Support

Representation ID: 4864

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Burley Parish Meeting

I agree with all objectives "A" through to "J"

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5164

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

New activity must be co-located with existing sites and no new employment-intensive sites in rural areas.

Objection noted.
Policy SS1 etsablishes the levels of employment needed for the plan period and sets out where this development should be. The majority of new development will be focused within the PLDs.
Policy SS9 (now SS8) is in accordance with the NPPF which states that planning policies should enable sustainable growth and expansion of all types of businesses in rural areas (para. 88).
Additionally, the NPPF recognises that these may be outside of existing settlements and states the need to ensure that the developments are sensitive and do not impact on local roads. (para. 89)

Support

Representation ID: 5247

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

The policy criteria (a to j, and a to h) must be very strictly applied to restrict new small sites providing opportunities to expand easily into large sites. New developments should ideally be attached to those that already exist.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5419

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Should the title of the Policy be Non-Residential development in the Open Countryside.

Response noted.
The 'countryside' refers to all land which is not within the Planned Limits of Development. No change is required.

Object

Representation ID: 5816

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Tighter control required

Objection noted.
SS1 sets out the employment need during the plan period and will focus the majority of development within the PLDs.
The policy is in line with the Part 6 of the NPPF and Policy SS9 (now SS8) ensures that all development is based on an essential need. The development is further restricted by what would need to be demonstrated.
No policy change required.

Support

Representation ID: 6306

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Supported.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6344

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I agree with b,c and would allow f and j, but the others seem to be too broad to support in principle.
All others seem to be valuing economic development at the expense of rural landscape and nature- this is short-sighted, as the value of nature capital has been historically undervalued and there is as climate emergency which needs to be prioritised (indeed a climate emergency has been declared by RCC). Only essential development should be permissible.

Objection noted.
Policy SS1 establishes the level of housing and employment needed for the plan period. It states that the majority of new development will be focused within the Planned Limits of Development and as such Policy SS9 (now SS8) will only come into account where there is an essential need. SS9 (now SS8) also requires non-residential development in the countryside to demonstrate that this cannot be accommodated within the PLDs and that it would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 6998

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Cavendish Gospel Hall Trust

Agent: Andrew Beard Planning

Policy SS9 is not in accordance with NPPF 89, it should reflect the inclusion of community needs. This is missing and a clear error and omission. Employment is suitably referenced but community uses are not. Many PBCC churches are rural locations to serve rural congregations

Objection noted.
Policy SS9 (now SS8) 5. states that
'new employment growth comprising of sustainable rural tourism, leisure, or rural enterprises that creates local employment opportunities and supports the local economy and communities...'
Policy SS9 (now SS8) therefore takes into consideration community need and no policy change is required.

Object

Representation ID: 7005

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Stoke Dry Estate

Agent: Phillips Planning Services

Policy SS9 suggests that permission will only be granted where it is for one of ten purposes as listed.

The Policy wording should be amended to remove “only” from the first sentence. At present by including “only” the policy appears to be seeking to exclude consideration of any other development not specifically listed. By removing “only” the Policy would read more positively

Criterion (e) is supported in principle.
However, the criterion includes a requirement that it is demonstrated that there are no acceptable alternative sites within existing permitted or allocated sites or as part of the redevelopment of a commercial site. It is suggested that criterion (e) is amended as follows:

“(e) new employment growth comprising sustainable rural tourism, leisure, or rural enterprise that creates local employment opportunities and supports the local economy and communities and where no acceptable alternative can be identified within existing permitted or allocated sites, or within or through redevelopment of
existing commercial premises. Where a proposal is of a scale or nature that clearly requires a countryside location or is associated with or is required to service an
existing rural attraction it will not be necessary to undertake an alternative site assessment.

This change would also better align with criterion ii of Policy E4 ‘Rural Employment’

Criterion (h) - This wording is too restrictive and that the policy should lend support for other forms of farm diversification projects in addition to waste management. It
may also be considered contradictory when read in conjunction with Policy E5

We ask that the wording is changed as follows:
“h) farm diversification generally and also that which supports waste management development.”

Objection noted.
Policy SS1 established the housing and employment needs for the plan period. It states that the majority of this need will be met within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) and through site allocations within the plan. Policy SS9 (now SS8) only comes into effect where there is an essential need, which is in line with the NPPF (para 88 and 89) which outlines that in some cases there will need to be development in rural areas to account for community and employment need. SS9 (now SS8) ensures that the development proposed is based on and can demonstrate an essential need where the development is not attainable in an other suitable location within the PLD.

Object

Representation ID: 7231

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Colin Dodd

There are a number of ambiguous statements in planning policies SS9 and SS10.
The existing policies CS4, CS16 and SP7 provide a greatly level of clarity than the new policies and it is easier to see how a planning decision will be reached on planning applications. These new policies do not provide a robust or enforceable position with which to defend the county from unwanted development in the countryside.

The lack of clarity will lead to the ruination of rural Rutland, with farms becoming industrial estates warehouses and storage units, rather than being there to feed the nation and as custodians of the natural environment we all enjoy.

The new policies do not have the required level of clarity to provide a clear understanding of what development will and will not be classed as acceptable in the countryside.

Objection noted.
Policy SS1 establishes the housing and employment need for the plan period and states that the majority of these will be within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) and through the allocation of sites. SS9 (now SS8) only comes into effect where there is an essential need and the policy lists what the development will have to demonstrate in order for this to be acceptable and ensure the development will not have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the existing landscape. This is in line with the NPPF (paras 88 and 89) which state that in some cases development will need to be situated in the countryside to meet community and economic needs.

Support

Representation ID: 7513

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing PC is supportive of non-residential developments for the purposes outlined in the policy, especially if they create local employment opportunities, but there must be safeguards to ensure that the scale of development and any traffic it generates is appropriate to the size and facilities of the existing community.

Support noted.
The requirements of SS9 (now SS8) state that proposals would have to demonstrate that 'the development would not generate an unacceptable increase in the amount of traffic movements, and it is capable of being served by public transport or otherwise is readily accessible by means other than by private car to a significant residential workforce is employment intensive uses are proposed.'

Object

Representation ID: 7679

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: South Luffenham Parish Council

Not Descriptive enough - would a “motor cross” site and impact on the landscape and environment be acceptable.

Objection noted. SS9 (now SS8) 7. states that economic projects which have a functional need to be located in the countryside and have a demonstrable economic benefit to the County and significantly outweighs any harm and there are no unacceptable adverse environmental impacts
SS9 (now SS8) also states that 'the development itself or cumulatively with other development, would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the landscape.' No policy change required.

Support

Representation ID: 7905

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS9 Non-residential Development in the Countryside - Support

Support noted.