Object

Representation ID: 8061

Received: 31/10/2024

Respondent: ANCER SPA Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The Uppingham Gate site should not be shown in the policy and the Proposals Map as allocated for solely employment purposes. The Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review, which has been the subject of Independent Examination and has strong community support, allocates the site for mixed-use development including not only B2 and B8 small industrial units , but also E1 uses including a convenience retail store, C2 uses for elderly persons housing and C3 market and affordable housing.

Support

Representation ID: 8203

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: CS Ellis (Group) Ltd.

Agent: Mr George Weightman

We comment on behalf of CS Ellis Group Ltd. in support of the strategic employment land allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 8248

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

While Policy SS1 proposes to allocate 16 ha, Policy E1 actually allocates 26.4 ha of employment land. We do not consider this is sufficient to deliver the step change in the economy which the Council is seeking. Also, just 6 locations are too few to provide employers and developers with a significant level of choice of locations and sites. Given the known need for new offices for our company at Greetham land at Greetham Quarry should be allocated either independently or as part of a mixed use allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 8580

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Employment Needs Evidence indicates that 26 sites were promoted as suitable for employment development. However, the current consultation reduces the total number of allocations to 6 sites, removing 2 of the allocations on Pit Lane in Ketton and reducing the total allocation of employment land to 26.4ha. The Council has reduced both the total amount of employment land allocated through the Plan by 10.6ha and specifically within Ketton by a total of 8ha. The allocations do not take into account site constraints or other policies within the Plan, such as the mandatory requirement to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain for new developments or parking requirements for non-residential developments. None of the allocated sites meet the specific requirements of an existing business in Rutland and looking to grow. Therefore, it is not considered that the sites allocated by Policy E1 provide sufficient space to provide for the required employment needs.

Object

Representation ID: 8583

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Best Little Building Co. Ltd is seeking a new headquarters and employment space in Ketton. Their site at Steadfold Lane is considered 'broadly suitable' by the Employment Needs Evidence. The Housing and Employment Site Assessment Report (July 2024) assessed the site's suitability for development, passing Stage 1 and identifying no significant constraints. Technical constraints can be overcome, and the site should be allocated alongside Pit Lane due to significant employment needs.

Support

Representation ID: 8624

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Note that Policy E1.1, E1.2, E1.3, E1.4, E1.5 and E1.6 E2 do now have an informative advising that applicants should contact AWS at an early stage in site selection to consider water demands and process efficiencies as AWS recommended in our Regulation 18 submission.

Object

Representation ID: 8646

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy E1, Strategic employment land allocations, allocates 6.8 hectares at Uppingham Gate for employment uses. The Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan, however, proposes a mix of employment and residential use at Uppingham Gate, which is not clearly reflected in the Local Plan policies as written. This inconsistency needs to be resolved to ensure that the Local Plan remains in general conformity with extant neighbourhood plans, as required by the NPPF.