Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 6873

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Whitwell Parish Meeting

Can villages have the option of retaining their PLD’s if they wish?

(1) SS4 para(a) criteria totally subjective judgement and if an applicant goes to appeal, an inspector has no hard and fast policy against which to judge the application.
The idea of ‘evening-up’ parts of villages is open to many interpretations and makes things difficult for planning officers and inspectors alike. It also is problematic for applicants as they can incur considerable costs in making an application which has limited definitive policies against which to judge it and the chances of success.
What and how will the limits of each small settlement be defined? Will it be the existing village PLD? Will it be the conservation area boundary?
It is appreciated that some villages may want some flexibility over development, but others such as Whitwell would prefer to stay with the PLD system as now.

Concern noted. policy to be revised to provide greater clarity and certainty.

Object

Representation ID: 6875

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Whitwell Parish Meeting

As we all know tourism is an important part of our economy, however policy E8 makes no reference to the adverse impacts it can have on small villages, the most obvious one being the increased traffic that can severely diminish the quality of life through noise, pollution and disturbance. This should be written into the policy.
Loss of amenity and traffic considerations are written into policy EN10 para (d and e) for Rutland Water and should be included for all tourism developments.

Noted. Policy E8 includes a reference to Policy SS9 (Non-residential development in the countryside), where in order for proposals to be considered against the former, they must meet the requirements of the latter. Criterion d, e, f and g requires non-residential development in countryside to pay due regard to the impact of any proposal in this location, to traffic movements, access arrangements, as well as the impact on the landscape and amenity.

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.