Support

Representation ID: 4826

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Nigel Roberts

A major change is needed with how Bus transport is delivered in Rutland, for instance it can take 2 hours to get a bus from Ketton and the doctor's surgery in Uppingham and back. There is a total lack of regular, timely bus services in the county compared to many other local authorities in England, giving the population no incentive to use the bus.

Noted. The Council is committed to an equitable alternative to private car use if we are to enable our residents to reduce their carbon footprint and play our part in achieving net zero by 2050. Government launched Bus Back Better - a long-term strategy for bus services in England in 2021. To deliver this vision in Rutland we, alongside local bus operators, created an Enhanced Partnership to work together with local communities to plan and deliver services that are: more frequent, more reliable, easier to understand and use, better co-ordinated, and cheaper with simpler fares. The plans to deliver this are set in the Rutland Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) 2021-2036 . It is a live plan reviewed annually and be revised to accommodate any pertinent changes to policy, services or plans and annual progress against the plan can be found on the Council website. The overarching vision is to: “Create a county where the bus is a realistic transport choice through building a bus network and support system that enables residents of and visitors to Rutland to travel by bus wherever and whenever they need to in a convenient, seamless and environmentally friendly way”. Through specific public transport surveys you have told us that you will use the bus more if there are more frequent services, to more places, on more days and for longer hours. To support this better information, improved waiting facilities, cleaner buses and more environmentally friendly buses are required. It is estimated that in excess of £3.5m is required in order to deliver all of the measures outlined within the BSIP. This would come from DfT funding and Council revenue budgets. Progress towards our objectives to improve service provision can be found on the Council website.

Support

Representation ID: 5023

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

More cycle paths are needed through the county - there are many roads where cyclists are at risk because of speed of traffic and width of roads. A much better cycle infrastructure should be developed to link up villages with places of work

Support noted. Full details of proposed walking and cycling network enhancements are set out in the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) prepared in August 2023 . The LCWIP sets out an evidence-led network plan so that future investment in cycling and walking infrastructure can be informed by a coherent vision of how cycling and walking can contribute to the overall transport strategy for the County. LCWIP's are not a requirement for local authorities, however the adoption of the Rutland LCWIP positions the County well for taking advantage of future active travel funding opportunities or the use of S106 or CIL funding. In early 2024 the County has secured £100k of Active Travel England grant funding and integrated transport capital programme budget from DfT to to progress the design of priority schemes identified in the LCWIP (Oakham Road and Burley Road).

Support

Representation ID: 5121

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England is supportive of the inclusion of provision for walking and cycling. We suggest there is a strong link to Green Infrastructure, for example cycle and pedestrian routes should incorporate verges or boundaries of natural habitat and street trees to connect to other habitats and green spaces.

Support noted. The Council considers that its promotion of green infrastructure within the County will play a crucial role in promoting walking and cycling by enhancing the aesthetic appeal, safety, comfort, and connectivity of active transportation routes, as well as by providing health and environmental benefits. We consider that Rutland's residents and visitors are more likely to walk or cycle if they have access to off line routes in green infrastructure, and these activities will increase significantly in areas with well-maintained parks and greenways.

Support

Representation ID: 5223

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

OK as far as it goes. I am not sure how realistic it is for a developer to influence rail and bus services though (not at all probably). Sustainable transport is not really a (land and property) planning issue, other than prescribing locations for development in an attempt to reduce transport need (not at all guaranteed). In reality, the Council probably has to intervene in a variety of ways to reduce the amount of car travel in the county, and it won't be easy. The Rutland Bus Improvement Plan is a start.

Support for BSWIP is noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5313

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Ann Lewis

Public transport is woefully inadequate but then the Local Plan boasts that there are more car owners here than any other town in the East Midlands. This is hardly a boast! Car owners are a major problem in our town!

Noted. Reference to high rates of car ownership reflects the dispersed rural nature of the county and is intended to be factual rather than boastful. Cars are likely to remain one of the components of a complementary package of alternative transport modes for the County taking into account the dispersed nature of existing residents, planned growth and the limitations to the frequency and coverage of a viable public transport service. However, the transition to electric vehicles is being actively supported. RCC is working in partnership with Midlands Connect and several local authorities across the Midlands region to install more electric vehicle charge points for public use. This work is being carried out as part of a national Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) project funded by the Government’s Office for Zero Emissions Vehicles (OZEV). Further details on the support the Council is providing for electric vehicles can be found in the Alternative Fuels Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5669

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton Parish Council

Agent: Mary Cade

But with reference to point f). Ketton, like other communities in the East of the county look to Stamford for their services and facilities. Our bus service is woefully inadequate – we can only travel to Uppingham or Stamford, but not in the evening or on Sundays. Attending a doctor’s appointment in either town by bus requires at least 2 hours. Ketton to Oakham takes almost 2 hours by public transport (2 buses or bus and train), and one would need to leave Oakham by 4pm to get back the same day.

