Support

Representation ID: 4640

Received: 05/12/2023

Respondent: Jane Bateman

I support this policy, BUT including Quarry Farm as a site for development in the local plan would be in conflict with much of this policy.

Noted

Support

Representation ID: 5021

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

Agree

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 5100

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes this policy.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 5201

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

There is a risk that the wording effectively prevents the siting of wind turbines or solar farms anywhere in the County. I think that additional or changed wording is needed to show that renewable energy sources (which are effectively temporary in nature - in that they can be removed in the future) will be actively supported. See also policy SC2.

Agreed. Intention to amend wording to not preclude solar or wind development and reference Policy CC8.

Support

Representation ID: 5302

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

Should this policy be amended in order to allow the siting of wind turbines? - as it stands, there is a risk that the wording effectively prevents the siting of wind turbines anywhere in Rutland.

Agree.

Support

Representation ID: 5677

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

This section should be supported as it will ensure that applications are scrutinised carefully to protect our conservation villages and rural landscape. Solar farms are incongruous with much of our landscape. They can never enhance its beauty and will mostly detract from it. No amount if mitigation will disguise ugly industrial solar sites. Section c. and d. Are very important.

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 5832

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

All very important to maintain the character of the area

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 5982

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

Landscape character is important in Rutland, a very rural county. However, development has been permitted where there is high impact on the landscape and Landscape Impact Assessments have been ignored eg Braunston Road North development. Polices must be adhered to

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 6315

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Supported. So in the future new development will be sympathetic to the scale of its landscape setting and context. Excellent.

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 6387

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Bill Deayton

These words need to be supported by action. For example, protecting the approach to south Oakham had been a policy of RCC yet housing development was approved on the Uppingham Road without any landscaping requirements with house design being out of keeping with the town. It has destroyed what was an attractive approach. Words alone are insufficient.

support for the policy noted

Support

Representation ID: 7277

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Clayton

Rutland's open countryside should be protected and the rural environment should be preserved.

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 7310

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

A Policy on landscape character needs to include criteria for when new allocations introduce built form into the landscape. The Policy does this with the following text and is therefore supported - ‘on the edge of settlements, new development should reflect local identity, including the consideration of historic settlement pattern and separation, the historic form of a settlement and how it relates to landform and landscape features’.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 7364

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

This approach is broadly consistent with the requirements for Chapters 15 and 16 of the NPPF as it seeks to protect and enhance valued landscapes and heritage assets.

Policy SC1 also appears to broadly be appropriately evidenced based on the methodology in Rutland’s
Landscape Character Assessment, however, whilst we concur with the overall findings of the Landscape Character Assessment, we note that this is a broad brush
assessment and is not site specific.

Given the high level nature of this assessment, it is not able to identify and adequately address the characteristics and features of the smaller parcels of land around Oakham, some of which are anticipated to accommodate the housing provision allowed for within the plan period (such as ‘Land south of Stamford Road’ (ref. H1.3)). In this regard, we are of the view that the policy should defer, or make reference to the finer grained ‘Rutland Settlement Landscape Sensitivity Study’ (RSLSS) (July 2023).

It is also noted that both the Landscape Character Assessment and the RSLSS were prepared prior to the development at Oakham Pastures. This notably changes the baseline position for the SMV sites, and therefore it is important that these policies and evidence base documents are updated to accurately reflect the landscape position of the sites (specifically in regard to the findings in the RSLSS for ‘Land at Uppingham Road’).

In regard to ‘Land south of Stamford Road’ the RSLSS recorded at “Medium/Low” Sensitivity to housing development.

Overall, we broadly concur with the findings and comments, although query the reference to the role of the site as an ‘important gateway’ and the parcel’s susceptibility to development’. Whilst it is agreed the site occupies a gateway location, we are of the view that the RSLSS should have noted that the site’s visual role and its interrelationship with the wider landscape is very much focused on a small area stretching from the A6003 Burley Park Way and Stamford Road roundabout west along the site’s boundary with Stamford Road. Indeed, this is an unusually focused and limited area of interinfluence. This is a result of the site’s physical and visual containment provided by its urban context with housing along its western and northern edges and additional containment provided by significant planting and trees along its remaining southern and eastern boundaries.

In regard to ‘Land at Uppingham Road’, the RSLSS recorded as being “High” Sensitivity to housing development.

It is clear that the RSLSS was prepared when the Spinney Hill housing development formed the southern edge of the town. This is no longer the case as the Oakham Pastures development has extended the town further south and now forms the arrival edge into the town of Oakham. It is therefore considered that in relation to ‘Land at Uppingham Road’, the landscape policies and evidence base documents are outdated and should be revised to reflect the new landscape character of the southern area of the town.

Comments noted, however the policy criteria do not depend on or derive from the Landscape Character Assessment and therefore it is not considered appropriate to also reference the Landscape Sensitivity Study nor is it considered necessary to update this evidence each time a development takes place.

Support

Representation ID: 7585

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Criteria c) is welcomed.

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 7799

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We support landscape protection policies, which are consistent with the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 7934

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

Policies SC1 Landscape Character - Generally Support

Concern with regard to our own Settlement Edge. Will not support any further development between Ryhall and Belmesthorpe on the Belmesthorpe Lane, and Meadow Lane Ryhall. The PLD should be regarded as immutable for the duration of the Local Plan

Support for policy noted.
Concern regarding further development between Ryhall and Belmesthorpe is also noted however reference should also be given to the changes proposed to Chapter 5 Spatial Strategy and specifically policy SS3 (which will become policy SS2 in Regulation 19 Plan) regarding development outside PLDs