Object

Representation ID: 8088

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Lyddington Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposed northwestward extension of Lyddington’s Planned Limits of Development (the PLD) boundary is incorrect and unsound as it is not justified by the evidence; it is ineffective; and it is not consistent with national policy. It does not, as required, adjoin the 2014 PLD boundary. It makes future further housing in this location highly likely.

It should preferably be deleted entirely or, alternatively, the inclusion in the PLD of a small, highly visible field to the west of Main Street should be omitted.

Object

Representation ID: 8089

Received: 25/11/2024

Respondent: Lyddington Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Lyddington, with other small and unsustainable villages, should not be defined in policy SS1(1) as locations for major housing applications if there is an insufficient supply of housing land.

The policy is not sound as justifying evidence is lacking; it is not effective in steering major housing to sustainable locations; and it is not consistent with national policy as it does not provide certainty for development.

It should either be deleted and such situations left to existing national policies; or adequate evidence produced to justify it; or Reserve Sites allocated - all subject to public consultation and examination.

Object

Representation ID: 8131

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Mr David Vickery

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I object to the northward extension of Lyddington’s Planned Limits of Development (PLD). It is unsound under the Council’s own criteria and nation planning policy because it is a protrusion outwards from the nucleus of the village into the open countryside.
It threatens further development under the provisions of policy SS2 both within and outside of the PLD.
It should be modified by deleting it. At the very least, the small field on the northern side of the access should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 8134

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Mr David Vickery

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Lyddington should be excluded from the major housing clause in policy SS2 1). The village is not a sustainable settlement which can take large housing developments, as I have explained in my objection to policy SS1.

The policy should be modified to exclude Lyddington (and other unsustainable villages) or it should just rely upon national planning policies to cope.

Object

Representation ID: 8207

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

As I previously wrote (see Annex B below) I have been told that Uppingham holds Lyddington’s allocation for social housing: where are the details of this in the plan?

Support

Representation ID: 8219

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We feel it is important that this policy is included within the Development Plan so that should there be a 5 year housing land supply shortfall, there is a policy (not just the NPPF) that directs local residents and Councillors to the need to address this need on land outside PLDs.

Object

Representation ID: 8268

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Mair

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I support the concerns raised by Lyddington Parish Council regarding Policy SS2 Planned Limits of Development in the village. In summary, my concerns are:

The proposed north-westward extension of Lyddington’s Planned Limits of Development (the PLD) boundary is incorrect and unsound as it is not justified by the evidence; it is ineffective; and it is not consistent with national policy. It does not, as required, adjoin the 2014 PLD boundary. It makes future further housing in this location highly likely.

Object

Representation ID: 8269

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mrs Tracey Mair

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I support the concerns raised by Lyddington Parish Council regarding Policy - SS2(1) Major housing applications. In summary, my concerns are:
Lyddington, along with other small and unsustainable villages, should not be defined in policy SS1(1) as locations for major housing applications if there is an insufficient supply of housing land.
The policy is not sound as justifying evidence is lacking; it is not effective in steering major housing to sustainable locations; and it is not consistent with national policy as it does not provide certainty for development.

Object

Representation ID: 8292

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy SS2 seeks to limit growth in Rutland’s settlements only to the proposed allocation sites and specific forms of development within the Planned Limits to Development (PLDs); which are very tightly drawn. That approach is clearly unduly inflexible in light of the clear issues of unsoundness, and WDH’s responses to Policies SS1 and H1 highlight how the spatial strategy should be revisited to identify additional housing allocation sites. In that regard, Policy SS2 and the identified PLDs must be amended accordingly to reflect any changes to the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 8463

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Silverley Properties Ltd

Agent: Turley

Silverley are supportive of the approach adopted by the Council in relation to this policy and consider that the scope set out through criteria 1-3 could enable sites adjacent to the Planned Development Limits to come forward in the Larger Villages where very few allocations are currently being proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 8482

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Ruth Skinner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The extended planned limit of development has extended to the West side of Poplars farm. We express concern regarding a potential increase of traffic and heavy vehicles. Additional infrastructure of hard surface area would only increase potential flood water.