Support for the policy noted. Bus timetabling is outside the scope of the Local Plan. A review of bus services within Rutland is under way, which is expected to re-shape how bus services operate in the County, including expansion of Demand Responsive Transport facilities and the provision of a ‘Mobi-Hub’ at Oakham Memorial Hospital funding through the Levelling Up Fund. The Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) 2021-2036 is the live plan for bus network enhancement that's reviewed annually to accommodate changes to policy, services or plans. Annual progress against the plan can be found on the Council website. The overarching vision is to: “Create a county where the bus is a realistic transport choice through building a bus network and support system that enables residents of and visitors to Rutland to travel by bus wherever and whenever they need to in a convenient, seamless and environmentally friendly way”. Through specific public transport surveys you have told us that you will use the bus more if there are more frequent services, to more places, on more days and for longer hours. To support this better information, improved waiting facilities, cleaner buses and more environmentally friendly buses are required. It is estimated that in excess of £3.5m is required in order to deliver all of the measures outlined within the BSIP. This would come from DfT funding and Council revenue budgets. Progress towards our objectives to improve service provision can be found on the Council website.Improvements to bus scheduling between Ketton and Stamford are included in this review as a result of the North Stamford site allocation. In addition the Local Cycling and Walking Plan identifies the potential for improvement shared walking and cycleways between Normanton and Stamford via Ketton (£1.95m est) - details of the proposed route can be found in the LCWIP in the Councils website.

Object

Representation ID: 5999

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Bob Blakeborough

The 650 Stamford North dwellings will be so far from Stamford town centre that services such as shops, schools and GP surgeries will be almost impossible to reach on foot, adding thousands of extra car journeys to the town’s roads, contrary to Policy INF2 ‘Securing sustainable transport’ that requires:
a) minimising the distance people need to travel to shops, services and employment opportunities.
b) encouraging travel to work and school safely by public transport, cycling and walking.

Calling for a ‘Transport Assessment’ or ‘Transport Statement’ won’t change this fundamental problem with the siting of the Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development.

Comment noted. A number of bus route enhancements are proposed as part of the Travel Plan for the North Stamford scheme including improvements to Route 201 and 301 (Delaine), Route 4 (Call Connect and and a new Route 182 (operated by Blands) hopper or demand responsive service. These services will link to the town centre and Stamford train station. Negotiations on the public transport package proposed are currently ongoing.

Support

Representation ID: 6368

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

Agree. But again I think The Council also needs to review recent development proposals where these criteria have not been met - and make some effort to put things right.

Support Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6386

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Lewis

I welcome the ambition set out in this policy. It is vital that that new developments deliver on criteria for enabling sustainable travel.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6497

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Christopher Clark

Hardly anywhere in Oakham is more that 15 minutes walking time from the town centre. To encourage walking perhaps signs could be put up giving an estimated walking time from that location to centre and have the maps in the centre with concentric circles again giving estimated walking times.

Support noted. Increasing signage is outside the scope of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6876

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Whitwell Parish Meeting

Policy INF2 should contain a paragraph regarding co-ordinating public transport services i.e. bus service timings fitting in with train departures etc.

Comment Noted. Coordinating public transport services is outside the scope of the Local Plan. However, the Bus Service Improvement Plan (Section 1.15) states that the Council will work closely with operators of both bus and rail services to increase opportunities to integrate services as well as modes of travel – ensuring the bus does not operate as a standalone travel option. The feasibility of upgrade Oakham bus station and Uppingham interchange, along with other bus stops, to become active travel hubs and seek opportunities to provide similar at Oakham railway station (the only railway station in Rutland) are being considered. These new hubs will provide improved promotion – highlighting links between buses and trains as well as opportunities for safe onwards walking and cycling opportunities. – and where possible supported by the provision of secure and undercover cycle parking as well as information and guides on safe walking and cycling routes accessible from the bus stop/ station.

