Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Representation ID: 8062

Received: 31/10/2024

Respondent: ANCER SPA Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

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.

Object

Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Representation ID: 8092

Received: 26/11/2024

Respondent: NFU

Agent: CT Planning

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Objection is made to the proposed extension to the Uppingham Gate allocation Policy E1.2 to extend over land in the ownership of NFU.

There is no realistic prospect of Uppingham Gate coming forward having been allocated for some 20 years. There is no evidence to suggest that its prospects are enhanced by increasing the proposed allocation. The NFU has never promoted the land for employment use and there is no willingness to bring forward this additional land for employment uses.

Object

Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Representation ID: 8423

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Maureen Thomas

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The choice of function of uses of buildings at Uppingham Gate must be carefully reviewed by planning and highways departments to ensure access issues connecting to the A47 and nearby roads to housing estates can cope.

Object

Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Representation ID: 8486

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

The Rutland regulation 19 Local Plan consultation draft is clearly at odds with the submission draft Neighbourhood Plan that is at an advanced stage in production as well as being inconsistent with itself that states that allocations at Uppingham will be delivered by the Neighbourhood Plan. Employment allocation E1.2 should therefore be deleted and Map 41 amended accordingly. As currently drafted The Rutland Local Plan regulation 19 consultation is inconsistent with the Neighbourhood Plan and national policy and in particular NPPF paragraphs 16 and 126.