Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 5639

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

We object to the removal of Planned Limits of Development. PLD's have been defined in the previous Local Plan and have served small villages well. Without PLDs there will inevitably be an increase in the number of speculative applications for development on the margins of the villages and the encroachment into open countryside. The conditions (a-g) create a number of loopholes which will make it even harder to limit expansion in villages which lack the facilities and infrastructure to support such expansion.

Comments noted. No change to the general approach to remove PLDs from small villages, however policy SS4 (now SS3) is to be amended to provide greater clarity to be added to the policy criteria.

Object

Representation ID: 5644

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

A blanket minimum of 25 properties per hectare is unrealistic if you are true to other environmental, health and traffic aims: Each property will require parking for 1 or 2 vehicles and access roads will need to be wider if they are to be lined by trees and useable pedestrian pavements. Space will also be at a premium as a result of the orientation of individual properties with regard to the effective positioning of solar panels and appropriate storage for bins.

Comments noted. NPPF recommends the use of minimum density standards in policies and suggests that a range of densities may be appropriate to reflect different local circumstances. The policy is written to allow flexibility to reflect local circumstances and existing development patterns whilst ensuring that a minimum density is established.

Object

Representation ID: 5648

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

The building 650 properties on Rutland land, as part of Stamford North, should take a sizeable chunk out of the targetted 2460 houses needed to be built in Rutland over the next 20 years. However it appears that although these houses are being built in Rutland they will be part of the South Kesteven building target. Surely houses built on Rutland land should be part of Rutland's building load - reducing the demand for sites elsewhere in the county?

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

Object

Representation ID: 5653

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

It is all too easy for a developer to pay CIL and then create a development without appropriate infrastructure. There needs to be a much more robust statement in the Plan from Rutland County Council which states that the CIL collected on a specific development will be used to enhance the infrastructure on that particular site. If CIL is banked and then used for appropriate facilities somewhere else in the county, rather than in accessible distance from the development, then we are just creating more traffic and another estate without local facilities and opportunities to interact as a vibrant community.

CIL is a national legislation in which all funds collected go into a central pot for all of the County. As the Charging Authority RCC decides how to spend CIL on infrastructure across the County and it must allocate the ‘Neighbourhood Portion’ of CIL to Parish and Town Councils. Those Parish or Town Councils which have adopted neighbourhood plans receive a higher proportion of Neighbourhood CIL. These funds can be used to spend on infrastructure or anything else that addresses the demands that development places on an area. Strategic priorities for the spend of the charging authority portion of CIL will be for critical infrastructure to support the priorities as identified by Policy INF 1. Lists of infrastructure issues or proposals that have been prioritised for investment or specific types of work to develop a proposal (e.g. a feasibility study) to decide whether and how it can be implemented, should be included in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5656

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

If this was truly a thorough meaningful consultation period, in which we were asked to absorb and respond appropriately to such a sizeable and significant document, we would never have been given such a narrow window of time.

Under the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning (England) Regulations 2012, the statutory consultation period for Regulation 18 is six weeks. The Council chose to extend this by two weeks to a total of eight weeks to allow for the festive period.

The consultation followed the requirements set out in the Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The experience of the Issues and Options consultation and the Call for Sites exercise has been that local councils and the general public have generally responded well to the online platforms without the need for paper hard copies. A short video guide on use of the online consultation was also created to assist users navigate the system. Nonetheless, in recognition that not all members of the community may be able to access these resources, paper copies were made available at the Council offices and all public libraries and the Local Plan chapters were available to read or download from the Council website without needing to access the consultation portal. We also accepted representations by email and post for those who were unable to access or navigate the online consultation system.

Object

Representation ID: 5660

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

We acknowledge the work that has gone into this draft Local Plan and are positive about much of the stated vision. However we were disappointed to see how many written commitments are then diluted by a list of conditions and exceptions. As a parish council, we feel that we will have less of a say in what happens in our County and more subjective decisions will be made within the County Council. If this Local Plan is to have credence then there needs to be more robust statements about enforcement and compliance - something that appears to be lacking currently.

Comments noted. The policies are based on robust evidence and are clearly structured. They link to the Local Plan Vision and Objectives set out in Chapter 3 and address the issues identified by residents as being important. In line with Government guidance, many of the policies are positively worded, such using the words ‘encouraged,’ ‘supported’ and ‘presumption in favour’ which all convey positive approaches to development. Criteria led policies clearly set out the requirements that a development proposal should meet, either with inclusive or exclusive criteria. Under the Localism Act 2011, the council is required to produce an Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) which monitors the timetable and progress of the preparation of the Local Plan and the effectiveness of policies. It covers a number of monitoring indicators based on adopted Local Plan Policies. The AMR also includes progress made against policies where an annual number is specified, such as for housing. Enforcement would be undertaken as one of the roles of the Development Management service.

Object

Representation ID: 5664

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

The stated target number of 16 pitches for travellers and gypsies is unrealistic. There are more than that number of travellers encamped on Tambourine Lane, Ashwell , on the public bridleway now, let alone others currently in the County or others wishing to join them.

Pitches typically hold two caravans.