Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 6982

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

Policy E1, which provides the strategic employment allocations, is not supported by an appropriate evidence base demonstrating how each site is ‘suitable’, ‘available’ and ‘achievable; for development in accordance with the NPPG. No assessment has been made as to the development potential of each site, taking account of site and policy constraints. Therefore there is no certainty that the sites could deliver sufficient employment land to meet identified needs. Further, there is no employment land trajectory to demonstrate when the employment sites will deliver new floorspace. It is therefore unclear whether the sites will meet the short, medium and long term needs of Rutland.
In addition, there are no specific site allocations for office development which provide for the quantum of office space identified within the Employment Needs Evidence. The one allocated site which provides for office uses (no identified floorspace) is in Oakham and therefore would not meet the dispersed needs of the County as a whole.
It would also increase the need for commuting to the detriment to sustainability.

The conclusions and detail of the site assessment process and subsequent conclusions that have determined those sites which have been allocated will be published. Those sites which are to be allocated will reflect the evidence as set out in the Rutland Employment Needs & Economic Development Evidence (August 2023).

Object

Representation ID: 7683

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

Policy E4 is therefore not ‘Consistent with National Policy’ and should be updated to:

• Remove reference or more specifically define the circumstance in which it could be demonstrated that an employment use ‘could not reasonably be expected to locate within the planned limits of development’;
• provide more flexibility to the circumstances in which employment uses can be located in the rural areas such as the expansion or relocation of existing rural businesses; and
• specifically allow for the construction of new buildings for employment uses.

Comments noted. However, the Council consider Policy E4 to be in accordance with the NPPF. Specifically paragraphs 88 and 89, which requires policies to enable the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business in rural areas. This policy seeks to steer development to the most sustainable locations in accordance with this.

Object

Representation ID: 7684

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

The thrust of the Policy is similar to Policy E4 and therefore the same comments apply in relation to clearly defining how it can be demonstrated that development cannot be reasonably accommodated within or adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of towns and villages.
This Policy is overly restrictive in relation to the type of new development allowed in the rural area, and the circumstances in which such development would be permitted. The NPPF paras 88-89 are significantly more positively worded to support the rural economy and do not place the same restricts on the construction of new build development.
Further, in order for new build development to be acceptable it appears the Policy requires the assessment of buildings/sites across the whole County to establish whether there are suitable alternative premises. (re)locating employment development across a county wide area is unlikely to be acceptable for the majority of rural enterprise. There is no guidance in the NPPF that requires such an assessment to be made and therefore the Policy goes beyond the requirements of the NPPF.

Objection Noted.
Policy SS1 establishes the housing and employment needs for the plan period, which states the majority will be focused on within the Planned Limits of Development and through Site Allocations. SS9 (now SS8) only comes into effect where there is an essential need for the development which cannot be fulfilled within the PLD. The NPPF too acknowledges that in some cases development will have to be permitted in rural areas to meet local and community needs, and therefore SS9 (now SS8) is supported by the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7685

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Best Little Building Co. Ltd

Agent: Invicta Planning

The land at Steadfold Lane, Ketton has previously been submitted as part of the Call for Sites process. The Site has been assessed as part of the Employment Needs Evidence but has not been allocated because of the suggested surplus of employment land identified. The Employment Needs Evidence states:
Recommendation – Although broadly suitable as an extension to the sites south there are other more appropriate opportunities in Ketton which should be considered for employment development initially.
This assessment recognises that the Site is suitable, available and achievable for development.
3 Best Little Building Co. Ltd are in immediate need of a new Site for the provision of a new headquarters building having outgrown their existing premises. They are an established local business already based in Ketton and have been unable to secure any other available land to relocate their business. Best Little Building Co. Ltd have a direct interest in the land submitted as part of the previous Call for Sites exercise. The Site is therefore ‘available’ and ‘achievable’ for development immediately. There are no known viability issues with development of the Site.

Noted. Site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received.