Support

Representation ID: 7328

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The Policy states that “In exceptional circumstances development may be of a scale or nature which creates a requirement for additional new or improved on-site infrastructure. In such cases, developers will be required to provide the additional requirement, to the agreement of the Council in collaboration with the relevant service provider. This will be secured through Section 106 in accordance with the relevant national tests.”.

If Section 106 is to be required in addition to CIL, further details than “In exceptional circumstances…” is considered necessary.

Comment Noted and the removal of the term ‘exceptional circumstances’ suggested. S106 contributions may be sought in addition to CIL where site specific measures are required to make a development acceptable and these measures are not necessarily in exceptional circumstance. For example, affordable housing and specific highway or flood alleviation measures may be required. S106 agreements will need to meet the three tests set out in the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended):
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
• directly related to the development
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

Support

Representation ID: 7379

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The overall approach towards new infrastructure provision is broadly supported. It will however be important to ensure that any planning obligations sought meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF (2023), which states that, ‘Planning obligations must only be sought where they meet all of the following tests:
• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
• directly related to the development; and
• fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.’

Policy INF1 states it is essential that all new development is supported by the provision of the necessary infrastructure, services, utilities and facilities. As such, to ensure the soundness of the Plan, in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF (2023), it will be important to ensure that development is planned for in sustainable locations which are supported by existing local infrastructure or have the potential to support local infrastructure improvements.

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7383

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Norman Milne

The draft IDP refers to the Leisure Needs Study (Nov 2021) and notes “the key issue key issue in terms of built facilities is to secure community access to a pool within Rutland”. However, it fails to advise on the actual ‘delivery’ of such infrastructure.

If the County will grow to a population of 46,000 then, at open space standards of 10.4 sq m swimming pool per 1,000 population, there will be a shortfall of 306 sq m of water (allowing for limited access to private pools). There will be a similar shortfall in schools, healthcare, public transport, roads, utilities, etc. The draft Plan or IDP provides little to demonstrate delivery of the necessary infrastructure or how the CIL rates will be sufficient to pay for them.

Comment Noted. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) will form part of the updated evidence base supporting the Regulation 19 Local Plan. The requirements set out in the IDP will also be taken into consideration in the updated Whole Plan Viability Assessment. Both the IDP and Whole Plan Viability Assessments will form part of the R19 local plan consultation. The IDP identifies the shortfalls in infrastructure provision which should be priorities for CIL funding. There will be a gap between the total cost of all infrastructure requirements identified and the maximum level viably achievable via CIL and or S106. The decision on how priority projects supported by CIL funding will be a decision for RCC and opportunities that may arise for match funding.

Object

Representation ID: 7387

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

Need to plan for infrastructure which would support and control agricultural transport. As agricultural vehicles become larger and more efficient they become more intrusive and dangerous if used on the road network. Policy should refer to a plan for safe agricultural transport. Operators of agricultural vehicles should be required to operate in a safe manner whilst on public roads. Restrictions should be placed on the maximum size of vehicles allowed to be used on narrow roads and through villages. Preferred routes for large agricultural vehicles and adequate notice of vehicle movements could be established in conjunction with communities.

Comment Noted. This falls outside the scope of the Local Plan however, Farmers planning to move oversized machinery on the rural road need to complete Agricultural Vehicle Dispensation Scheme documentation. In normal circumstances, police must be notified at least 24 hours before vehicles more than 3m wide and/or with a speed limit of 40mph or less are taken on the road, or when they are travelling distances greater than five miles. However, applying for annual dispensation is a way to manage the uncertainty of short term dispensations, but it must be done prior to travel and the document should be kept in the vehicle at all times. Once granted, machinery up to 4.3m (14ft) wide can be moved without the need to notify police. This typically includes the majority of medium and large wheeled combines, as well as the bigger tracked tractors. The scheme allows farmers to chaperon their own machines, within a 25-mile radius of their base, using a suitable escort vehicle running ahead to warn oncoming traffic – tractors and telehandlers towing the header can’t be used to escort the combine.

Object

Representation ID: 7467

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

There is not enough attention in this chapter to the importance of infrastructure in delivering the aims of the Local Plan, attention needs to be paid to the way existing infrastructure works and as a consequence whether there should be more fundamental improvements, across Rutland, to those needed to support new development. To some extent the Reg.18 Plan acknowledges this, by identifying that an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is also in preparation. However, it is not clear what the status of the IDP is. Is the intention that it will be part of the eventual adopted Local Plan? If so, how is it to be incorporated and, if not, how will its relationship to the Plan be established and will it be subject to some form of public consultation? Assuming the IDP does what is suggested, what then are the mechanisms that will be used to enable Development Control to take account of its objectives? The IDP will just be an aspirational document, unless it has real teeth and surely it is only the Local Plan process that can achieve that.

Comment Noted. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) will form part of the updated evidence base supporting the Regulation 19 Local Plan. The requirements set out in the IDP will also be taken into consideration in the updated Whole Plan Viability Assessment. Both the IDP and Whole Plan Viability Assessments will form part of the R19 local plan consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 7570

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

The revised IDP will form an essential part of the evidence base in support of this Local Plan. HBF would welcome to the opportunity to review this once it is available.
There is also likely to be a need to revisit the viability assessment once the infrastructure requirements are known.