Object

Representation ID: 6920

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Clayton

The state of the roads in Rutland is not good, particularly here in Morcott, where Willoughby Road is in a dreadful state and the bend at the bottom dangerous after the
flooding.
Additionally, the A47 has old trees overhanging which urgently need cutting. One tree has recently fallen across the A47 and it is potentially dangerous. (Policy ENS - protection veteran trees)
Also: the proposed Container Storage at Rutland Point on the A47 is fraught with potential danger on the A47 as this stretch of road is a high accident site proved by FOI results.
The width of the A47 is not wide enough for large vehicles passing and turning which is already a problem.

Comment Noted. This falls outside the scope of the Local Plan, however; Rutland Local Authorities will receive £17,696,000 in additional Government highways maintenance funding between 2023/24 to 2033/34 for roads maintenance. This funding is part of the Government’s £8.3 billion uplift in funding for local highway authorities for roads resurfacing. Funding will transform the condition of local roads by savings delivered by the decision to cancel HS2 Phase 2

Object

Representation ID: 6990

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

There is no specific strategy around road expansion or an arterial road strategy.
There are a significant number of Parish’s adversely affected by large volumes of HGV’s and speeding cars. This issue will be exacerbated by increased employment land and increased quarrying, however there appears to be no ambition at County level to admit there is a problem now and will be in the future and how they intend to mitigate that risk. This county is in need of an arterial strategy which could take the whole of the Local Plan period
To implement. There is no reference to discussions with Highways England and A1
Future developments and how they may affect this plan.
Currently each of the parish’s affected by traffic issues are dealing with it individually and in a piecemeal fashion and draining both County Council and Parish Council resources. There is no coherent strategy in this document focusing on remedying this issue.

Comment Noted. Given the rural nature of the County and the levels of growth for this and subsequent Local Plan periods, development is not expected to be of a level that warrants a road expansion strategy. Improvements to the existing local highway network are anticipated. Transport modelling is underway to inform the Local Plan evidence based and the findings of this will be reflected in the submission version of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7078

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tony Godwin

Policy INF2 should contain a paragraph regarding co-ordinating public transport services i.e. bus service timings fitting in with train departures etc.

Comment Noted. Coordinating public transport services is outside the scope of the Local Plan. However, the Bus Service Improvement Plan (Section 1.15) states that the Council will work closely with operators of both bus and rail services to increase opportunities to integrate services as well as modes of travel – ensuring the bus does not operate as a standalone travel option. The feasibility of upgrade Oakham bus station and Uppingham interchange, along with other bus stops, to become active travel hubs and seek opportunities to provide similar at Oakham railway station (the only railway station in Rutland) are being considered. These new hubs will provide improved promotion – highlighting links between buses and trains as well as opportunities for safe onwards walking and cycling opportunities. – and where possible supported by the provision of secure and undercover cycle parking as well as information and guides on safe walking and cycling routes accessible from the bus stop/ station.

Object

Representation ID: 7109

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Policy INF 2 – Securing sustainable Transport. The Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development will be located some 2 miles from Stamford Town Centre. Whilst we applaud attempts to encourage sustainable transport everywhere, including within the existing built-up area of Stamford, it is evidenced from recent completed housing developments on the periphery of the Town that the majority of occupiers will use their own vehicles to travel this distance. Also, given that most of the out-of-town retail facilities (including most supermarkets) are on the east side of the town, it is likely that an extra 650 dwellings will create additional traffic congestion within the Town Centre to an unacceptable level.
In addition, any vehicle travel to the wider area, particularly on a north/south axis will require an upgrade to access the A1 Stamford By-Pass. The Society understands that English Highways do not currently have any plans of timescale for delivery of such an upgrade. This is likely to mean either that the development will be allowed to proceed with sub-standard access links to the A1, or it will be delayed until English Highways have allocated funds for it.

Comment Noted. Incentives will be in place to encourage alternatives to the private car for the Quarry Farm/Monarch Park development. A number of bus route enhancements are proposed as part of the Travel Plan for the North Stamford scheme including improvements to Route 201 and 301 (Delaine), Route 4 (Call Connect and and a new Route 182 (operated by Blands) Hooper or demand responsive service. These services will link to the town centre and Stamford train station. Negotiations on the public transport package proposed are currently ongoing. The upgrade to access to the A1 Stamford By-Pass remains unresolved at the time of response. The updated Transport Assessment submitted with the application concludes that off-site highway mitigation to the Strategic Road Network (A1) is not required. National Highways do not support this conclusion until they have undertaken an independent review of the traffic modelling submitted. The transport modelling is necessary to understand the scale of the traffic impacts on the surrounding highways and to determine the level of off-site highway mitigation required. Should the need for off-site highways mitigation on the SRN be required, it shall be noted that National Highways will seek this by way of Grampian planning conditions, and that the works must be designed and delivered by the applicant(s) via a Section 278 agreement. Prior to National Highways lifting the holding objection, it should be noted that works on the strategic network are required to be designed to a preliminary design standard and undergo a number of approvals processes (including Stage 1 Road Safety Audit). This is to satisfy National Highways that the scheme is effective, safe, and deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 7189

