Object
Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan
Representation ID: 8106
Received: 27/11/2024
Respondent: Rutland Quarry Forum
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
As our response to the Regulation 18 consultation appears to have been ignored I would direct our comments to the Regulation 19 consultation toward this response again because the present draft local plan minerals section does not fully comply with the requirements of the NPPF and is considered unsound, legally incorrect and forms no basis for planning controls for minerals extraction in Rutland in order safeguard residents or local environment.
Support
Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan
Representation ID: 8149
Received: 29/11/2024
Respondent: Mr Ian Briggs
The approach in this policy is consistent with policy contained in the NPPF 2023 concerning minerals/cement supply.
Support
Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan
Representation ID: 8150
Received: 29/11/2024
Respondent: Mr Ian Briggs
Heidelberg supports MIN 1 as it is consistent with NPPF Chapter 17 with regard to its operations and aspirations at Ketton
Object
Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan
Representation ID: 8341
Received: 02/12/2024
Respondent: Mr William Bryant
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
MIN 1 outlines the AoS for cement and states that it is deliberately "a large area" to allow for the right mix of minerals to be found and that "This does not mean that the whole area will be extracted" and that "Industry has confirmed that the cement AoS is sufficient to secure 15 years stock". The current wording is not clear and therefore would be open to legal challenge and is not sound. This has been interpreted as meaning that the entire area of search has been earmarked for development by Heidelberg Cement in their recent planning application.
Object
Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan
Representation ID: 8350
Received: 02/12/2024
Respondent: Mr William Bryant
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The plan cannot be evaluated in respect of it's legality or soundness if it relies on reserve figures that are not in the public domain:
"When the site was granted permission for an extension in 2002 the permitted reserves of limestone and clay were 16.6Mt and 6.2Mt respectively; remaining reserves are now considerably less[2]. "
"[2] Figures cannot be published for confidentiality reasons.".