696

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Similarly, comments made at Regulation 18 stage in respect of draft Policy CC8 – Renewable Energy, have also not been actioned, and we reiterate our concern regarding the practical implementation of this Policy. Specifically, we note that not all renewable energy technologies would give rise to the issues that the policy is requiring developments to assess, for example solar and battery electrical storage systems (“BESS”) has no impact upon radar. As worded, every part of the policy would require a technical report which would require needless cost and work for developers where such development should be encouraged. Part B of the Emerging Policy should be amended to remove the “and” which would allow matters to be addressed only where the scheme is likely to give rise to such issues. Additionally, at over two pages in length, this policy is also particularly long and, in a development management sense, would be difficult to comply with. It would therefore be useful to have clear sub-sections and/or to create new policies relevant to specific technologies to simplify the plan and ensure it can be appropriately applied moving forward. The approach to identifying “ground mounted solar PV opportunity areas” is unclear and omits important opportunities where this can come forward as part of larger mixed-use sites, such as St Georges Barracks, where commercial or private wire opportunities exist. We also suggest that small-scale turbines may also be appropriate on site and given the areas of search for turbines in the vicinity, both forms of renewable energy could be compatible with the site’s potential ecological designation. As written, we consider this policy to be contrary to paragraph 35 of the Framework because the policy as drafted is neither justified nor effective.