Support

Representation ID: 8272

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Empingham Parish Council

These comments are submitted by Empingham Parish Council ( “EPC”) .

EPC in general supports the Regulation 19 pre-submission draft Rutland Local Plan and, in relation to Empingham, considers it to be sound in accordance with S.20 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the criteria set out in paragraph 5 of the NPPF.
EPC supports Policy EN10.

Object

Representation ID: 8403

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Our client OBJECTS to the designation as shown and recommend that the Wild Rutland site is removed from the Rutland Water area boundary.

Support

Representation ID: 8415

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Policy EN10 Rutland Water Area
We support the addition of criterion e which ensures development will not pollution
Rutland reservoir and nearby/connecting watercourses.
As mentioned in our previous consultation response there are two newly designated
bathing waters in Rutland water. These are:
1. Rutland Water Whitwell Creek - Bathing water profile (data.gov.uk)
2. Rutland Water Sykes Lane - Bathing water profile (data.gov.uk)
The 2024 Bathing Water Classifications were published 26 November 2024, both
designations are classified as excellent, therefore appropriate measures that adhere to
bathing water criteria should be taken into account when planning in and around these
areas

Object

Representation ID: 8675

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy EN10 does not support the sustainable development of Rutland Water, which is vital for water supply and recreational activities. The policy overlooks the essential infrastructure status of Rutland Water and the operational requirements of AWS. There has been insufficient engagement with AWS during the policy drafting process, undermining its relevance. The policy lacks clarity regarding its geographic scope, development types, and criteria for planning decisions. EN10 conflicts with various strategic objectives, particularly those related to health, resource use, and biodiversity funding.