Support

Representation ID: 4559

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Kevin Corby

Support in General, however large scale detached properties should not be considered as 'essential need'!

Support of policy noted.
Paragraph 84 (a) of the NPPF states the essential need for housing for rural workers.

Support

Representation ID: 5163

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5239

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

It is essential that these policy requirements are very strictly adhered to in order to prevent the development of large, stand alone properties in the open countryside.

Support of policy noted.
Developments will be required to adhere to these policies once the plan is adopted.

Support

Representation ID: 5281

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Tracey Chadwick

This policy needs to be in place to project the character of rural Rutland. I would like to highlight that the proposal for Land off Mill Lane, Cottesmore is for open market housing and does not meet with the exceptions specified in this policy for allowing development in the countryside.

Support of the policy noted.
A site assessment process was completed which considered the discussed site suitable for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 5529

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

The Dovecote site is a particular case where policy should make a way for proposals that can secure the asset with a long-term purpose through enabling development. We would suggest that Policy SS8 would benefit from an additional bullet point provision, as follows:

New-build open market housing will only be permitted in the open countryside where the proposal is for the following uses and which specifically meet the requirements of NPPF and subject to the relevant policies of this plan:
• As enabling development to the extent that they secure the future re-use of heritage assets that are otherwise disused

Noted.
Change not required as Heritage Assets are addressed in Policy EN13.

Object

Representation ID: 5815

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Residential development should have much tighter controls

Objection noted.
Any development within the open countryside is subject to the policies listed within SS7/8 and would have to meet the requirements of all the policies listed.

Support

Representation ID: 5995

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Chadwick

A vital policy to help keep Rutland rural. Land off Mill Lane site is in open countryside and does not meet any of the special requirements listed here, so therefore should be removed from the plan as a potential site for development.

Support of the policy noted.
A site assessment process was completed which considered the discussed site suitable for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6763

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We would ask that a requirement similar to the second part of SS9 is included in this Policy.

Both SS8 and SS9 could share the conditions of the second part of SS9 about developments being required to demonstrate sub-para (a) to (h).

Objection noted.
Any development within open countryside are subject to the additional policies as listed and would have to meet the requirements of these.

Object

Representation ID: 7076

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tony Godwin

What and how will the limits of each small settlement be defined? Will it be the existing village PLD? Will it be the conservation area boundary? If the limit is the boundary around the existing buildings then every piece of ground outside of these will be ‘open countryside’.
It is appreciated that some villages may want some flexibility over development, but others such as Whitwell would prefer to stay with the PLD system as now. This would not contravene the NPPF on development in small villages by stopping development of any kind as you will still be allowing small in-fill and conversion of existing buildings schemes. Can villages not have the option of retaining their PLD’s if they wish?
The concern is that many of the planning conditions designed to limit development in small villages and help them to retain their character are very subjective and will not be capable of standing up to a determined builder or developer particularly on appeal.

Objections noted.
The settlements that do not have PLDs will be considered as open countryside and are therefore restricted to the open countryside policies.

Object

Representation ID: 7256

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

New build in the countryside for proposed gypsy sites should not be a general exemption but should be limited to identified sites. Policy H10 identifies such sites and subject to any conclusions drawn from the Regulation 18 consultation and changes made these should be defined in SS8.

Objection noted.
Bullet point 4 of SS8 (now SS7) relates to Gypsy and Traveller sites, which would have to be in accordance with Policy H10.
Policy H10 sets out the requirements for these sites and the allocations proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 7355

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Policy SS8 states what residential will be permitted in the countryside. It is clear that this policy however fails to consider the provisions of Policy SS1 which enables ‘greenfield sites adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of Oakham and Barleythorpe, Uppingham and the Larger Villages… [to] be released in exceptional circumstances"

To ensure consistency across the strategic policies of the Plan, it is therefore recommended that further clarity is set out in Policy SS8 to enable residential greenfield sites adjoining Planned Limits of Development to come forward, either where there is a clear local housing need to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable housing sites or where sites are allocated through a Neighbourhood Plan.

Objection noted.
Policy SS1 establishes the level of housing needed for the plan period and sets out where this development should be.
SS1 (a) states that the majority of development will be focused mainly within PLDs and allocated sites.
SS1 further states that sites outside the PLDs will only be released in expectational circumstances where the need to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land is demonstrated.
Policy SS1 clearly explains when Policy SS8 (now SS7) will be applied.
Additionally, Policy SS8 (now SS7) states within its description that non-essential development within the rural countryside is inappropriate and will be restricted, but it further states that there are certain types of development which are essential, subject to the requirements set out in Policy SS8 (now SS7).

