Object

Representation ID: 8053

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: Mr Christopher Jordan

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Comments regarding the format and nature of the consultation, not being user friendly and not providing a neutral or general comment option.

Support

Representation ID: 8065

Received: 30/10/2024

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

The Woodland Trust, a UK-based woodland conservation charity, is seeking to collaborate with Rutland County Council to develop policies for trees and woodlands in its Local Plan.
The Local Plan (LP) should prioritise the protection of valued habitats, particularly ancient woodlands (AVTs), from loss and damage. It should consider the Ancient Tree Inventory and adhere to buffering standards for these habitats. The LP should also require all development projects to deliver a 20% BNG minimum, maintain BNG units for at least 50 years, and maintain habitat creation funded through other mechanisms. LNRSes should be used for local site allocation, green infrastructure, and habitat creation. The LP should also set standards for high-quality green infrastructure and habitat creation.

Object

Representation ID: 8068

Received: 12/11/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Emphasis on the need for the Plan to be up-to-date means we are surprised that the Council is pressing ahead with the current draft plan unamended to reflect the housing requirement that the new NPPF Standard Methodology will require. There is no disadvantage to amending the draft Plan, which would go a considerable way to meeting the requirements of the revised methodology.

Including sites that have already been assessed, but excluded, would save time and resource for the Council and site promoters, producing an adopted Plan that would be compliant with, or substantially compliant with, the new NPPF when published.

Object

Representation ID: 8084

Received: 24/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Michael Reid

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Rutland is very rare. It is a fairly rural part of England. England already has one of the densest populations in Europe and this plan will make it worse. It is being driven by central govt edicts which breach a number of laws.
The destruction of wild Habitat and biodiversity is given insufficient weight and consideration.
As such this clearly breaches the Human Rights of our children and grandchildren.

Object

Representation ID: 8130

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Why bring forward a Local Plan that is so unsound and not positively prepared that it will need reviewing as soon as it is adopted?

Why not address these challenges and solve the housing provision problem at the outset rather than limiting new housing and perpetuating the status quo for the next 15 years, making the situation even worse?

The proposed revised method confirms a housing need figure for Rutland of 264 dwellings per annum. This draft Local Plan skirts around this issue, seeking to 'bank' a lower level of housing in the face of evidence of much higher need.

Object

Representation ID: 8139

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: John Winchester

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Draft Local Plan Rutland Council has proposed for the 2024 version has seen some unsightly and subtle changes perhaps intended to mislead local residents or at best merely misplaced rushed revisions.
It was visions of the traditional countryside that determined our wish to purchase a property in Rutland.
The 2024 version of the draft local plan now seems to go against and be contrary to national planning policy. I can find no evidence within the published documents that supports the vast revisions you have made between 2023 and 2024 versions of the draft local plan.

Support

Representation ID: 8178

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Melton Borough Council

No likely significant cross boundary impacts for Melton Borough Council. Please consult Melton Borough Council on future planning applications within CC8 designations in proximity to the borough boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 8179

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Rutland County Council (RCC) claim that the Local Plan is community-led, but this is not the intention as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework. The plan process has felt done to rather than involved, resulting in a plan that the community could more readily support.
The Leader's Foreward to the Local Plan highlights the need to meet NPPF requirements and proceed to the EiP under current regulations. However, the Local Plan must be reviewed due to emerging new draft guidance, including a higher dwelling target for Rutland. The review is likely to begin before the EiP starts and has no clarity on whether it will cover the entire plan or specific topic areas. This makes commenting on the Local Plan difficult and potentially unreliable.

Object

Representation ID: 8181

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

4. Role of Neighbourhood Plans We continue to welcome the support for Neighbourhood Plans - Cottesmore’s having been adopted (made) in December 2016. We do however consider that contrary to the national guidance there is not sufficient attention played to their role in allocating development sites, most particularly for housing. It is for this reason (as set out in point 1 above) that we have consistently emphasised the need for more community participation- which could have identified suitable sites using that process. We accept that at least some of Cottesmore’s Neighbourhood Plan would need to be reviewed in the light of a new adopted Local Plan for Rutland, but it is really not clear when this should best be implemented. In practical resource terms it probably would need to be after the 2025 onwards plan review. Better still would be to work with the relevant parishes to identify sensible and sustainable locations for future development. None of this is covered in the Reg.19 consultation, which again appears to challenge the soundness of the draft.

