Support

Representation ID: 8121

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Graham Layne

There is an urgent requirement for the changes to existing bus routes voted on by RCC in Nov 24 to be communicated to impacted residents so that they can consider how this policy will impact them.

Support

Representation ID: 8135

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: The British Horse Society

An integrated walking, cycling and horse-riding network , that connects new developments to essential services and neighbouring communities, is beneficial for supporting an active, healthy community and for economic reasons, including the development of tourism.

Support

Representation ID: 8159

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Ian Briggs

Support
Heidelberg Materials supports this policy in respect of item (j).
Positively Prepared
It seeks to meet reasonable aims regarding sustainable transport and minimising the impacts of HGV transport.
Justified
It is appropriate for a policy to require transport alternatives to be considered, and it takes a proportionate approach as it contains the wordings – “where possible” and “minimise”.
Consistent with National Policy
The policy in regard to item (j) is consistent with the spirit and thrust of national policy in the NPPF 2023.

Object

Representation ID: 8345

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Persimmon Homes have no objections to the allocated parking space requirements as set out in table 1 of Appendix 5, however the shared/communal parking spaces appear excessive, for example a dwelling with 3 habitable rooms will require 3 ½ parking spaces. The provision of such a high number of parking spaces is likely to result in a car park dominated development which could potentially be unsafe for non-car users.
A balanced approach to parking provision, when used as part of a package of measures, can promote sustainable transport choices and provide attractive and safe environments whilst ensuring that sufficient parking is provided to meet local needs.
Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out that local parking policies need to take account of a) the accessibility of the development b) the type, mix and use of development c) the availability of and opportunities for public transport d) local car ownership levels and e) the need to ensure an adequate provision of spaces for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles. There appears to be no evidence base put forward by the Council to show how these different criteria have been considered in the development of this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8417

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Network Rail

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We consider that alterations can be made to the wording of this policy to better reflect rail freight use, impact on and safety concerns at level crossings and also the need for improvements at Oakham railway station.
(for example there is no step free access between the platforms other than via the level crossing). We note the wording for paragraph 'b' relating to movement of people and goods and consider that there is scope for rail freight to be included in this part of the policy as well so that such use is not restricted to mineral extraction and waste use.

Object

Representation ID: 8538

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 of Policy INF2 broadly aligns with the provisions of the NPPF (2023). However, there are several detailed points which require review.

Object

Representation ID: 8662

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy INF2, Securing sustainable transport requires public EV charging infrastructure to be included if the policy is to be fully effective

Object

Representation ID: 8724

Received: 24/12/2024

Respondent: National Highways

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Rutland Traffic Modelling
From the review of the most recent information provided on 16 October 2024, our comments below provide our latest position on the traffic modelling evidence base for the Rutland Local Plan testing.
a) We have reviewed the modelling methodology applied, which is sensible and proportional for providing an evidence base for the Rutland Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation.
b) The evidence base is developed by creating a version of the Pan Regional Traffic Model (PRTM) developed by Leicestershire County Council to include areas within Rutland. As the model is proportional, the road network to the east of the A1 is less detailed, with the understanding that the Quarry Farm (Monarch Park) site in Stamford is being tested in another local model and other major sites in Oakham and Uppingham are away from the A1.
c) Section 8.3.1 of the LMVR notes that C2 database counts used for validation were collected between September 2022 and November 2022 but were not rebased to 2023, as the factors were insignificant. This is not a concern to us.
d) Thank you for providing us with screenline count details to the west of the A606 / A1 junction with a count ID PRTM-59.27. We note that this location fails in one of two directions in each time period, eastbound in the AM and westbound in the PM peak, overestimating the traffic in both directions while the overall screenline is a very good match to the observed counts. Though not ideal, such issues are not uncommon in such a large regional model and any development traffic routed through this count ID should be monitored.
e) We have noted that the proposed trip generation of future housing developments is proposed to be 0.45 two-way trips per dwelling. This number is acceptable.
f) We are content with the sites chosen to be represented in each of the future scenarios presented and that they are reflection of the uncertainty log within the local plan.
g) The distribution of traffic has been based on the PRTM model. However, we request that distribution flow plots be provided for our review, so we can assess the distributions and how the proposed sites in the local plan will impact the network.
h) We are content with the growth of the network applied from the PRTM model.
i) Several junctions along the A1 are noted as being nearly at or over capacity in all 2041 future-year local plan scenarios. This includes parts of all junctions on the A1 from A1 / A606 by Stamford to Wittering. We note that two of these fall within the Rutland County borders and are likely to require testing against future sites. The junctions are:
a. A1 / A606
b. A1 / A6121
Overall, progress has been made in developing RTM. We would welcome continued engagement and recommend that the modelling results be shared with us and included in the Regulation 20 submission. This inclusion will ensure that National Highways has sufficient information to understand the impacts of the Local Plan on the SRN.

Support

Representation ID: 8728

Received: 24/12/2024

Respondent: National Highways

We acknowledge that the Regulation 19 Local Plan has specifically focussed on policies CC1 – CC14 to tackle climate change through a reduction in carbon emissions, improving sustainable modes of transport, and development of energy efficient buildings etc.
We note that the following policies remain the same as stated in the Regulation 18 consultation and we welcome this. Policy INF2 (Securing Sustainable Transport) sets out the need for planning applications to demonstrate how the development ensures adequate accessibility and connectivity, measures to improve sustainable transport, and the requirement to produce a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan where necessary, and we welcome this. References have been made in Policy INF3 on how developers are expected to create an environment that encourages walking, cycling and public transport when designing their schemes.
Policies CC13 (Provision for Electric Vehicle charging and Electric Bike parking), INF2 (Securing Sustainable Transport) and INF3 (Walking and Cycling and non-car-based journeys) sets guidelines on improving sustainable transport. We appreciate the effort taken in developing these policies and consider this to be aligned with the expectations set out in the National Planning Policy Framework and National Highways’ Net Zero Strategy.