Object

Representation ID: 7395

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

s80 applications for a residential unit in isolated locations with buildings of “exceptional quality and design”. A clear and definitive policy is required which will avoid applications being approved where they are an extension of the village beyond the PLD. A more robust policy will give more authority to the planning department to successfully control inappropriate applications.
the numbers of dwellings permitted under s80 must be counted in the statistics as “windfall” or other in meeting the housing need numbers.

Objection noted.
The policies proposed throughout the plan are there to control and enable appropriate development.

Object

Representation ID: 7436

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

A further issue relates to the role of the Countryside. In the smaller settlements the countryside plays a critical role in removing the PLD designation in that the PLD is not needed as the presumption is that all land surrounding these settlements is countryside and therefore free from development pressure (except where there are the exceptions relating to small scale re-development, infill and rounding off explained previously).

Thus it could be argued the Countryside in the smaller villages, which is a fundamental restraint policy is theoretically the main protection against development, has greater weight than in the larger villages where it has the PLD to protect it first and only after that is the countryside considered. Overall applying the PLD, a policy with a long history in Rutland, consistently across all its settlements does seem to have some strength. We consider having two different approaches could make it easier for developers to find ways round both these policy approaches.

Objections noted.
The settlements that do not have PLDs will be considered as open countryside and are therefore restricted to the open countryside policies.

Object

Representation ID: 7495

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marlen Godwin

The paragraph relating to SS8 states :-
‘Policy SS8 applies to any land falling outside PLD’s and small settlements covered by policy SS1, is referred to as open countryside, even if it is technically previously developed land’.

What and how will the limits of each small settlement be defined? Will it be the existing village PLD? Will it be the conservation area boundary? If the limit is the boundary around the existing buildings then every piece of ground outside of these will be ‘open countryside’.
It is appreciated that some villages may want some flexibility over development, but others such as Whitwell would prefer to stay with the PLD system as now. This would not contravene the NPPF on development in small villages. Can villages not have the option of retaining their PLD’s if they wish?
The concern is that many of the planning conditions designed to limit development in small villages and help them to retain their character are very subjective and will not be capable of standing up to a determined builder or developer particularly on appeal!

Objections noted.
The settlements that do not have PLDs will be considered as open countryside and are therefore restricted to the open countryside policies.

Support

Representation ID: 7512

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing Parish already has a number of residences that lie outside the PLDs of the main village, and would not wish to see substantial additions to these but we believe the policy offers sufficient safeguards.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7684

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

The thrust of the Policy is similar to Policy E4 and therefore the same comments apply in relation to clearly defining how it can be demonstrated that development cannot be reasonably accommodated within or adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of towns and villages.
This Policy is overly restrictive in relation to the type of new development allowed in the rural area, and the circumstances in which such development would be permitted. The NPPF paras 88-89 are significantly more positively worded to support the rural economy and do not place the same restricts on the construction of new build development.
Further, in order for new build development to be acceptable it appears the Policy requires the assessment of buildings/sites across the whole County to establish whether there are suitable alternative premises. (re)locating employment development across a county wide area is unlikely to be acceptable for the majority of rural enterprise. There is no guidance in the NPPF that requires such an assessment to be made and therefore the Policy goes beyond the requirements of the NPPF.

Objection Noted.
Policy SS1 establishes the housing and employment needs for the plan period, which states the majority will be focused on within the Planned Limits of Development and through Site Allocations. SS9 (now SS8) only comes into effect where there is an essential need for the development which cannot be fulfilled within the PLD. The NPPF too acknowledges that in some cases development will have to be permitted in rural areas to meet local and community needs, and therefore SS9 (now SS8) is supported by the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7700

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Policy SS8 sets out very restrictive circumstances when new-build open market housing will be permitted in the open countryside and this is not consistent with the wording of Policy SS1.

It is important that the policy wording of SS8 is reconsidered to allow for the important flexibility set out in Policy SS1 or that Policy SS8 is cross referenced with Policy SS1 to explain the circumstances when SS8 would not apply.

Objection noted.
Policy SS1 establishes the level of housing needed for the plan period and sets out where this development should be.
SS1 (a) states that the majority of development will be focused mainly within PLDs and allocated sites.
SS1 further states that sites outside the PLDs will only be released in expectational circumstances where the need to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land is demonstrated.
Policy SS1 clearly explains when Policy SS7/8 will be applied.

Object

Representation ID: 7862

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Minor inconsistency – the policy is stated to apply to new build but the third bullet talks about conversions,
which are actually covered in SS10.

Objection noted.
Policy SS8 (now SS7) applies to residential development in the open countryside, which is not just restricted to new builds. Bullet point 3 references the re-use, adaptations and conversions of rural buildings which would be secured by policy SS10 (now SS9).
This does not require a policy change but this will be made clear in the policy description text.

Support

Representation ID: 7904

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS8 Residential Development in the Open Countryside - Support

Support noted.