Object

Representation ID: 8056

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: Abbey Developments Ltd

Agent: CMYK Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy should recognise that there will be other opportunities for infill development in locations not on the edge of settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 8165

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Stoke Dry Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

1. There does not appear to include any clear guidance of how a site will be assessed / judged in terms of what is meant by “on the edge” of the settlement. That is, does the site have to directly adjoin an defined settlement boundary or will a more subjective case by case assessment be made.

2. Criterion 2. As set out in our objection to Policy SS1 it is considered that the infilling definition should be amended

3. Criterion H. Would result in little or potentially no development delivered under the scope of this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8243

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This policy is wholly unclear in several respects and should not rely on footnotes of explanation.
We object to the lack of clarity about what development may be acceptable and where; we object to the requirement that such development should demonstrate ‘substantial support’ or as variously described in the footnote ‘local community support’ and/or ‘clear local community support’.
Undefined ‘clear local community support’ cannot be a determinative factor where all of the criteria a) to g) to be met. Planning decisions should be based upon planning merits and not the predilection or otherwise of local communities to support development

Object

Representation ID: 8572

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

the approach within Policy SS1 and SS3 to remove the PDLs from Smaller Villages and limit development to a maximum of 5 dwellings conflicts with NPPF paragraph 35

Object

Representation ID: 8619

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 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: 8669

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The conditions or “provisos” (a) to (g) in Policy SS3 will enable developers to make planning applications and perhaps also to successfully appeal against Local Planning Authority refusals given the vagueness and difficulty in determination of these largely subjective conditions.

Clipsham Parish Meeting object to this policy and to all references in the text to it

Object

Representation ID: 8742

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.