Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 7446

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Policy H4 focuses on ‘Meeting All Needs’. Under Table 5 (also labelled as Figure 4) there is text referring to the specific requirements for dwelling mix on sites proposed for allocation, will be determined at the next stage of the Local Plan. When is this? Our interpretation of your programme is that the next public consultation is Reg.19, when the document in your terms is ready for the Examination in Public, subject to the tests of its soundness. This should not be used to introduce new policies and information that should have been included in the Reg. 18 Plan.

Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7447

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

CPC acknowledges the importance of employment locally. In many ways, it is at the heart of producing Sustainable Communities. We agree the thrust of Policy E1 of identifying strategic employment sites, although note there are very few in the larger villages, apart from in Ketton. We also support Policy E3 of protecting existing employment land and premises for the same reason.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7448

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

CPC acknowledges the importance of employment locally. In many ways, it is at the heart of producing Sustainable Communities. We agree the thrust of Policy E1 of identifying strategic employment sites, although note there are very few in the larger villages, apart from in Ketton. We also support Policy E3 of protecting existing employment land and premises for the same reason.
However Eassons Garage should not be allocated for residential use, instead it should be identified for employment uses this would be consistent with E3.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7452

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

It would be very helpful to have a clear definition of what sustainable communities are seen to be in the circumstances of Rutland.
The policies in this chapter are laudable. But there are notable conflicts with many of the other policies in the plan. The plan should seek to retain facilities within the main settlements by being robust in resisting attempts to allow higher value land-uses to force out lower value uses essential to achieving communities that are genuinely sustainable.
The planning system can, within the framework provided by national guidance, act strongly in ensuring we provide the type of development that we want to see, with all its obligations and only in the places we want it to be. But it necessitates a strong plan, built upon community needs and aspirations and with an equally strong commitment that it will be delivered.

NPPF provided a definition of sustainable development, it is not therefore necessary for the Local Plan to repeat this guidance.
Policy SC6 provides a comprehensive set of criteria against which proposals which would result in the loss of community facilities will be assessed, with the objective of protecting such facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 7457

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

EN1 -Object in its current wording. This chapter is one where the policies are still couched as if there is a presumption in favour of development everywhere, even in areas designated such as Local Wildlife Sites and Local Nature Reserves. By their very nature the presumption here must be against development. The Parish Council believes this needs to be completely rewritten, to set out clearly and unequivocally the situations and measurable conditions that would have to be met for any development to be considered. As currently drafted, the Local Plan would make it difficult for development control to interpret and would likely be to put the Local Planning Authority at odds with the community which reasonably would expect such places to be protected as the overriding priority.

Comments noted. Disagree. The wording of Policy EN1 aligns with the Government guidance set out in para 186 of 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.

Object

Representation ID: 7458

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

This policy relates to strategies that haven’t be prepared as yet – so assuming RCC has to produce its own Local Nature Recovery Strategy – when will this happen and how will it relate to the Local Plan?

Object - policy needs further clarification

Comments noted. The preparation of a LNRS is a mandatory requirement under the Environment Act 2021 and is being prepared by Leicestershire County Council on behalf of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Councils. It is likely to be published in July 2025 with a draft document produced later this year. It will be used to inform the preparation of policies in the Local Plan and then, once published, will be used in the interpretation and application of policies. Further text on the background and role of LNRS will be provided in connection with Policy EN2.

Object

Representation ID: 7459

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Object to the current wording
It is our understanding that the thrust of this policy, as set out in the NPPF, is that the majority of developments that entail actual building work (as opposed, for example, to advertisements or certain change of use) will require a Biodiversity Net Gain of at least 15%. Accordingly, we suggest the use of the word ‘major‘ in the preamble to this policy, is misleading and another example of where there are clear contradictions in the Plan.

Comments noted. Agree. Delete ‘major’ from opening sentence and substitute with ‘qualifying’

Object

Representation ID: 7460

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

object to current wording - this policy is all about protecting Important Open Spaces (of which we have several in Cottesmore). Therefore it is inconsistent in policy terms to have anything other than a presumption against development, with clarity about any possible exceptions.

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: 7462

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Object to current policy – needs strengthening. Development Criteria for Mineral Extraction. - More specifically, we fully endorse the comments made by the Quarry Forum that this policy needs to be strengthened, in particular around proper quantitative risk assessments, demonstrating any adverse impacts and how operators will be forced to protect the local amenity, particularly of adjoining settlements. Where we share a more direct concern, to the quarries at Greetham for example, is to beef up the wording around highway safety, including the security of loads and safety of pedestrians.

Policy MIN4 states how proposals for minerals development are expected to demonstrate how the proposal will protect local amenity
particularly in relation to secure safe and appropriate site access; and make provision to secure highway safety. The need for quantitative risk assessments are more appropriate to be developed through the scoping and planning application stage for individual sites.

Object

Representation ID: 7463

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

The lack of a robust policy on restoration following mineral workings is not just a Rutland issue – too often Local Plans do not include them. It is a significant and unacceptable omission. Everyone knows mineral extraction permissions will last for a long time and they will almost inevitably now include conditions around proper environmental mitigation and restoration, (in essence, turning a former hillside into a valley or a lake.) However, time and again land owners/ mineral operators will try to evade these obligations – knowing that they were made many years previously. We had the situation recently at the now quarried out Greetham Quarry where there was an attempt to avoid restoration with a speculative application for a very significant volume of warehousing. This of course does directly affect us in Cottesmore, as the main east west movement would be along the B668 through Cottesmore. The only safeguards against this evasion of responsibilities are strong policies, forcing operators to implement the agreed restoration plan.

Local Plan Policy MIN9 - Restoration and aftercare, requires all proposals for temporary minerals development to include a restoration scheme to secure delivery of high-quality restoration and aftercare, including provisions for ongoing management and maintenance where necessary.