Comment Noted The revised IDP has been considered in preparation of the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan and has been taken into consideration in the updated Whole Plan Viability Assessment. The IDP will form part of the updated evidence base for the Regulation 19 consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 7610

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Natasha Buswell

Whilst the counties stance on inclusivity is to be admired there is no provision in place to meet the demand for the growing number of children with complex additional special educational needs who are unable to access mainstream schools.

Many of these children are educated outside of the county for example within Leicestershire, which adds an additional costs. Resulting with them not being part of their local community. As the demand grows and the limited places at these specialist school the county needs to consider and plan accordingly for these children and families within the local plan.

Comment Noted. School places fall outside the scope of the Local Plan, however, research highlights that children who fall out of education are at a greater risk of harm and poorer life outcomes overall. We will work with partners, providers and families to ensure children receive their education entitlement and put in place additional support when children need it. Education is one of Rutland’s Children and Young Peoples Strategy’s key aspirations aiming for all children in Rutland experience to have an aspirational and inclusive education offer in their community. This is measured by a variety of indicators including the number of children with identified additional needs, (SEND and with an EHCP) having needs met within their community and a mainstream setting, including a DSP supported place and reduced levels of out of county placements as an overall percentage of the SEND and EHCP cohort. These needs are reflected in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan as part of the new Local Plans evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 7630

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We feel this policy does not contain sufficient detail on foul drainage. We would welcome specific wording on foul drainage being added into the policy, for example ‘Development proposals should demonstrate that adequate mains foul water treatment and disposal already exists or can be provided in time to serve the development ahead of its occupation, this should be through the use of phasing plan or other suitable documents’. We would also request the policy requires developers to discuss proposals with the EA and Anglian Water Services (AWS).
Although contained in policy CC14, this should also be included in INF1.
Additionally, reference should be made to the use of non-mains foul drainage, for example, ‘Non mains foul sewage disposal solutions should only be considered where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible.’ We would also welcome reference to the ‘foul drainage hierarchy’ and associated Building Regs.

Comments noted. Amend Policy wording.

Object

Representation ID: 7969

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

CIL /106 to be Replaced with Infrastructure Levy - Update Required??
Infrastructure requirements should be confirmed and agreed before permission granted for any development. This is the single biggest concern of residents.
Our view is NO INFRASTRUCTURE - NO DEVELOPMENT PERMISSION
Health, Education and transport issues already under stress will only worsen significantly if the population grows as indicated by the growth in housing. This section MUST address the provision of improved infrastructure otherwise the whole plan lacks credibility.

Comment Noted A full review of national policy, encompassing housebuilding, the infrastructure levy, environmental outcomes reporting, resources and more, will need to be tackled quickly by the next administration after July’s general election. The outcomes of this review may not be available to inform the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7979

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Healthcare provision should also include liaison/co-operation with Cambridgeshire/Peterborough and
Northamptonshire ICBs.

Presumably, places of worship are also elements of community infrastructure

Lincolnshire and Leicesetershire & Rutland ICBs have been consulted as part of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan's preparation. Places of worship are also recognised elements of community infrastructure but are not covered specifically by the IDP.

Object

Representation ID: 7987

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

Somewhere in the document I read that new roads can only be built in conjunction with new developments, which would appear to preclude an Uppingham bypass anytime soon. To protect both Caldecott and Uppingham, I suggest a 7.5-ton weight limit on the A6003 from the roundabout at the top of Rockingham Hill to the A47 north of Uppingham. HGVs would travel from Corby on the A43 to Duddington and then on to the A47. As there is new development of business parks etc at the northern edge of Corby, HGV movements will (and probably already are) increasing along the A6003. This would need coordination with North Northamptonshire Council.

Comment Noted. This falls outside the scope of the Local Plan. Freight routing strategies will be considered as part of the Local Transport Plan Review. . The Road Traffic Act 1984 and its amendments give powers to the Council as the Highways Authority to impose Traffic Regulation Orders on the local road network across the County. Such orders are subject to legal procedures which are specified in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (procedure) Regulations 1996 and all restrictions must be signed in accordance with the Traffic Regulations and General Directions 2002. The introduction of a weight restriction on a public road will be considered either for environmental protection (for example, a narrow village road) or where there is a need to protect a structure (for example, a bridge or culvert) from the effects of heavy goods vehicles. Where a weight restriction is considered necessary, consideration must be given to a suitable alternative route and the likely effect on other communities.

Object

Representation ID: 8044

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton and Tinwell Joint Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

We would also like to note, context of INF 1, that whilst provisions within this policy in themselves appear acceptable, this does not address the chronic under-provision of basic infrastructure in many villages for services such as water and sewerage. Whilst developers may be required to provide drainage/sewerage in the context of their own sites, we feel insufficient attention is still being paid to how that interacts with the overall water/sewerage infrastructure, and how the effect is exacerbated by the significant increase in development over recent years. We would welcome a clearer indication from the Local Authority that these issues and impacts, both cumulative as well as individual, will be addressed.

Comment Noted. The need for upgrades to critical infrastructure in many villages, such as water and sewerage, is recognised and the ability of existing utility networks to service new development is key to Policy INF 1. The cumulative impact of the levels of growth planned in the new Local Plan on utilities has been considered in preparation of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which forms part of the new Local Plan evidence base and where necessary critical projects identified.