Object

Representation ID: 8298

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The NPPF does not provide a blanket protection of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land, instead stating that “the economic and other benefits” of such land should be “recognised” in plan-making and decision-taking. The proposed policy tests are inconsistent with national policy and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 8342

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Persimmon Homes recognise the importance of protecting higher quality agricultural land. Persimmon Homes do however consider there should be some flexibility in the wording of this policy. Whilst it is noted from the
Council’s response to representations received under the Regulation 18 Local Plan that this matter will be considered as part of the allocation process, which is welcomed, this does not provide for the eventuality that
applications of any description could be submitted for development which is not an allocated site.

Object

Representation ID: 8368

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Bowbridge Land Ltd

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy EN6 is not necessary as it repeats national policy set out in the NPPF. The second bullet point includes the requirement to clearly demonstrate that there are no other more suitable and sustainably located sites available, this is too onerous and impractical to address on an individual site application in a scenario where, for example, additional housing land is needed to meet the five year supply requirements.
This policy should therefore be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 8464

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: RWE Renewables UK

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

the policy wording is not useful because it does not indicate which circumstances Grade 3 land would be permitted for Solar PV development which is required to meet the requirements of CC8.

The phrase “grade 1 and 2 will be ruled out for renewable energy use” is inconsistent with the NPPF, which provides that where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, areas of poorer quality land should be preferred to those of a higher quality first.

So long as this approach is demonstrated, Grade 1 and 2 land should not necessarily be ruled out.

Object

Representation ID: 8653

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This policy clearly states that BMV land (grades 1 & 2) will not be allowed to be used for renewable energy

The policy is also inconsistent with Policy CC8

Object

Representation ID: 8739

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy EN6 is not necessary, it repeats national policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.
The second bullet point includes the requirement to clearly demonstrate that there are no other more suitable and sustainably located sites available, this is impractical to address on an individual site application in a scenario where, for example, additional housing land is needed to meet the five year supply requirements.