Support

Representation ID: 4615

Received: 04/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

Agree

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5220

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

In ‘what you told us’:

“The Issues and Options consultation also highlighted a need to ensure that the support for; sympathetic upgrading of Listed Buildings and historic assets to become more energy efficient and sustainable.”

And yet there is no mention of this in the Policy. In particular it would seem essential during a Climate Emergency to support such measures as roof-mounted Solar PV in Conservation Areas as there are so many buildings within CAs in Rutland.

Under Point 5. Surely there is no good reason to disallow sensitive conversion to residential in this period of housing shortage.

This is addressed in final sentence of Policy EN12 which states "Appropriate proposals for energy efficient and renewable energy measures for historic buildings, which adequately safeguard their heritage significance, will be permitted.".

Point is considered. Alterations should be made to the policy.

Support

Representation ID: 5464

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

2c) should emphasise the conservation of traditional features such as kerbstones, and limestone walls - these should be retained, and replaced as necessary in Conservation Areas.
2e) should 'protect trees', not 'aim to protect'.

Support for policy noted. Traditional features such as limestone walls are included within 'materials' in section 2c. We will retain 'aim to' as policy wording has to be deliverable, and has to be positively worded.

Object

Representation ID: 5536

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

Overall, the principle of a policy such as this is supported, as it strikes a balance between protection and the criteria against which development in conservation areas is to be considered. But the operation of it must be questioned, and especially in the context of the NPPF. Section 5 seems to be unnecessarily prescriptive, the next favoured uses seems a limited list of uses, especially in the context that the renovation and rescue of degraded heritage assets is likely to be very costly.

Support of the principle of the policy is noted.
The use hierarchy is to ensure that the heritage asset is protected. It does not restrict the change to other uses where it can be demonstrated that the preferable use(s) are not viable.
No change required.

Support

Representation ID: 5721

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Support

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5865

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Support

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5868

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

2. Conservation Areas

Section c) should emphasise the conservation of traditional features such as kerbstones and limestone walls which should be retained and replaced if necessary, as key features of the Conservation Area.

Section e) should replace “aim to protect trees...” with “protect trees ...”.

Support for policy noted. Traditional features such as limestone walls are included within 'materials' in section 2c. We will retain 'aim to' as policy wording has to be deliverable, and has to be positively worded.

Support

Representation ID: 6360

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Generally supported, but again I think this could go further - particularly under 3. Archaeology.

Where the preservation of archaeological remains in-situ cannot be guaranteed - then it should be demonstrated that the development can't be undertaken in a different location.

Support noted.
Policy EN13 states where it is not possible to ensure the preservation of archaeological remains in-situ, provision must be made for preservation by record according to an agreed written scheme of investigation.
The policy allows for an instance where it may not be possible to ensure the preservation of archaeological remains in-situ. No changes required.

Object

Representation ID: 6619

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Comments made on behalf of the DIO as part of a full written response to Rutland Council. Representations should be read in context and not in isolation.

Please see DIO comments in respect of Policy EN12. It is suggested that Policies EN12 and EM13 could be combined into one single policy.

2 separate policies have been used to address all historic, cultural and heritage matters, as a singular policy was found to be unwieldly and difficult to interpret and implement.

Support

Representation ID: 6777

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We would support a review of the Conservation Area in Barrowden as there are a number of parts of the village where it is not appropriate to have them so designated.

Support of policy noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7106

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Any development in North Stamford is likely to impact on Stamford Historic Town Centre – the first conservation area in the country. It will also impact on the Northfields Conservation Area, as people travelling from North Stamford to the Town Centre or to retails parks on the east side of the Town, may pass through it. The Town Centre is already subject to considerable traffic congestion and a lack of sufficient car-parking spaces. This is likely to have a serious impact on the Town Centre creating the risk of further damage to the historic environment.

Noted. Stamford's Conservation Area falls outside the County boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 7149

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

We object to this policy as it seems unnecessarily restrictive. If we are to protect and maintain historic buildings which become unsuitable for their current use or which have been disused for some time, the property owner should have the freedom to bring that building back into whatever use most suits their requirements. An owner may not wish to start a tourism or recreation business or rent the space out to another business and a residential use may be the most suitable use of their building whilst serving a housing need and freeing up an existing home for another occupier. Eg some property owners such as the elderly may need a more suitable home to meet their changing needs which they can’t find elsewhere in the village and they may not wish to leave the village if they still enjoy living there. This policy as drafted is not in the spirit of other policies in the Plan which encourage re-use of existing buildings as it could result in existing buildings not being used and create greater demand for new buildings.

Objection noted.
Policy EN13 states that for designated heritage assets, national policy will be applied. Para 206 of the NPPF states that 'any harm or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification'. Para 207 states that 'where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm (or total loss) of a designated heritage asset, local authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss..'

Object

Representation ID: 7297

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton and Tinwell Joint Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

We welcome the emphasis in this policy on the protection of non-designated heritage assets, for example ridge and furrow. However, EN13 is another policy where the relationship between the Local Plan and local specifications with relevant Neighbourhood Plans could be helpfully reinforced.

Neighbourhood Plan policies relate to the Neighbourhood Plan area and as such are not always relevant to the wider county. Policies relating to protecting heritage assets within Neighbourhood Plans will be material considerations for decision-making alongside EN13.

Object

Representation ID: 7378

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Whilst the aim to protect designated heritage assets aligns with the provisions of the NPPF (2023), it is important to ensure that the weight applied to the asset’s conservation aligns with the significance of the heritage asset.

The NPPF is clear that plans should set out a ‘positive strategy’ for the conservation of the historic environment and states, for instance, that proposals that make a positive
contribution to the asset should be treated favourably. On this basis, it is important that Policy EN13 is applied positively in order to ensure that appropriate development is not unnecessarily restricted. It is also recommended that Policy EN13 is reviewed to ensure that it is not overly prescriptive to the design of new development and to avoid any unnecessary duplication with other policy guidance (such as the reference to the aim to protect trees).

Comments noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7591

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

This policy is strongly welcomed together with its supporting text.

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7639

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edward Heckels

It is wonderful that there are more buildings being considered for preservation. However, I believe that the sites considered should be open to the public. It would not be fitting to use public money to renovate private monuments with no public benefit.

Support of the policy noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7809

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We note Policies EN12 and EN13. We have some concern over the wording for conservation areas, which sits uncomfortably with the statutory duty for conservation areas under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Objection noted.
Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states 'special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.'
Policy EN13.2 states that 'Significant weight will be given to the protection and enhancement of Conservation Areas). Development within should conserve, or where appropriate enhance, features that contribute positively...'
2.a - 2.e outlines the ways in which developments should preserve and/or enhance the areas.
The wording for Policy EN13 is in line with the wording under Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Object

Representation ID: 7849

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Alicia Kearns

The current section in the Plan on Heritage Assets Protections simply affirms that Rutland will follow national policy. It is vital that Rutland specific policies are added that can be considered for planning applications. Simply affirming that Rutland will adhere to national laws does not allow for the guidance to be used as a determining factor. The lack of definitions and clear policies on what constitutes a heritage asset, when development will be permitted on heritage assets and how much weight heritage assets will have in planning determination must be amended.

Policy EN12 states what constitutes as a heritage asset and a non-designated heritage asset.
Policy EN12 sets out how the national policy will be implemented.
Policy EN13 states how heritage assets will be protected using national policy.
As such EN12 and EN13 are in line with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Support

Representation ID: 7955

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

EN13 Protection of Heritage Assets - Support

Support of the policy noted.