Support

Representation ID: 8100

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

We welcome the Policy INF1 approach to promoting infrastructure alongside new developments. However, the policy could be stronger in line with the NPPG approach for infrastructure needs to be to be part of the plan without the need for further viability assessment at the decision-making stage.

Support

Representation ID: 8129

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: The British Horse Society

CIL money should be used to improve and /or create PRoW that are multiuser routes and help keep walkers, cyclists , horse riders and carriage drivers off the increasingly busy roads.

Support

Representation ID: 8157

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: National Grid Electricity Distribution

Agent: Lucy White Planning

Priority should be given to retaining high voltage overhead lines, with design principles integrated into development plans. For sites significantly impacted by overhead lines, early masterplanning and Supplementary Planning Documents are recommended.
LPAs must confirm that adequate capacity exists within the electricity network to support planned developments.

Support

Representation ID: 8390

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services

Draft Policy INF1 states all new development will be required to provide for the necessary on-site or off-site infrastructure requirements arising from the proposal. We also note Draft Policy INF4 which sets out the Council’s commitment to working with the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB and developers in maintaining and improving facilities to support the health and wellbeing of communities.

We recommend the Council continue its engagement with the ICB and wider NHS stakeholders to further refine the identified healthcare needs and proposed solutions to support the level of growth proposed by the Local Plan, as identified in the IDP.

Support

Representation ID: 8416

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We have concerns about the ability of some of the WRCs to accommodate anticipated
housing growth without upgrades.
Oakham & Uppingham WRCs which have housing allocations are close to exceeding
their permitted limits. North Luffenham WRC is also close to capacity but currently has
no proposed housing allocations. We note Anglian Water has stated there is work
planned at Oakham, Uppingham and North Luffenham in AMP8 (2025-30).
Discussions should take place with Anglian Water to ensure this work is going ahead

Braunston WRC does not have capacity, development should not be supported here.

Object

Representation ID: 8457

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The HBF argues that the statement regarding viability is misleading, as the assessments indicate challenges for specific areas and site types. The policy mandates that development proposals demonstrate adequate foul water treatment and disposal capabilities, which the HBF contests, stating that this responsibility lies with water service providers, not applicants. The HBF references the Water Industry Act 1991, emphasising that water companies have a legal duty to provide necessary services for new developments. The revised IDP is highlighted as crucial for supporting the Local Plan, necessitating regular updates to ensure its relevance and effectiveness in assessing viability and deliverability.

Object

Representation ID: 8537

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The overall approach towards new infrastructure provision is broadly supported. It will however be
important to ensure that any planning obligations sought meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF (2023)

Object

Representation ID: 8661

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy itself tends to focus on how CIL funds will be managed and makes no explicit reference to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)

The IDP identifies over 80 interventions to support the ambitions of the Local Plan. Of
these, 30 are regarded as either Critical or Essential to the success of the local plan overall and only 5 are not apparently required in the period 2026-2031

Object

Representation ID: 8680

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

AWS would welcome the specific inclusion of water and water recycling infrastructure to the first bullet point in the ‘three main categories.
AWS supports the penultimate paragraph in Policy INF1 covering foul (wastewater/water recycling) infrastructure. The policy also needs to include the signing posting of applicants to AWS for water supply advice and the specific requirements for developers requiring above 20m3 of non- domestic water per day to complete and submit a Water Resources Assessment to AWS. We note that water supply is listed in the supporting text.

Support

Representation ID: 8727

Received: 24/12/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Policy INF1 sets out the Council’s policy on the provision and delivery of infrastructure. National Highways acknowledges that the mechanisms identified in this section focus on the use of Section 106 contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to deliver infrastructure. However, we note that the following comment detailed in our previous Regulation 18 response has not been addressed in Regulation 19: we recommend that the text be amended to state that, delivery mechanisms under the Highways Act 1980 through Section 278 Agreements are also included for the delivery of highway mitigation.

Support

Representation ID: 8731

Received: 24/12/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP)
National Highways acknowledges that Regulation 19 has been drafted alongside an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and we look forward to receiving the final version for our review.
The DfT Circular states in Paragraph 34 that ‘our engagement with plan-making will help inform the preparation of the local authority infrastructure delivery evidence base. From a transport perspective, this evidence should provide a means of demonstrating to the examining inspector, development industry and local communities that planned growth is deliverable, and that the funding, partners and relevant processes are in place to enable the delivery of infrastructure; or that there is a realistic prospect that longer-term investment can be secured within the timescales envisaged’.

National Highways would like to better understand the current position of the Local Plan in terms of anticipated future traffic growth (associated with applications) impacting on the SRN, and any mitigation measures (with the IDP) identified to offset these impacts.
It should be noted that National Highways is unable to participate in Section 106 contributions. Additionally, there are currently no planned projects under the Road Investment Strategy (RIS) within the Plan area. As such, it cannot be assumed that any necessary improvements to the SRN will be funded through a future RIS. Similarly, mitigation measures affecting the SRN are typically not included within the CIL at the planning application stage.
Therefore, we will welcome further engagement with the Council to stay informed and review the progress of the IDP to ensure that any strategic infrastructure requirements to support growth in the area are identified and included in the IDP.