Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 6507

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

Suggested additional wording - The provision of adequate supporting infrastructure that also enables improved physical access to the above.

Support noted. Addressed in Strategic Objective 5.

Support

Representation ID: 6508

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

Would Healthy and Vibrant be more appropriate. This would also be measurable in the longer term rather than strong might be.

Agree. Change ‘strong’ into ‘healthy’ in title of Strategic Objective 5.

Support

Representation ID: 6568

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

There will be requirements from the ICB for CIL to ensure that all local healthcare services are fit for the future growth that is anticipated.

Comment noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6572

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

Can RCC help the ICB understand the Strategic Opportunity mentioned earlier in respect of anticipated growth in Corby and which has its closest border to Uppingham?

Comment noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6575

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

Transport to and from these smaller areas is going to be important factor for people to access healthcare.

Noted

Support

Representation ID: 6578

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

The ICB would want to speak to work with RCC and any Developers in respect of strategic opportunities to improve local healthcare infrastructure.

Support noted. The provision of the infrastructure (including healthcare) necessary to support the redevelopment of SGB would be a key part of the masterplan and this would involve discussions with the ICS.

Support

Representation ID: 6582

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

This would still have an impact on local healthcare services eg Armed Forces families that live within the local ICB commissioning area will use local healthcare services. Community infrastructure support is therefore needs to be a consideration.

Comments noted. Support for additional community infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, would be achieved through the application of RCC’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which would apply to new residential development (potentially even when it constitutes permitted development). Local Plan Policy INF1 and RCC’s CIL document give further details.

Support

Representation ID: 6607

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

Workplaces references - What about new housing ? Digital connectivity is key to accessing modern health care and well being services. Given the rurality of settlements, digital connectivity is key.The information in the Why is the policy needed is relevant and could be reflected in the actual policy itself? It would be helpful to have a clearer reference in the policy itself, in how this also translates / contributes to the improvement in nearby or local residential dwellings? Commercial developments are perhaps unlikely to be developed in more Rural settings therefore how will rural infrastructure support digital inclusion in future.

Noted. The policy doesn't refer to residential as the Building Regulations require new home to be designed to ensure they are installed with the fastest broadband connections available within a cost cap.

Support

Representation ID: 6620

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

The ICB welcomes a HIA approach and will work with partners in Rutland to support this. How has the 50 or more dwellings been reached? Are there benefits to this or can a proportionate approach not be done across all or at least everything above 10 dwellings?

Policy threshold should be amended to 10 or more dwellings to align with the definition of major development.

Support

Representation ID: 6639

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

Rutland's Infrastructure Priorities - We understood healthcare to be top priority which the IDP (Section 18.2) has indicated however reading the list it reads as though this is in a priority 3. Could it be made clear if this is a list in order of priority or simply a list of the top priorities in no particular order.

Noted. Priorities should not be numerically ranked, numbering will be removed from INF1. Infrastructure spending will be specific to the location, scale and mix of proposals.