Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 5756

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Reduce greenfield development

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5758

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

All these things should be in place before development is permitted

Support and comments noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5761

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Rutland lacks enforcement, although a vital resource quarrying blights many communities

Support for objective noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5784

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Rutland is a small rural county and 2460 houses over the plan period seems high and unsustainable, we must not to exceed these figures, Rutland needs to remain a nice place to live for the current residents. The village hierarchy threshold for larger villages, many with very few facilities seems low, other local authorities have greater numbers for villages to become larger villages . The removal of the planned limits of development for small villages is most unsatisfactory and we object strongly as this will encourage development in unsustainable locations, the planned limits of development ensure protection to the countryside.

Housing numbers are considered under policy H1.
Comments re classification of large and small villages and removal of PLDs are noted. This matter is considered in detail under policy SS4

Object

Representation ID: 5786

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Community based neighbourhood plans are an excellent way for development to happen where it is wanted and the proposed local plan seems to be in conflict with this in some instances

Noted. The Local Plan is not considered to be in conflict with the objectives of Neighbourhood Plan groups who have or are preparing Neighbourhood Plans.

Support

Representation ID: 5807

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Seems reasonable

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 5808

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

We do not agree with removal of the planned limits of development in the least sustainable villages

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.

Support

Representation ID: 5809

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Not yet vacated by the military

Support noted. Policy SS5 (now SS4) recognises that SGB is still occupied and may be vacated by 2026. As a Future Opportunity Area it does not allocate the site for housing/employment and so the Local Plan is not reliant on the site to meet development needs during the plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 5811

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Seems reasonable

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5813

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

These military sites cover large areas and due consideration should be given to returning undeveloped areas to agriculture

Support noted. It would be outside the scope of the Local Plan to require MOD land to be returned to agriculture given the length of time that the sites have been occupied by the armed forces when compared with, say, more temporary development such as solar farms.