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Criteria point h) of this policy requires that developments provide levels of car parking in line with Council’s published car parking standards at Appendix 5.

However the shared / communal parking spaces appear excessive, for example of a dwelling with 3 habitable rooms will require total 3 ½ parking spaces. The provision of such a high number of car parking spaces will result in a car dominated development which can potentially be unsafe for non-car users.
A balanced approach to parking provision, when used as part of a package of measures, can promote sustainable transport choices and provide attractive and safe environments whilst ensuring that sufficient parking is provided to meet local needs.

Paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy framework sets out that local parking standards policies need to take into account of a) the accessibility of the development b) the type, mix and use of development c) the availability of and opportunities for public transport d) local car ownership levels and e) the need to ensure an adequate provision of spaces for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles. There appears to be no evidence base put forward by the Council to show how these different criteria have been considered in the development of this policy.

Comment Noted. The Parking Standards set out in Appendix 5 of the Local Plan should be read in conjunction with the Design Guidelines for South Kesteven and Rutland (2021) Section 5Q specifically relating to parking design, on plot, on street and communal. Insufficient and poorly designed parking can have negative impacts on how streets function, can create cluttered and chaotic environments and can create unnecessary neighbour and community conflicts and divisions. Rear parking courtyards and car parks for flats rear parking courts should be a last resort, only used once other options have been exhausted or if there are clear placemaking benefits like creating strong frontages to overlook a key space

Object

Representation ID: 7268

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

Most of these proposals are above and beyond the normal remit of a developer eg. Bus routes, rail facilities, cyclist tracks etc. How will this be funded and what will be the process for dealing with the matters which are not within the development itself. To take Bus routes as an example even if a short term solution is provided how will funding in the long term be guaranteed.

We note that in the previous “Issues and Options” Consultation Healthcare was classified as being No.1 Priority. However, Healthcare has been reduced to No.3 Priority in Rutland's Infrastructure Priorities. Why is this?

You comment in Chapter 2 that the proportion of the population aged over 80 years will rise by 1/3rd to 11.3% over the plan period. It is not clear, however, how this Local Plan will ensure that the right facilities such as Healthcare and Elderly Care are available to this segment of the population. It is also not clear how the policies set out will lead to an appropriate mix of housing types to meet their needs.

CIL funding plus grant funding from Central Government are the primary funding pots for infrastructure requirements that are not planning obligations associated with specific schemes via S106 agreements. Given the decision made to withdraw the previous version of the Local Plan, there is an imperative for the Council to determine priorities and governance for determining the strategic element of CIL expenditure in the interim period pending the adoption of a new Local Plan which is expected in 2026.The interim prioritisation of strategic CIL expenditure by the Council is based on good practice from other local authorities enabling funds accrued and any spending to be focused on key infrastructure needs that will support identified growth in the interim period until the adoption of a new Local Plan. It is proposed that expenditure is focused on critical infrastructure that is necessary to unlock and enable development or is considered essential to mitigate the impact of development. Individual decisions on CIL expenditure require Director approval if under £100k, Cabinet approval if between £100k and £1m and approval by Council if over £1million. The infrastructure priorities set out in Policy INF2 are the primary areas of proposed investment and priorities for the allocation of CIL fund will be considered on a scheme by scheme basis depending on the nature and mix of the proposals and the infrastructure impacts identified. Policy considerations related to housing mix are set out in Policy H4 (Meeting all Housing Needs) and Policy H7 (Affordable Housing).

Object

Representation ID: 7419

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Vickers

Why doesn't Public transport feature anywhere in the plan?

