Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7902

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

S6 Use of Military Bases and Prisons for Operational or other Purposes - Support

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7903

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

S7 Reuse of Redundant Military Bases and Prisons - Support

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7904

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS8 Residential Development in the Open Countryside - Support

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7905

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS9 Non-residential Development in the Countryside - Support

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7906

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS10 Conversion of Buildings outside PLD’s - Support

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7907

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

SS11 New Agricultural Buildings - Support

Support of the policy noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7908

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

There seems to be a confusing divergence in the numbers of new houses required in the Plan and greater accuracy of what is being proposed is required before this chapter can be accepted … therefore Ryhall Parish Council object to it in toto.

The Plans states that the total number of houses needed in Rutland is equivalent to an addition of 123 per year …this equates to a total of 2460.

But a 10% ‘Buffer’ is stated as being included taking the total to 2706 [actually the plan says 2705 and this variation is not explained] which equates to 135.3 per year.

However, earlier commitments since 2018 are taken into account meaning additional sites for 1358 new houses been identified.

Quarry Farm/Monarch Park, if it goes ahead, will contribute 650 to this total reducing the new sites needed to 708

However more detailed numbers about where these houses are to be located are provided in Table 4 and on pages 80/81 which neither match this calculation or even agree with each other!

It is stated in these two references as being:-
Table 4 Pages 80/81
Oakham 183 225
Uppingham 316 316
Larger Villages* 153 184
Small Villages/Hamlets
with no PLD 45 Nil

Sub-totals 697 725

The numbers don’t add up … either 11 houses short or 17 too many when compared with the 708 new houses apparently illustrated in previous enumeration statements!

Clarity and exactitude are needed before this chapter can be accepted.

comments are noted and this section of the plan will be revised to provide greater clarity about what the plan is proposing in terms of housing numbers.

Object

Representation ID: 7909

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

H1 Quarry Farm - Object
Greenfield / cLWS / Carbon Sink / Priority Habitats. NPPF 142/143/181/188.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7910

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

Reserve Site H1.f Meadow Lane, Belmesthorpe Road, Ryhall - Object
Greenfield Site, Archaeological and Flood Risk. NPPF 142/153

Ryhall Parish Council have already submitted a substantial objection to the development of this site. Furthermore, we understand an application for development on this land has already been submitted so we are at a loss to understand how it can be regarded as a ‘reserve’ site if it is already under consideration as an active proposal.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7911

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

H2 Cross-Boundary Development Opportunity - Stamford North - Object
Would comment that any development at Stamford North is an agreed Masterplan and submitted as a joint application. Any development proposed on the cLWS should not be permitted, and alternative options are available.

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