Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 6613

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Within Policy EN3 there is duplication of legislation which could be removed to the benefit of the Local Plan. Within the policy, reference is made to having BNG in place for a minimum of a 30-year period, which is a point covered by primary and secondary legislation and does not need to be reiterated. The policy also seeks to impose a 15% BNG rather than the 10% set within primary legislation which is deemed by Government to be the acceptable level that developments should seek to deliver as a minimum. The policy should make reference to the legislation minimum first.

Comments noted. The updated PPG advises that plan-makers can complement the statutory framework for BNG by using a locally-specific policy that sets out any local priorities and strategies that can be taken into account in delivering BNG. At present, these are set out in the text accompanying Policy EN3 but, with the development of the LNRS, this could be used to inform the wording of the policy. Add additional criteria after c) ‘ d) The Biodiversity Gain Plan will detail how the biodiversity gains align with, and deliver the objectives of the LNRS, and how they take account of other national, regional and local biodiversity strategies, such as the Leicestershire and Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan.'

Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 6618

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

It is suggested that Policy EN12 and EN13 could be combined into a single policy.

Comments noted. Historic Environment and Heritage Assets have been included as 2 policies for clarity and to avoid a singular policy that is excessively wordy.

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.

Object

Representation ID: 6621

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.
The DIO are cognisant of the Council’s strategy for minerals development within the County, including the designation of part of the undeveloped area of St George’s Barracks. The overall approach is understood, but we question the effectiveness of safeguarding land for extraction which is sterilised by the presence of Listed Buildings. A more refined approach to site selection should be taken to ensure deliverability.

Noted. As per the Mineral Safeguarding Areas Methodology, in creating the MSAs, buffers were applied around all mineral resources, extending outwards from the boundary of the BGS mineral resource linework. Where the MSA includes urban areas, or indeed individual buildings, these were not excluded as it reflects that mineral resources are present and may allow for future extraction where associated with large redevelopments.

Support

Representation ID: 6625

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.

The DIO believe that the Council should take a flexible approach to the funding of infrastructure improvements depending upon the size and scale of development. The use of CIL (or alternative mechanism) is supported, and the DIO agree with the Council’s intention to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan and to undertake viability testing for new policies and development proposals.

Support Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6630

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

The DIO do not agree with the statement in Policy INF1 that 'it is assumed that all development proposals will be viable' as this will not be the case for all sites. Some locations, especially brownfield opportunities such as St George’s Barracks bear significant abnormal costs associated with demolition and site remediation. These will have an impact upon scheme viability and the ability for all measures to be delivered on site and in full. Given this is discussed at the National Level, there is no need to duplicate this point within Local Plan Policy and it should be removed.

Comments noted. Remove final sentence of paragraph.

Object

Representation ID: 6640

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

St George’s Barracks is a known development site with the ability to make a significant contribution to the delivery of homes and employment land across the plan period, offering a suitable and sustainable location for development. The DIO supports its inclusion within the emerging Local Plan as a development opportunity as this reflects the NPPF’s direction to plan makers to plan for larger scale development and use of brownfield land. The DIO object to the wording that "no allocation is made in this Local Plan" and suggest an alterative approach is adopted - see full comments for further detail.

Support for inclusion of SGB within the Local Plan noted. Objection to SGB not being allocated in the Local Plan and requiring a DPD to bring the site forward noted. The plan already makes provision for housing and employment development identified to meet the needs of the County to 2041 and the decision was taken by the council that SGB is covered by a policy setting out the parameters for it to be covered in a separate DPD. As the site is not allocated then it is appropriate, given the number of issues that would be raised by the redevelopment of the site, to require preparation of a masterplan that has the status of a DPD. This would allow for full consultation and an independent examination through a review of the Local Plan. Details of the phasing for the redevelopment of the site would be set out in the masterplan. Identifying St George's Barracks as a Future Opportunity Area provides a framework to ensure that any future development is sustainable and holistically planned and address the issues raised. The Woolfox site will also be identified as a Future Opportunity Area in the Regulation 19 Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7739

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Overall, the principles of the policies within Chapter 3 of the emerging Local Plan are therefore supported, but we provide specific comment on the following:

This strategic objective is supported in principle but highlight that there is a risk of inherent conflict in delivering development that responds to its local character with innovation and delivering cleaner, greener and safer places. Such an example for this lies in the design and delivery of highways within schemes and the conflict between good urban design principles and the desire for a standardised road network with a priority for parking. This objective will need to be carefully considered in conjunction with the associated development management policies and the Rutland Design Guide SPD to ensure it can be applied in an effective manner once adopted

Comments noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7740

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

This strategic objective is supported in principle, especially as it supports the efficient use of previously developed land. This will need to be carefully considered in conjunction with Strategic Objective 7 and the associated development management policies on design and density of new developments to ensure that this objective is met

Support and comments noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7757

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

The approach to reserved sites, wholly on greenfield land, appears to be at odds with the Council’s preference for sustainable development and the use of previously developed land.

This is particularly relevant considering Reserve Site H1.b – Land North of Pennine Drive, Edith Weston, which has been identified for approximately 84 dwellings.

This site is located to the immediate north of the St George’s Barracks main site. The DIO believe that development of this land as a greenfield reserve site would be contrary to national policy and the strategic objectives of the draft Local Plan. This is particularly relevant given the context of a large brownfield site to the immediate south, which is known to be available during the plan period. As set out in the DIO representations in relation to draft policy SS5, the reserve site allocation for Site H1.b – and indeed a number of the Reserve Sites – could reasonably be accommodated at St George’s Barracks. In our view this would result in a more sustainable approach to development, rather than the piecemeal approach currently advocated by Policy H1.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.