Object

Representation ID: 8233

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The programme in Appendix 1 of the LDS 2022-2025 (Jan 23) is ineffective. While the plan has reached the Reg19 stage this is at a time of significant national policy change and as such the ability and indeed logic of progressing it in its current form maybe difficult and unwise.

Object

Representation ID: 8261

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Trott

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Your plan is not in compliance with your Strategic Objectives 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 and 10 regarding Quarry Farm development. Climate damaged, development not sustainable for Stamford, damages local economy and destroys local communities, infrastructure is not being developed to support the expansion plans. Regarding the sections of your plan not covered here, they are just waffle which does not constitute as being a serious strategic objective worthy of consideration.

Stop this development and the damage which it will cause to the beautiful town of Stamford, it is not in your County, do not damage it for your benefit.

Support

Representation ID: 8267

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Richard Harris

I am able to support the plan. I believe my objections along with those of hundreds of others to the potential development site on Brooke Road being included in the plan have been considered and taken into account - thank you to all concerned. I do have further concerns however with the revision in the latest SHELAA which downgrades the site from Highway Safety perspective from red to amber with absolutely no justification or evidence.

Support

Representation ID: 8274

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Empingham Parish Council

These comments are submitted by Empingham Parish Council ( “EPC”) .

EPC in general supports the Regulation 19 pre-submission draft Rutland Local Plan and, in relation to Empingham, considers it to be sound in accordance with S.20 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and the criteria set out in paragraph 5 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 8379

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The pre-submission draft Local Plan for Uppingham, focusing on housing development within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) of Oakham and Uppingham, includes a low growth rate of 123 dwellings per annum. The plan is too vague and reliance on an unmade Neighbourhood Plan could negatively impact housing allocations.

Support

Representation ID: 8421

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Maureen Thomas

The term "positively prepared" is rather a let out as it is a general term for much more specific requirements given in the government guidance. however RCC has made a praise worthy effort to inform and involve local people.

Support

Representation ID: 8433

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Recent consultations on the NPPF and housing need will impact the Rutland Local Plan. The Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) from Angela Raynor stresses the necessity for local authorities to have development plans, particularly for those nearing the examination stage. The HBF encourages the Rutland Council to prepare a sound Local Plan that is ready for adoption. Inclusion of clause and paragraph numbers in policies is recommended for better referencing by stakeholders. The proposed plan period of 2021 to 2041 should ensure compliance with NPPF guidelines, necessitating adoption by 2026 for a full 15-year coverage.

Object

Representation ID: 8458

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Viability assessments must support sustainable development and ensure that policy requirements do not hinder the deliverability of the Plan. The 2023 Viability Assessment indicates that while overall values have slightly increased, the introduction of the Future Homes Standard Option 1 will raise build costs, necessitating caution in relying on brownfield sites. The Home Builders Federation (HBF) raises concerns regarding the assumptions in the Viability Assessment, particularly about the costs of mandatory biodiversity net gain (BNG) and the unestablished off-site credit market. Compliance with current and future regulations, such as the new part L and the Building Safety Levy, is projected to significantly increase costs per plot, impacting overall viability. Continuous monitoring of the viability study and policy requirements is essential as the costs of BNG and Future Homes emerge.

Support

Representation ID: 8467

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: RWE Renewables UK

Agent: Stantec

RWE is pleased to see that the Council has progressed the Draft Plan within a relatively short timeframe, especially given the fluctuating legislative and policy context of the last few years. RWE is keen to support the Council with achieving its programme, which includes examination in 2025

RWE is generally supportive of the draft policies contained within the Draft Plan. Particularly those which relate to renewable energy generating infrastructure. Nonetheless, specific comments have been provided to ensure that the Draft Plan contains policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals, as is required of plans by NPPF paragraph 16. This would support a plan which is consistent with national policy, which is a necessary test of soundness.

