Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 5850

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

It should be recognised that water bodies can provide multiple ecosystem services for both retaining surface water runoff, biodiversity, and amenity.

It should also be recognised that flood control related to a proposal will also be affected by the management system for any farmland in the water catchment. Land management systems that provide a cover crop and build up soil carbon content, reduce and slow down water runoff.

Add that proposals should include confirmation from the water utility provider that the existing sewage system can take additional building development without releasing additional sewage into storm drains and rivers.

Support noted. The benefits of water bodies are set out under Policy EN7: Green and Blue Infrastructure. Whilst agreeing that management of land within the catchment will have an impact on flood risk of a particular development this could not be controlled through the planning application process and so falls outside the scope of the Local Plan. Management of the catchment is considered in the Flood Risk and River Basin Management Plans produced by the Environment Agency and referenced in the SFRA. The comments of the relevant Water Company would be sought when required on development proposals and they would advise on capacity issues.

Support

Representation ID: 5852

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

The vision and eleven strategic objectives provide a sound and forward-looking basis for the policies that will help Rutland mitigate and adapt to climate change, especially as the first leading set of policies are entitled climate change.

The next 20 years, as covered by the Local Plan, are the most critical for tackling the climate crisis by achieving the required mitigation of climate change. So, a clear, unambiguous lead needs to be taken by Rutland County Council, if its vision to “become a leading example of a modern rural county” is to become a reality.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5853

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Several other local examples of recently published Local Plans, such as Central Lincs and Cambridgeshire, have already taken a positive approach and lead. It should be noted in this regard that subsequent direction by the Secretary of State (DLUHC) concerning the Future Homes Standard will still be bound by ‘the rule of law’ which must embrace “freedom, certainty, and fairness” and will be subject to judicial review if deemed an “unreasonable exercise of discretionary power vested in the Minister” (Appendix 5. Paper by Professor Paul Craig: The Rule of Law, Select Committee on Constitution Sixth Report, www.parliament.uk.)

Support noted. The Future Homes and Buildings Standards (which aims to improve the energy efficiency and carbon emissions of new homes and non-residential buildings through the Building Regulations system) should take effect in 2025. With such regulations still being debated and no legal guarantee that they will come into effect in 2025, Policy CC2 seeks to ensure that development proposals for existing and new buildings meet high energy efficiency standards, as a contribution towards achieving net zero, and as set out in the Government’s National Design Guide (2021).

Support

Representation ID: 5854

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

As a complement to the Local Plan RCC should map and safeguard “wildlife corridors and stepping stones”, building on those identified in Neighbourhood Plans and from neighbouring local planning authorities, as well as “areas of habitat management, enhancement, restoration and creation”, as required in the NPPF.

Support noted. The NPPF does state that plans should identify, map and safeguard such biodiversity features. This may be achievable following the publication of the Local Nature Recovery Strategy/using the Rutland Biodiversity Study.

Support

Representation ID: 5855

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Add mention of ecological corridors and stepping stones in both policies EN2 and EN7. Add “...through habitat creation, protection, enhancement, restoration, management, ecological corridors and stepping stones.”

In the Glossary these two terms need to be simply explained:
• Ecological corridors - areas of semi-natural habitat to be protected and enhanced to allow movement of species. Extend and connect these corridors where appropriate with new native plantings.
• Stepping stones - unconnected areas of semi-natural habitat close to corridors, allowing more mobile species to move through the landscape.
Ref - https://www.data.gov.uk/dataset/f43a9840-db4d-4ca4-9236-8b1dda3e32ef/ecological-corridors-and-stepping-stones

Support noted. Agree so as in accordance with para 185 of NPPF. Amend Policy EN2 to read: ‘…through proposals such as habitat creation, protection, enhancement, restoration, management, wildlife corridors and stepping stones.’
Add into Glossary: Wildlife corridors: areas of semi-natural habitat to be protected and enhanced to allow movement of species such as through new native plantings.
Stepping stones - unconnected areas of semi-natural habitat close to corridors, allowing more mobile species to move through the landscape.

Object

Representation ID: 5859

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Off-site BNG should be encouraged to be in areas identified by RCC for habitat creation or ecological corridors or stepping stones.

If 20% BNG is seen as viable and deliverable this should be the minimum requirement - as mentioned in the Viability Report. Cambridgeshire Local Plan uses 20%.

On P.179 – Add for both the proposed development site and net gain site. Also add partnerships with wildlife groups or organisations.

Add a clause “Swift and bat boxes should normally be integrated into new buildings with the advice of a professional ecologist.”

Comments noted. Criteria b): Disagree. Mapping would be carried out in accordance with the latest Government guidance which (at the time that the Reg 18 Plan was produced) is listed in the text accompanying the policy as part of the required Biodiversity Gain Plan.
Criteria d): Disagree. The text accompanying Policy EN3 makes it clear that on-site mitigation is the preferred option but, that off-site will be considered where it offers the best outcome for biodiversity and is in reasonably close proximity to the application site. Reference is already made in the text accompanying Policy EN3 that proposals for biodiversity should be informed by strategies such as the LNRS and other documents. These will include such ecological features.

Comments noted. 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.

Unclear where additional text is suggested to be added on page 179 but details relating to swift and bat boxes would be best set out in the SPD.

Support

Representation ID: 5863

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

It is important for biodiversity to emphasise the value of planting native trees.

Add a small section on traditional orchards. Natural England includes them as Priority Habitats unlike hedgerows. They have been mapped in Rutland by the Peoples Trust for Endangered Species and DEFRA, even though they are not included in the Biodiversity Action Plan Spaces for Wildlife 2016-2026.

For example, Ketton and Normanton parish have large traditional orchards. Many Local Plans include the protection of traditional orchards, especially as they often have veteran trees in abandoned orchards. These are very valuable for biodiversity.
See https://data.jncc.gov.uk/data/2829ce47-1ca5-41e7-bc1a-871c1cc0b3ae/UKBAP-BAPHabitats-56-TraditionalOrchards.pdf

Support noted.

Regarding non native trees, trees have many benefits with many exotic (non-native) trees excelling in some. To limit the selection to just 33 native trees is more a detriment than a benefit however amend policy text to ensure non native are only used if appropriate.

Agree regarding traditional orchards which are identified as priority habitats in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5864

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

There should be a presumption against development/redevelopment of land affecting ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees. Use the same phraseology as in EN6 - “Planning permission for development which would lead to the loss of ancient woodlands, ancient and veteran trees will only be permitted where:”

Comments noted. Agree.

Support

Representation ID: 5866

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

The phrase “green routes” should be replaced by “ecological corridors”.

Point 3 “ identify and provide opportunities to enhance and improve linkages between the natural and historical landscapes of Rutland” should be replaced by “ identify and provide opportunities to enhance and improve ecological corridors, stepping stones as well as linkages between the natural and historical landscapes in both Rutland and any neighbouring local authorities.”

Cooperation with neighbouring local authorities is especially relevant in terms of these wider natural and historical links, for example across the River Welland from Leighfield Forest to Rockingham Forest.

Support noted. Amend references within Policies.

Support

Representation ID: 5867

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: RCC Expert Panel on Carbon Reduction

Add orchards to this list, as there are now several community orchards in Rutland.

Support noted. Proposals relating to orchards will be covered by Policy EN4 Trees, woodlands and hedgerows