Support

Representation ID: 4541

Received: 23/11/2023

Respondent: Stewart MacDonald

I live in Oakham and am pleased to see that some areas have been designated important open spaces. I feel that Rutland Farm Park should also be categorised as such especially as it consists of the original Parkland setting for what is now the Council offices but were formerly a stately home.

Support noted. Rutland Farm Park is protected by the Oakham Conservation Area, the area is also considered open countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 4610

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Agree

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5214

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Bullet c regarding views out of a town of village seems to be yet another set of words that could easily argue against wind turbines and / or Solar PV. I do not support this unless suitably modified.

Policy EN8 is only relevant to developments proposed specifically on a designated Important Open Space or Frontage. The site has to be designated for the Policy to come into play.

Support

Representation ID: 5461

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

'Areas of Important Open Space protected by their type' should include Community Orchards of which there are now several in Rutland.

Support noted. Proposals relating to community orchards will be covered by Policy EN4 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows

Support

Representation ID: 5463

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

'Areas of Important Open Space protected by their type' should include Parish Council owned allotments.

Support Noted. Allotments are safeguarded and are included in the definition of green infrastructure, this is inclusive of Parish Council owner allotments. This list is to be removed from Policy EN8 for accuracy.

Support

Representation ID: 5718

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

.

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5861

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Support,

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5867

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Add orchards to this list, as there are now several community orchards in Rutland.

Support noted. Proposals relating to orchards will be covered by Policy EN4 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows

Object

Representation ID: 6418

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

Whilst I support the focus on these features, the policy is weak and should state these features will be retained

Policy EN8 is not a Green Belt policy therefore development cannot be entirely prohibited. The Policy lists the criteria that must be adhered to, to ensure any proposed development is appropriate and will not have an adverse impact upon the designated area.

Support

Representation ID: 6449

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

I support

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6775

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We would ask that this Policy has a higher level of protection for Important Open Spaces or Frontages for Conservation Areas.

The Policy lists the criteria that must be adhered to, to ensure any proposed development is appropriate and will not have an adverse impact upon the designated area. Important Open Spaces located within a Conservation Area will be subject to the Conservation Area policies therefore the policy doesn't need amendments specific to Conservation Areas.

Object

Representation ID: 7138

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Great Casterton Parish Council

In respect of the interactive map shared on the website for Reg. 18 map, please remove this (on enclosed map) identification for “Important Open Space”, it is out of date. The area identified is the former bowling green. This has now been developed for housing.

Comments noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7159

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr D Young

Agent: Mair Land & Planning Consultants Ltd

With reference to the plan submitted alongside this representation, and on behalf of our client, we consider that the extent of the Important Open Land designation in Caldecott should be reduced.

Our client has aspirations to plant a new hedgerow and trees across the existing designation. The public’s view and enjoyment of the area and interaction with the Important Open Land is at present limited to the area immediately fronting Mill Road, as is shown on the accompanying photographs. Therefore, we propose that the designation be amended to reflect this.

Policy EN8 prevents adverse impact upon Important Open Spaces. Any proposals that would change a designation/review of the boundary would be addressed via the Planning Application process, where the Policy EN8 criteria would be taken into consideration.

Object

Representation ID: 7454

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Sport England

The second part of this policy relates to Important Open Space which are protected by their type and are not shown in the Policies Map. The list of these “other open space” types appears to have been drafted so it is not an exhaustive list as semi-colons are used. If this list is intended to be a closed list, then it should include all playing fields and not just school playing fields.

The policy further goes on to state that important open spaces are to be safeguarded from development and any proposal for their loss will be considered against the criteria in national policy. Playing Fields are protected by their type under Paragraph 103 of the NPPF. Paragraph 103 protects all playing fields from being built and not just those in educational use. This needs to be reflected in the wording.

Comments and wording suggestions noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7460

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

object to current wording - this policy is all about protecting Important Open Spaces (of which we have several in Cottesmore). Therefore it is inconsistent in policy terms to have anything other than a presumption against development, with clarity about any possible exceptions.

Policy EN8 is not a Green Belt policy therefore development cannot be entirely prohibited. Presumption against development is not in accordance with the NPPF. The Policy lists the criteria that must be adhered to, to ensure any proposed development is appropriate and will not have an adverse impact upon the designated area.

Object

Representation ID: 7484

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

This policy provides a presumption in favour of development subject to the development not having an adverse impact upon a number of subjective and vaguely defined principles.

This policy therefore presents great difficulties for determination by Development Control and will undoubtedly fuel disagreement and tensions between the Local Planning Authority and the Rutland community.

This policy should clearly state a presumption against development and any possible exceptions permitting any development need to be clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity or challenges over differences of opinion.

Policy EN8 is not a Green Belt policy therefore development cannot be entirely prohibited. Presumption against development is not in accordance with the NPPF. The Policy lists the criteria that must be adhered to, to ensure any proposed development is appropriate and will not have an adverse impact upon the designated area.

Object

Representation ID: 7523

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

The policy does not acknowledge the information and local priorities reflected in Neighbourhood Plans, including Wing NP. The RCC assessment of open spaces and frontages was apparently done in 2017. The reasoning as to why some assignments in Wing were denied has never been clear or objective, and RCC have not done work they should have done in the past in relation to appraisal of Wing
conserva7on area.

Noted. This is addressed in the supporting text, Important Open Spaces designated within Neighbourhood Plans have not been duplicated within this policy and are therefore not shown on the proposals map. Conservation Area Appraisals fall outside the scope of this Policy and outside the scope of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7588

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

The policy is welcomed. It would be helpful to reference
setting, particularly to the end of criteria d). It would also
be helpful to include reference to heritage assets and
their settings within the supporting text.

The wording “and their settings” be added to the end
of criteria d)

Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7807

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We support the protection of habitats, biodiversity, blue and green infrastructure, and the natural environment in general.

We note the provision of Important Open Space, which complements the Local Green Space designations in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7897

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

This policy provides a presumption in favour of development subject to the development not having an adverse impact upon a number of subjective and vaguely defined principles. It therefore presents great difficulties for determination by Development Control and will undoubtedly fuel disagreement and tensions between the Local Planning Authority and the Rutland community.

This policy should clearly state a presumption against development and any possible exceptions permitting any
development need to be clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity or challenges over differences of opinion.

Policy EN8 is not a Green Belt policy therefore development cannot be entirely prohibited. Presumption against development is not in accordance with the NPPF. The Policy lists the criteria that must be adhered to, to ensure any proposed development is appropriate and will not have an adverse impact upon the designated area.

Support

Representation ID: 7948

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

EN8 Important Open Space & Frontages - Support

Support Noted.