The Council is committed to an equitable alternative to private car use if we are to enable our residents to reduce their carbon footprint and play our part in achieving net zero by 2050. Government launched Bus Back Better - a long-term strategy for bus services in England in 2021. To deliver this vision in Rutland we, alongside local bus operators, created an Enhanced Partnership to work together with local communities to plan and deliver services that are: more frequent, more reliable, easier to understand and use, better co-ordinated, and cheaper with simpler fares. The plans to deliver this are set in this Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) 2021-2036 (Rutland Bus Service Improvement Plan.pdf) . It is a live plan reviewed annually and be revised to accommodate any pertinent changes to policy, services or plans and annual progress against the plan can be found on the Council website. The overarching vision is to: “Create a county where the bus is a realistic transport choice through building a bus network and support system that enables residents of and visitors to Rutland to travel by bus wherever and whenever they need to in a convenient, seamless and environmentally friendly way”. Through specific public transport surveys you have told us that you will use the bus more if there are more frequent services, to more places, on more days and for longer hours. To support this better information, improved waiting facilities, cleaner buses and more environmentally friendly buses are required. It is estimated that in excess of £3.5m is required in order to deliver all of the measures outlined within the BSIP. This would come from DfT funding and Council revenue budgets. Progress towards our objectives to improve service provision can be found on the Council website. Detailed public transport policies are not within the remit of the Local Plan, and are dealt with as outlined above. However, consideration will be given to amending the text of INF2 to better reflect the importance of public transport and the role that it has to play..

Support

Representation ID: 7469

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

broad support to its aspirations and objectives.
CPC welcomes the emphasis on securing more sustainable transport, as set out in Policy INF2, by seeking to minimise distance people need to travel (clause (c)), and in seeking mitigating transport measures to encourage the use of public transport, cycling and walking in new development proposals (clause (d)).

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7486

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: The British Horse Society

The policy mentions walking and cycling only, missing the opportunity to advocate for all vulnerable road users sharing new paths, particularly in the urban fringes, to avoid horses and riders/handlers being forced to be sandwiched between fast moving MPV traffic on the roads and cyclists who can enjoy MPV traffic free cycling/walking routes. Road crossings for pedestrians and cyclists could also include equestrians.
The government's Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy Safety Review says: "l.2 But safety has particular importance for vulnerable road users, such as walkers, cyclists and horse riders. The more people who use Active Travel, the fitter and healthier they will be, and the more their communities will benefit from lower congestion and better air quality, among a host of other benefits".

Comment Noted. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act (‘the Act’) requires all local highway authorities to prepare and publish plans, referred to as rights of way improvement plans (ROWIPs). Rutland's current ROWIP covers the 2019-2029 period and the vision states the Council will maintain a 'connected, accessible and well-maintained network of local rights of way that meets the present and future needs of users and encourages them to engage with the natural environment for exercise, leisure and transport purposes', and this includes horse riders . In Rutland it is estimated that horse riders have access to nearing 40% of the existing public rights of way network which is a more positive figure than the national estimate which is closer to 22%. However, analysis of network density shows that the routes available are unevenly distributed and highly fragmented, so it’s difficult to make a meaningful route without either a) using sections of road, or b) trespassing on footpaths. Areas in the north-east (Exton / Pickworth) and southwest (Leighfield) are reasonably well catered for but this only serves to highlight the limited routes elsewhere. . Consultation undertaken for the ROWIP suggests there’s little evidence to support the idea that landowners would be happy to provide increased access if given sufficient financial incentive so with limited opportunities we will need to be creative to deliver new routes. There may be potential to extend the network by the addition of historic routes (lost ways) and improve bridleway road crossings in locations close to proposed site allocations in the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7492

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marlen Godwin

Policy INF2 should contain a paragraph regarding co-ordinating public transport services i.e. bus service timings fitting in with train departures etc. It would help to see these also referenced on the tourism web site as it may encourage day trippers to use public transport rather than cars to make their way to Rutland Water, perhaps even an incentive for families?

Comment Noted. Coordinating public transport services is outside the scope of the Local Plan. However, the Bus Service Improvement Plan (Section 1.15) states that the Council will work closely with operators of both bus and rail services to increase opportunities to integrate services as well as modes of travel – ensuring the bus does not operate as a standalone travel option. The feasibility of upgrade Oakham bus station and Uppingham interchange, along with other bus stops, to become active travel hubs and seek opportunities to provide similar at Oakham railway station (the only railway station in Rutland) are being considered. These new hubs will provide improved promotion – highlighting links between buses and trains as well as opportunities for safe onwards walking and cycling opportunities. – and where possible supported by the provision of secure and undercover cycle parking as well as information and guides on safe walking and cycling routes accessible from the bus stop/ station.

