Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 7881

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

It needs to be made clear here that employment opportunities are likely to be taken up by residents of
other counties and suitable allowance included.

In 1. - Upgrades may also be needed to infrastructure. Also, it is perhaps worth noting that the proposed solar farm north of Barnsdale Gardens appears to be a case of the council not protecting existing employment sites, contrary to this policy.

Noted. It is expected that a proportion of jobs created in Rutland will be taken up by those who do not reside in Rutland. There is no need to explicitly reference this here.

The employment allocations set out in Policy E1 have been informed by the evidence in the Rutland Employment Needs & Economic Development Evidence (August 2023) and the suitable level of growth regarding employment uses has been accounted for here.

Any new infrastructure requirements associated with new employment development will be delivered through s106/CIL.

Object

Representation ID: 7882

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Why just larger commercial developments? Surely, all premises should have the benefit of high quality
broadband connection; home working is specifically mentioned in the text and fibre will become essential once copper connections are discontinued.

Comments noted. However, Building Regulations 2010 were amended in December 2022 to ensure that new homes constructed in England will be fitted with infrastructure and connections capable of delivering FTTP broadband. Therefore, improvements to domestic properties are not covered by this policy, as it is also a requirement elsewhere. The requirements set out above only relate to commercial properties.

Object

Representation ID: 7883

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Why should Uppingham not support the whole of Rutland? In any case, surely both centres will also support users from out of county. Also, Uppingham's plans are addressed in the emerging neighbourhood plan, which should be referred to here, and is in effect implied by H12 which deals solely with Oakham.

Noted. The town centre hierarchy was previously set out in Policy CS17 of the Core Strategy, which defined Oakham as a main town centre. More up to date evidence in the form of the Rutland Retail, Leisure & Town Centres Study considers that Oakham remains the main town centre in Rutland, with Uppingham providing an important role, but lesser than that of Oakham. More widely as the centre of growth, as the largest settlement in Rutland, this follows the natural settlement hierarchy as set out in the Spatial Strategy for the Plan (Policy SS1). Where Uppingham is seen as a secondary focus for development, below Oakham.

It is considered that there is no necessity for the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan to be referred to here.

Object

Representation ID: 7884

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

How will potential pollution or proposed mediations be assessed? What if the promised levels are not
achieved in practice? The policy itself should be clear on these issues.

These issues are not relevant to the Local Plan or planning policy. The NPPF states that the focus of planning policies and decisions should be on whether proposed development is an acceptable use of land, rather than the control of processes or emissions (where these are subject to separate pollution control regimes). Planning decisions should assume that these regimes will operate effectively. (paragraph 194 NPPF 2023)

Object

Representation ID: 7885

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

The only currently proposed development of over 300 dwellings is Stamford North but the need for outdoor sports facilities is not mentioned in Policy H2 – is SKDC committed to including such?

This provision would be covered by policy H2 f).

Object

Representation ID: 7889

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

'Significant harm' is unclear. How is this to be defined for determination purposes?

This policy means there is a presumption of development on Local Wildlife Sites, UK priority habitats, locally important habitats and other landscape features, subject to undefined subjective conditions which cannot allow an agreed interpretation.

This clause 3 of policy EN1 needs to be re-written as a presumption against development with clearly defined and
measurable conditions as to standards when development might be considered.

Clause 4: This policy presents no basis for determination by Development Control and will therefore lead to subjective and unfounded determination results by the Local Planning Authority. This policy needs to be re-written with a presumption against development with clearly defined and measurable conditions as to
standards when development might be considered.

CPRE Rutland objects to this policy as currently drafted.

Comments noted. Whilst significant harm is not defined in the NPPF, the policy would require the effect of a development proposal on biodiversity to be assessed as part of a planning application by a qualified ecologist. This assessment would then be scrutinized by the relevant consultees. Significant harm is likely to be where a development undermines the biodiversity conservation objectives for the important identified ecological features, or for biodiversity in general.
Disagree regarding parts 3 and 4 of the policy. The wording of Policy EN1 aligns with the Government guidance set out in para 186 of the NPPF which sets out a number of principles for a hierarchical approach to the protection of designated sites and important habitats. The approach taken in the policy is also generally welcomed and supported by Natural England and the Wildlife Trust (subject to some minor changes to the wording).

Object

Representation ID: 7890

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Unclear, When will RCC’s Local Nature Recovery Strategy be published for consultation?

Comment noted. The preparation of a LNRS is a mandatory requirement under the Environment Act 2021 and is being prepared by Leicestershire County Council on behalf of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Councils. It is likely to be published in July 2025 with a draft document produced later this year. It will be consulted on early in 2025. It will be used to inform the preparation of policies in the Local Plan (the Reg 19 Plan which will be consulted on) and then, once published, the LNRS will be used in the interpretation and application of policies.

Object

Representation ID: 7895

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

There is a conflict between the first two paragraphs. The use of the words “major development” in the
first paragraph is incorrect and misleading because BNG requires virtually all new development to contribute
towards the delivery of measurable net gains. Therefore, the word “major” should be deleted from this
opening statement.

The meaning of “qualifying developments” needs to be defined within this policy wording. It would seem that almost all developments are “qualifying“ developments with very few exceptions.


Independent professional review by a competent authority of all Biodiversity Gains Plans is an essential requirement
of this policy. Biodiversity Gains Plans submitted by applicants for development are not valid for planning
determination until they have been independently professionally reported upon. Therefore, full details of the
professional review process and its application are required to be an integrated component of this Local Plan and subject to public consultation.

The statutory implementation date for this policy is November 2023. Therefore, it is essential that a comprehensive Supplementary Planning Document is available for consultation and implementation at the earliest possible time. This Regulation 18 Local Plan should include this SPD for consultation.

Comments noted. Agree. Delete ‘major’ from opening sentence and substitute with ‘qualifying’.
Add in definition of ‘qualifying’ in second para. Add in at end of second para on page 177: ‘The full list of exemptions is set out in the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024.’
As with most applications to discharge conditions, there is no statutory requirement to consult any statutory bodies (or the public) on the Biodiversity Gain Plan or to publicise its submission prior to its determination. It is, however, a public document. The competent authority considering the plan would be the local planning authority (RCC) although the council may decide to seek the view of a professional ecologist on the plan. Details of the review process would not, therefore, be required as part of the Local Plan or subject to public consultation. The council will consider providing further detailed guidance on Policy EN3 in the form of an SPD which will be subject to public consultation in accordance with the Council’s SCI.

Object

Representation ID: 7896

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

This policy needs to be changed to create a presumption against development and clearly defined justifiable
exceptions are itemised and explained for clarity of decision making.

What type of new development would be expected to protect and enhance irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees? Please explain.

Comments noted. Agree to amend wording of Policy EN5 so that it aligns with government guidance set out in para 186 of the NPPF.

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.