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.

Comments noted. i) There is no requirement for a summary in the Local Plan under Government guidance or the Local Plan Regulations. Chapter 3 does, however, set out the vision and Strategic Objectives for the Local Plan which do establish the framework for the policies. ii) 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. Where a paper copy has been requested this has been charged at cost price. iii) In line with the Council’s SCI a parish briefing on the Reg 18 Local Plan was carried out. iv) The Local Plan aligns with Government guidance in applying a presumption in favour of sustainable development and taking a proactive approach towards tackling climate change and protecting the environment. Criteria based policies provide a thorough approach for the determination of planning applications. v) Unable to comment without specific examples of conflicting policies but, whilst there may be some overlap between certain policies, care has been taken to ensure that there is not conflict between policies. vi) The NPPF is frequently reviewed and so paragraph numbers would become quickly out of date and this could lead to confusion. Government guidance in the NPPF would be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. vii) Development Control are consulted on the Reg 18 Plan and any suggested changes to the wording of the policies would be incorporated into the Reg 19 Plan. Monitoring of the Plan will also assist in any future review of the policies.

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.

Concern noted. policy to be revised to provide greater clarity and certainty.

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.

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

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.

NPPF provided a definition of sustainable development, it is not therefore necessary for the Local Plan to repeat this guidance.

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.

Local Plan policies must be positively worded and are therefore usually worded in favour of development.
Policy SC4 is considered to provided sufficient detail and clarity to be used in the determination of planning application. It is noted that additional changes have been proposed in response to individual comments.

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.

Comments noted. Whilst significant harm is not defined in the NPPF, the policy would require the effect of a development proposal on biodiversity to be assessed as part of a planning application by a qualified ecologist. This assessment would then be scrutinized by the relevant consultees. Significant harm is likely to be where a development undermines the biodiversity conservation objectives for the important identified ecological features, or for biodiversity in general.
The wording of Policy EN1 aligns with the Government guidance set out in para 186 the NPPF which sets out a number of principles for a hierarchical approach to the protection of designated sites and important habitats. Natural England have also stated in their representation on Policy EN1 that they generally welcome this policy (subject to a couple of very minor changes to the wording of the Policy) which establishes a framework for the protection of designated nature conservation sites across the Plan area and highlights the importance of applying the mitigation hierarchy. Weight would also be given to the NPPF that makes it clear that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on a habitats site (either alone or in combination with other plans or projects) (unless an appropriate assessment has concluded that the plan or project will not adversely affect the integrity of the habitats site.) Policy EN1 is clear and unambiguous in its wording and aligns with Government guidance.
Irreplaceable habitats are habitats which are very difficult (or take a very significant time) to restore, recreate or replace once destroyed, due to their age, uniqueness, species diversity or rarity. The definition and list of irreplaceable habitats for BNG are set out in the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Irreplaceable Habitat) Regulations 2024. The list includes ancient woodland and ancient and veteran trees. Biodiversity Net Gain is covered in Policy EN3.

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.

Comments noted. Agree. Delete ‘major’ from opening sentence and substitute with ‘qualifying’.
Add in definition of ‘qualifying’ in second para. Add in at end of second para on page 177: ‘The full list of exemptions is set out in the Biodiversity Gain Requirements (Exemptions) Regulations 2024.’
As with most applications to discharge conditions, there is no statutory requirement to consult any statutory bodies (or the public) on the Biodiversity Gain Plan or to publicise its submission prior to its determination. It is, however, a public document. The competent authority considering the plan would be the local planning authority (RCC) although the council may decide to seek the view of a professional ecologist on the plan. Details of the review process would not, therefore, be required as part of the Local Plan or subject to public consultation. The council will consider providing further detailed guidance on Policy EN3 in the form of an SPD.

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.

Comments noted. Agree to amend wording of Policy EN5 so that it aligns with government guidance set out in para 186 of the NPPF.

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.

Policy EN8 is not a Green Belt policy therefore development cannot be entirely prohibited. Presumption against development is not in accordance with the NPPF. The Policy lists the criteria that must be adhered to, to ensure any proposed development is appropriate and will not have an adverse impact upon the designated area.

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.

Paragraphs 1-3 relate to EN13.

Objection of policy EN12 noted.
Policy SP20 is replaced by policy EN13.
Policy EN12 is replaced by policy CS22.
EN12 provides improvement from CS22 and explains how national policy will be implemented, what supporting evidence will be required and how developments are expected to be designed. The policy is therefore in line with the requirements set out in the NPPF.