Object

Representation ID: 7633

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Peter Vickers

Public transport - no reference is made anywhere to this anywhere. How can this be?

The Council is committed to an equitable alternative to private car use if we are to enable our residents to reduce their carbon footprint and play our part in achieving net zero by 2050. Government launched Bus Back Better - a long-term strategy for bus services in England in 2021. To deliver this vision in Rutland we, alongside local bus operators, created an Enhanced Partnership to work together with local communities to plan and deliver services that are: more frequent, more reliable, easier to understand and use, better co-ordinated, and cheaper with simpler fares. The plans to deliver this are set in this Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP) 2021-2036 (Rutland Bus Service Improvement Plan.pdf) . It is a live plan reviewed annually and be revised to accommodate any pertinent changes to policy, services or plans and annual progress against the plan can be found on the Council website. The overarching vision is to: “Create a county where the bus is a realistic transport choice through building a bus network and support system that enables residents of and visitors to Rutland to travel by bus wherever and whenever they need to in a convenient, seamless and environmentally friendly way”. Through specific public transport surveys you have told us that you will use the bus more if there are more frequent services, to more places, on more days and for longer hours. To support this better information, improved waiting facilities, cleaner buses and more environmentally friendly buses are required. It is estimated that in excess of £3.5m is required in order to deliver all of the measures outlined within the BSIP. This would come from DfT funding and Council revenue budgets. Progress towards our objectives to improve service provision can be found on the Council website. Detailed public transport policies are not within the remit of the Local Plan, and are dealt with as outlined above. However, consideration will be given to amending the text of INF2 to better reflect the importance of public transport and the role that it has to play..

Support

Representation ID: 7811

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We note Policy INF2. We support the emphasis on sustainable transport.

However, this is incompatible with the high levels of growth in Policies SS5 (St George’s Barracks) and H1 (reserve site H1.b) in an area with extremely limited public transport services.

Comment Noted. For sites identified as Future Opportunity Areas, Development Plan Documents (DPD) would be prepared to develop detail of the delivery of an appropriate amount and range of infrastructure to support the uses and community on the site which must be delivered in tandem with or ahead of development. A DPD would also provide a detailed transport assessment including proposals for the delivery of sustainable transport and active travel linking the development with other key settlements in Rutland to ensure that reliance on the private car is minimised on the site.

Object

Representation ID: 7846

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Alicia Kearns

Little work has been put in place to consider how we might reduce car use or increase electric vehicle charging stations within our county.

Comment Noted . RCC is one of 13 Midlands Councils to have been awarded a share of Governments £39.3m funding from the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) scheme, alongside with sub-national transport body Midlands Connect. This funding will be used to increase the number of charging points in Rutland between 2024 and 2029. An increase of up to 30 charge point sockets is planned for Rutland in the first year, which would more than double the number of charging points in the county. The Council has also launched a survey to help identify locations for new charge points and is in the process of developing its first tranche of provision.

Support

Representation ID: 7970

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

INF2 - Securing Sustainable Transport – Support

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7980

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Will there be a need for additional public/town centre car parking (with EV charging points) and should
this be included in the policy? Requirement for the layout of roads in new developments to facilitate access for delivery
vehicles, possibly including drones, needs to be stated.

Comment Noted . RCC is one of 13 Midlands Councils to have been awarded a share of Governments £39.3m funding from the Local Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (LEVI) scheme, alongside with sub-national transport body Midlands Connect. This funding will be used to increase the number of charging points in Rutland between 2024 and 2029. An increase of up to 30 charge point sockets is planned for Rutland in the first year, which would more than double the number of charging points in the county. The Council has also launched a survey to help identify locations for new charge points and is in the process of developing its first tranche of provision.

EV charging points are addressed in Policy CC13. Road Layouts in new developments are addressed within Policy SC3.

Object

Representation ID: 7988

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

Why aren’t there more school buses? Better provision might reduce traffic congestion at drop off and pick up times: Uppingham Community College has considerable issues with this.

Comment Noted however the implementation of school buses falls outside the scope of the Local Plan. This is a specific consideration for the the Bus Service Improvement Plan and the Enhanced Partnership that delivers the Plan. Free transport is provided for pupils living more than 2 miles (below the age of 8) or 3 miles (for 8-16 years) from, and attending, their qualifying school. For distances below those described above, free transport is not provided, as the route is considered to be within the statutory walking distance and our focus is on ensuring safe active travel connections to schools to ensure safe alternatives to private vehicle drop off and pick up.