Object

Representation ID: 8118

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Rob Cooke

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The hierarchy should take account of the landscape character of the development area. For example developments on limestone in the east of Rutland wold be better compensated for on limestone in Cambs or Lincs rather than elsewhere in Rutland on non limestone areas, simply because they are within the administrative boundary. Therefore ab additional consideration along these lines, taking account of character should be included.

Object

Representation ID: 8225

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone (MS) and Churchill Living (CL)

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy EN2 seeks to direct biodiversity creation and in effect sets a new locational biodiversity hierarchy at points 1 to 5. However, the council should note that paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 74-006-20240214 of the PPG on Biodiversity states that ‘It will also be inappropriate for plans or supplementary planning documents to include policies or guidance which are incompatible with this framework, for instance by applying biodiversity net gain to exempt categories of development or encouraging the use of a different biodiversity metric or biodiversity gain hierarchy’. Therefore policy EN2 is currently contrary to planning policy guidance and points 1 to 5 should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 8374

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Moving forward the Local Plan ahead of the publication of the NRS is not justified and has not allowed specific BNG solutions to be established.

Object

Representation ID: 8453

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy EN2 is unsound, unjustified, ineffective, and not aligned with national policy.

The policy requires development proposals to show a positive contribution to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) and local ecological networks. The Home Builders Federation (HBF) disagrees with this requirement, stating it does not align with LNRS and Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) policies. LNRS for Rutland is yet to be developed, highlighting the need for ongoing review and public consultation on policy changes to reflect LNRS. HBF finds the environmental policies in the Plan unclear and suggests rearranging the order of issues to prioritize BNG. They emphasize the need for clear guidance on adopting LNRS recommendations and prioritizing BNG solutions for off-site credit compliance. This clarity is vital for developers, communities, and decision-makers to effectively target BNG solutions. The Plan should also specify receptor sites and areas for BNG off-site unit delivery to ensure accurate BNG metric calculation.

Object

Representation ID: 8650

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

It is not clear how the Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) can inform the preparation of this Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 8671

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Support detailed BNG approach in Policy EN2 and support nature recovery being promoted through the LNRS