Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 6948

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

i) The Plan contains no management summary, and every policy will need to be considered by the community.
ii) No documentary copies of the plan have so far been made available without charge to parish communities.
iii) It has been stated by senior officers that the Local Plan is intended to be” Community Led” but the first we see of the Regulation18 Local Plan is about 400 pages available to read off a computer screen.
iv) Most of the policies are presented (including environmental and climate change policies) with a presumption in favour of development with vague and subjective lists of caveats.
v) There are numerous conflicting policies.
vi) The Plan contains many mentions of the NPPF but very few of them give a reference to the NPPF paragraph referred to and none state how the paragraph concerned will be interpreted by the Rutland Local Planning Authority.
vii) There is no evidence that any thought has been given by the author of this Plan concerning
how the proposed policies will be understood and interpreted by Development Control in order to implement the policies in the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7461

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Policy SS4 is inconsistent with Policy SS1 and greatly increases the scope for development in the small villages beyond that indicated by Policy SS1.

To merge and confuse the limiting planning policies for small villages with the more limited development polices in open countryside and actually to increase the development opportunities in the open countryside through the application of conditions (a) to (g) in policy SS4.

Conditions (a) to (g) because of their lack of clarity and the very different interpretations which can be placed upon them by landowners, the village community and planning case officers, will impose an impossible determination task on Development Control and will cause increased friction between the planning department and the communities in the small villages.

. Conclusions
Clipsham Parish Meeting object to this policy and to all references in the text to it. It is recommended that this policy is removed from the local plan.

The conditions or “provisos” (a) to (g) in Policy SS4 will enable developers to make planning applications and perhaps also to successfully appeal against Local Planning Authority refusals given the vagueness and difficulty in determination of these conditions.

Object

Representation ID: 7465

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

The fact that no provision for any development at St George’s Barracks during the plan period to 2041 has been allowed for in table 4 provides misleading and unrealistic information. Therefore, there would seem to be a strong likelihood that the site allocations for Oakham, Uppingham and the larger villages are too many and that reductions should be made to allow for a carefully assessed small development at SGB. All of the reserve sites should be excluded from the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7466

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

A comprehensive definition of what is meant by “sustainable” in this context is required to clarify a clear boundary line between what development will be considered sustainable and what development will be considered unsustainable – this is needed for the communities in Rutland, for Developers and for the Rutland Local Planning Authority to make rational and acceptable decisions concerning the scale and location of development in Rutland.

Object

Representation ID: 7468

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

This policy is incapable of implementation because of its subjectivity and vagueness. It clearly presents a presumption in favour of development. It is merely a wish list which it is impossible to accomplish. It does not even acknowledge the significant increase in air pollution from additional rural traffic which will undoubtedly be generated from Policy SS4. The policy needs to be re-constructed with a presumption against development and subject to defined and measurable targets to specify defined thresholds of air pollution which need to be guaranteed for development to be approved. These thresholds must not exceed present measured levels of pollution.

Object

Representation ID: 7472

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Only significant harm will allow development to be refused. How is this to be defined for determination purposes? Without clarification this statement in meaningless.

Clause 3 of policy EN1 needs to be re-written as a presumption against development with clearly defined and measurable conditions as to standards when development might be considered. The conditions need to be re-defined in such a way that there is clarity and no ambiguity as to how they will be interpreted by the Rutland community, by potential developers and by the Local Planning Authority.

Clause 4: The term “irreplaceable habitats” need to be properly defined. This policy needs to be re-written with a presumption against development with clearly defined and measurable conditions. The conditions need to be re-defined in such a way that there is clarity and no ambiguity as to how they will be interpreted by the Rutland Community, by potential developers and by the Local Planning Authority. More work is required on this clause.

Object

Representation ID: 7481

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

There is clearly a conflict between theopening sentence of this policy and the second paragraph. The use of the words “major development” in the first paragraph is clearly incorrect and misleading because BNG requires virtually all new development to contribute towards the delivery of measurable net gains. The word “major” should be deleted from this opening statement.

i) The meaning of “qualifying developments” needs to be defined within this policy wording. It would seem that almost all developments are “qualifying “developments with very few exceptions.
ii) The policy states (page 178/231) “Funding for both on-site and off-site measures shall include a payment to the Council to cover the costs of independent review of Biodiversity Gain Plans and long-term monitoring.” Independent professional review by a competent authority of all Biodiversity Gains Plans is an essential requirement of this policy. Biodiversity Gains Plans submitted by applicants for development are not valid for planning determination until they have been independently professionally reported upon. Therefore, full details of the professional review process and its application are required to be an integrated component of this Local Plan and subject to public consultation.
It is essential that a comprehensive Supplementary Planning Document is available for consultation and implementation at the earliest possible time.

Object

Representation ID: 7483

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

i) What type of new development would be expected to protect and enhance irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodlands and ancient and veteran trees? Please explain.
ii) Proposals which avoid or prevent the loss or deterioration will be supported?
iii) This policy needs to be changed to create a presumption against development and clearly defined justifiable exceptions are itemised and explained for clarity of decision making.

Object

Representation ID: 7484

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

This policy provides a presumption in favour of development subject to the development not having an adverse impact upon a number of subjective and vaguely defined principles.

This policy therefore presents great difficulties for determination by Development Control and will undoubtedly fuel disagreement and tensions between the Local Planning Authority and the Rutland community.

This policy should clearly state a presumption against development and any possible exceptions permitting any development need to be clearly defined to avoid any ambiguity or challenges over differences of opinion.

Object

Representation ID: 7487

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Designated Heritage Assets section has no meaning and provides no guidance for the implementation of the policy by Development Control. It cannot contribute to the determination of planning applications.

Conservation Areras section provides a presumption in favour of development in conservation areas. What does “significant weight” mean? How is “development within, affecting the setting of, or affecting views into or out of a Conservation Area” expected to “conserve, or enhance features that contribute positively to the areas special character, appearance and setting ---“?

Buildings of local importance/non-designated heritage assets section contains no benchmarks or guidelines for determination by Development Control. The terms used in this policy are subjective and are open to widely differing interpretations. They offer no basis for determination by Development Control.

Policy EN12 provides no improvements on adopted policy SP20 for the protection of heritage assets, even though development pressures have much increased over time. We would expect to see a clear presumption against development around heritage assets whilst clearly explaining the considerations which will be weighed in exceptional circumstances where development applications may receive sympathetic consideration.

These cases should be limited to where a clear and demonstrable public benefit results from any development which might impact heritage assets.