Object

Representation ID: 8478

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objects to timing of plan before new NPPF release.

Object

Representation ID: 8516

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Robin Clarke

Agent: Lanpro

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The draft Local Plan should be amended insofar as the protection of the countryside and particularly small villages and hamlets such as
Seaton. The protection to the countryside and settlements without PLD will help to focus
development within locations that are most sustainable and suitable, whilst also allowing for small scale infill development. One way to do this, in our view, is to amend the Conservation Area boundary, as shown above, and identify the greenfields to the south of Church Lane as ‘Important Open Space’.
This would enable policy H1 to be consistent with policy SS1 and the key vision and objectives of the
emerging growth strategy of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8539

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Our response recommends a number of changes to draft Local Plan policies in order to ensure the
soundness of the Plan, with reference to paragraph 35 of the NPPF (2023). This includes a number of minor amendments to the draft site allocation of Land south of Stamford Road (Policy H1.1), including in relation to the ‘key principles’ and application submission requirements

Object

Representation ID: 8540

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The present publication/consultation of this Local Plan has been rushed – it is therefore premature and fails to adequately properly provide for the objectives and achievement of long-term sustainable development. We therefore seriously question how the present Local Plan Strategy helps to deliver its vision and objectives, or the Council’s main Corporate Strategy and its 4 No main priorities of:
• tackling the climate emergency
• creating a diverse and sustainable local economy
• supporting the most vulnerable
• providing good public services

Object

Representation ID: 8555

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Plan is found sound on a variety of levels. RCC are rushing to avoid seeking to meet the actual “needs” of its residents. RCC are failing to adhere to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), particularly regarding affordable housing. RCC has not demonstrated its obligations to cooperate with neighboring areas, particularly in light of strategic cross-boundary requirements. The draft plan aims for the minimum housing provision and suggests locations that do not align with actual needs, potentially leading to social and economic decline.

Object

Representation ID: 8602

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Should include a policy to support Anglian Water Services in bringing forward applications for increased capacity or environmental improvements at the Water Recycling Centres, and to support water infrastructure development at Rutland Water as well as the recreational activities and related employment. The renewable energy challenges faced by Rutland should also underpin policy which would support AWS and partners in bringing forward proposals for wind and solar energy generation. Energy use and resilience to climate change means that AWS is now looking to secure on site and private wire renewable electricity supplies to support water and wastewater services for Rutland and other areas communities and businesses.

Object

Representation ID: 8635

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council's approach would thus appear to be
contrary to the NPPF, Paragraph 16c, which requires that plans should be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers, communities and local organisations, amongst others

Support

Representation ID: 8659

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

Manton Parish Council state 'no comment'

Support

Representation ID: 8660

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: South Luffenham Parish Council

The Reg 19 Plan is sound and therefore we support it.

Object

Representation ID: 8666

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The absence of a clear vision statement undermines the coherence of key policies, with potential development scales conflicting with existing objectives. There are discrepancies between strategic objectives and related policies, which must be addressed to achieve intended outcomes. Many environmental policies lack specificity, increasing the risk of challenges and complicating application determinations.

Object

Representation ID: 8667

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Plan does not include a management summary or a clear strategic vision for Rutland's future. Despite initial community feedback on the Regulation 18 version, there has been minimal consultation regarding changes leading to the Regulation 19 version. Many policies, including those on environmental issues, are presented with subjective caveats, leading to potential misinterpretations. Certain policies, particularly Policy SS3, contradict sustainable development principles and fail to address past planning failures. The Plan mentions the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) but lacks specific references and guidance on its application in Rutland.

Object

Representation ID: 8683

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

AWS broadly supports the draft Plan and considers its spatial approach is deliverable.
AWS submits this representation with the intention that it enables joint work with RCC prior to the Local Plan’s submission for Examination, supports agreed Modifications and so will avoid unresolved Issues being taken to Examination. We recognise at this stage of the Plan that some evidential gaps may only be possible to be resolved when a new Plan is progressed which considers the uplift in housing need proposed by Government in July 2024. That evidence base should include an Integrated Water Management Study, an updated SFRA using soon to be published EA modelling and Whole Life Carbon Assessment.