Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 7435

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

This is clearly counter intuitive in that it suggests the smaller villages, which are by definition those which should not face development pressure, are seemingly to have less protection than the larger settlements. It is not clear why there has been this change – it certainly has not been asked for by any community submissions and wasn’t included in either the 2017 or 2020 Reg.18 Plans. Planning policies are supposed to provide elements of clarity and certainty- by altering the way the PLD works (for both settlement groupings) it removes this clarity.
The 7 largely subjective clauses in SS4 will make the consistent interpretation of planning applications very difficult for development control to apply. If the smaller villages are going to be faced with development being approved that meet these criteria and there-by effectively building in the countryside then developers are going to find these possibilities (particularly the rounding off concept) a very attractive proposition when it comes to seeking to try and justify development beyond the PLD in the larger villages, where after all development is supposed to be concentrated.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7436

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

A further issue relates to the role of the Countryside. In the smaller settlements the countryside plays a critical role in removing the PLD designation in that the PLD is not needed as the presumption is that all land surrounding these settlements is countryside and therefore free from development pressure (except where there are the exceptions relating to small scale re-development, infill and rounding off explained previously).

Thus it could be argued the Countryside in the smaller villages, which is a fundamental restraint policy is theoretically the main protection against development, has greater weight than in the larger villages where it has the PLD to protect it first and only after that is the countryside considered. Overall applying the PLD, a policy with a long history in Rutland, consistently across all its settlements does seem to have some strength. We consider having two different approaches could make it easier for developers to find ways round both these policy approaches.

Objections noted.
The settlements that do not have PLDs will be considered as open countryside and are therefore restricted to the open countryside policies.

Object

Representation ID: 7437

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Given that there is a separate policy in the plan for St. George’s Barracks, currently this policy applies primarily to Kendrew Barracks and HMP Stocken. We welcome that there is still a policy about this in the Plan. However, it is vital that lessons are learnt from St George’s as to how this policy is framed and, if necessary during the plan period, implemented.

We strongly urge that reference is made to engaging with community from the start, if this were to happen and that this point is emphasised strongly within the policy itself. The reference to a supplementary planning document or a development plan document, incorporating a development brief or masterplan is welcomed. But this must be led by the Local Planning Authority and should on no account be led by landowners and/or potential developers. Again this should be reflected in the policy. This is consistent with the way public sector operational land is treated. Thus, whilst it is operational and only whilst it is operational there is some scope to be treated differently under some elements of planning legislation. Once it is no longer required and becomes surplus to operational requirements it is then under the same development rules as any other potential development, even while it is still retained in public ownership.

Comments noted. Policy SS7 (now SS6) states that the SPD/DPD would be prepared in consultation with a number of groups, including local communities. The text supporting the policy states that, if the re-use is likely to be significant then development proposals may need to be through a review of the Local Plan or a separate Development Plan Document. This would allow for full consultation in accordance with the Local Plan Regulations and in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

Object

Representation ID: 7438

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

As we stated earlier, neither the residents of Cottesmore or the CPC are NIMBY. We accept our role in the settlement hierarchy and that this will include some development. However we have comments on all the specific site proposals in the parish, both those included and excluded.

Our starting point is that we are of the opinion that there has not been a sufficiently rigorous or consistent approach to the assessment of the suitability of the sites for inclusion in the Plan or otherwise, following the Call for sites consultation. We had offered, as have many parishes, to engage with this process in advance of the preparation and publication of the Reg.18 Local Plan – an example we thought of good community engagement. CPC has considered your appraisal and outcomes for the individual sites. We think it important to address and respond on all of them, not just those selected for the Reg.18 Plan, as it is important for CPC to provide our views on all of them, including making RCC aware of where we appear to be in agreement.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7439

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

this is not one the CPC consider is appropriate for development, particularly in its current configuration with a proposed shared access from Main Street.
Development proposals on this site have been contrary to a number of key Neighbourhood Plan policies, and highway safety reasons. So thus, in our mind, proving this site is unsuitable for the type and scale of development that would have met the requirements of the Neighbourhood Plan. It also means affordable housing could not be achieved on this site, and a commuted payment to provide affordable elsewhere would likely be of no direct benefit to Cottesmore.
Turning to the access – this, it is argued, can work, but only with a limited number of large dwellings. The access would have to be a service road with a shared surface i.e. between vehicles and pedestrians. The entrance to the site from the access road would also be on a curve with poor sightlines and further increasing the concerns about pedestrian safety. The residents immediately adjacent and one off the access road itself could be at serious risk.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7440

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

CPC have made comments on all call for site sites and conclude the following:
COT 01 (H1.8) - Object (see detailed objection)
COT03 - Object to exclusion consider site is suitable for allocation
COT04 - agree with site assessment conclusion not suitable
COT05 - agree with site assessment conclusion not suitable
COT07 - agree with site assessment conclusion not suitable
COT12 - Agree outside PLD therefore not suitable
COT 13 and COT 15 (H1a) - object - see detailed objection
COT 14 (H1.5) Object site unsuitable for residential use (see detailed objection)

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

Object

Representation ID: 7441

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

There appears to be a number of inaccuracies in the assessment of this site – its current use, for example, is wrongly shown as agriculture, and it has an indicative capacity of 4 dwellings, even though the substantive plan document shows it has 8 units. However our main concern is its designation for housing. It is of course employment land combining a car showroom, workshop, MOT Test station, bodyshop and fuel station, probably classed as B2 (or possibly Sui Generis). It employs about 10 people.

If the plan is to be consistent and it is to be identified for development then it should be for employment uses. The loss of existing employment land in the larger settlements in Rutland should be resisted, as it is critical to the delivery of sustainable communities and the Local Plan itself shows how little new opportunities there are in these larger settlements.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7443

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

object to the site for following reasons:
- it is 50% larger than when last designated.
- This is clearly open countryside
- good quality agricultural land which should be safeguarded from development unless it meets an essential need.
- as currently shown the single point of access is directly opposite the entrance to St. Nicholas Primary School and no amount of mitigation measures is going to offset the potential hazards and likely impact on pedestrian safety.
a development of this scale would increase the population of the village itself (excluding Kendrew Barracks) by around 20-25% in one go. We suggest that villages, even larger ones like Cottesmore, need to be allowed to grow organically through smaller scale expansions, with more sensitive design and will support rather than stretch local services.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7444

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

This site has been identified in previous draft Local Plans and every time CPC has pointed out that, whilst it is adjacent to Greetham village, the site is in Cottesmore Parish and should be so reflected for the sake of accuracy. We have also indicated that because of its location, were it ever to be developed we would fully expect that both parishes would be involved in discussions around an equitable and reasonable CIL settlement (or its replacement mechanism). We acknowledge that, given its location, CPC would endorse whatever position Greetham PC takes on this site.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7445

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Reserve sites
in our opinion this element of Policy H1 is unworkable, as well as creating untold issues for the residents close to the site with effectively ‘planning blight’ in place for many years to come. a Local Plan should be about creating certainty and clarity about future decisions within its orbit – this policy does the reverse in effectively holding a potential (but not certain) threat of development over many years. By putting these sites in the plan, albeit on a notional reserve list, it will give land owners and developers the important and clear message that the principle of development has been established – it is just a matter of timing. They won’t wait – why should they? Even if they do wait, the blight is still there. Furthermore, RCC correctly has not identified sites for the full plan period – identifying 1,347 units out of the total plan requirement of 2,706 (Table 4). Therefore it will be difficult to argue against a site, identified as meeting the in- principal test, being refused on grounds of prematurity.
The approach should be to exclude reserve sites and await the first review of the Plan.

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