Object

Representation ID: 8483

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Ruth Skinner

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

This same Area (West side of Poplars Farm) is also a potential wildlife area with two established ponds and natural springs. The pond to the rear of Springfield House has been designated a local wildlife site candidate. We question why this one has been selected over numerous other ponds in the area ? There are two ponds opposite Poplars Farm and three behind Stone View Farm Stonehouse farm to the East of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 8488

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Brent Snape

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I understand the Regulation 19 Draft Local Consultation Plan (the “Plan”) is seeking to:

• Designate Lyddington a “Larger Village”; and
• Increase the current area on planned limits of development.

Both of the above are designed to increase the opportunity with regard to the level of development in and around the village.

Object

Representation ID: 8491

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SS2 establishes the support for policy compliant proposals within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) as indicated on the policies map. The supporting texts confirms Neighbourhood Plans can make “small scale” adjustments to PLDs, which will be reviewed and amended by subsequent Local Plan reviews. Allison Homes consider the PLDs should be extended to incorporate the proposed allocation of Ayston Road, Uppingham given the advanced stage of the Neighbourhood Plan review.

Object

Representation ID: 8492

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Brent Snape

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

RCC designated Lydddington a Conservation Area, and put in place the current planned limits of development to protect and enhance the various characteristics it identified (including many heritage assets and its secluded setting amongst other things) to preserve these characteristics. The Plan as currently drafted would appear to have ignored (or at least not commented on) how it would impact on Lyddington’s Conservation zone status.

Object

Representation ID: 8515

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Robin Clarke

Agent: Lanpro

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Seaton is not proposed to have a PLD, my client is concerned that this could lead
to/encourage inappropriate speculative development coming forward, which could have a
detrimental impact on the unique character of the village.

Object

Representation ID: 8524

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 to support the principle of development within the identified PLD is supported.
9.2.2. The PLD have been drawn at the most sustainable settlements in the County, including Oakham, as set out at Policy SS1 based on the Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper (August 2023).
Minor modifications are however required to Policy SS2 in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of policies (based on Paragraph 16 of the NPPF (2023)). This includes the somewhat contradictory reference made to proposals being ‘in accordance with all relevant Local Plan policies will be supported in principle’, as well as the references made to development being ‘sensitive to its surroundings’ and to highways impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 8601

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Planned limits of development and proposals maps - Barrowden

Object

Representation ID: 8618

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

No longer based on sound evidence as development proposals at Braunston (Larger Village) would, for example, now be highly likely to be objected to by AWS given its recent history of dry weather flows and consequent risk of pollution if addition homes were connected to the sewerage network.

Similarly, applications for new homes at settlements such as Ridlington (Smaller Village) would result in an objection by AWS as these are served by WRC with descriptive permits which AWS will not be investing in in the next five years and where such investment would not be efficient
or deliver carbon economies of scale.

A positively prepared plan should instead direct growth to
locations with known infrastructure capacity and/ or settlements where planned investment will look to remove constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 8641

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policies SS2, Development within Planned Limits of Development, and SS3, Small scale development on the edge of settlements, are crucial in preventing development from straying into open countryside. However, it is unclear whether PLDs around smaller villages have caused problems in the past and why they have been removed. Without PLDs, there will be more opportunities for development to encroach on the surrounding rural environment. The policy is not fully compliant with Strategic Objective 8, Protect and enhance the built and natural environment. The Council's Authority Monitoring Reports show that unsustainable development in small villages has exceeded planning intentions, and additional measures are needed to achieve sustainable development. PLDs play a crucial role in containing development, but their removal may increase unsustainable development. These policies are considered inconsistent with Policy H1, unjustified, and unlikely to be effective.

Object

Representation ID: 8698

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

SS2 which might support planning applications if there is less than 5 years housing land supply, a situation that should be avoided as unsuitable greenfield sites may be brought forward