Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 7509

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

We would add to this policy: Planning applications must be supported by sufficient information and evidence to demonstrate compliance with all relevant policies included in this plan “and any relevant Neighbourhood Plan”

Noted however, the policy as written does not provide criteria against which a planning application can be assessed and largely reflects national guidance.
It is useful for the local plan to clearly set out what is expected for the submission of planning applications and it is therefore suggested that the policy becomes supporting text within the plan.

Support

Representation ID: 7510

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

The addendum to this policy acknowledges that Neighbourhood Plans may propose “small scale adjustments to PLDs to allow for additional development
which meet their community’s needs”. We strongly support this provision, although it appears to contradicts SS1, as it allows local communities to respond flexibly to
changing local need.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7511

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Without revisiting all the old issues about the original plans for St George’s Barracks, the policy references 350-600 dwellings additional to 90 on the officers’ mess site. Whilst considerably smaller than the original proposals there is still completely inadequate consideration of the impact on Edith Weston and the surrounding area including Wing parish; for instance, the effect of increased and inappropriate traffic flow on our small lanes (as evidenced by the road closure in in Manton in December 2023). Any future development must be sustainable within the highest criteria possible, including reusing buildings to minimise the loss of
embodied carbon.

Comments noted. Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out the details that would be expected to be covered in the masterplan, and these would include impact on highways and local communities. Criteria p) states that the masterplan should detail how the scheme will satisfy the policies of the Local Plan and relevant Neighbourhood Plans. This would include policies on the re-use of buildings in order to minimise the loss of embodied carbon.

Support

Representation ID: 7512

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing Parish already has a number of residences that lie outside the PLDs of the main village, and would not wish to see substantial additions to these but we believe the policy offers sufficient safeguards.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7513

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing PC is supportive of non-residential developments for the purposes outlined in the policy, especially if they create local employment opportunities, but there must be safeguards to ensure that the scale of development and any traffic it generates is appropriate to the size and facilities of the existing community.

Support noted.
The requirements of SS9 (now SS8) state that proposals would have to demonstrate that 'the development would not generate an unacceptable increase in the amount of traffic movements, and it is capable of being served by public transport or otherwise is readily accessible by means other than by private car to a significant residential workforce is employment intensive uses are proposed.'

Object

Representation ID: 7514

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

It is disappointing that there is no mention of holiday/second homes in this chapter. We believe this to be an issue of increasing relevance to Rutland (it is already an issue in Wing), which requires specific policies to control future use of residential properties.

Comments noted. At the current time the council does not have sufficient evidence to justify a policy restricting the use of dwellings in this way.
National changes to tax and control holiday lets have been introduced which are likely to have an impact on the number of properties being used in this way.

Object

Representation ID: 7515

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

The list of sites proposed for development in larger villages should include the preferred site for development in Wing, as detailed in the Wing Neighbourhood Plan, which will shortly to subject to referendum.as per comment re
SS1

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

Object

Representation ID: 7516

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Like Rutland as whole, Wing needs affordable as well as market housing of different sizes and types. Rutland has an excess of under-occupied houses with 4+ bedrooms (Rutland (and Wing!) is a national outlier) and it is disappointing that there is nothing that seeks to redress the balance.

The Housing Market Assessment strikes an appropriate balance between housing need and demand. The proposed mix for affordable housing is specifically needs-focused. Wing is using the Neighbourhood Plan process to help address the issue of housing mix.

Object

Representation ID: 7517

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

It is good to see “perpetuity” for local people being included. However, it is not just “affordable” and “rural exception” housing that needs to remain in perpetuity for people with local connections. This policy could be more
imaginatively considered so preventing buy to let landlords block purchasing properties/developments (as in Wing and Uppingham) or properties being purchased as second homes/holiday lets.

New national rules on short-term lets were announced on 19 February. The 'disclaimer' on the Whole Plan Viability Assessment is reasonable and the basis of the report is sound and objective, as set out in its methodology.

Object

Representation ID: 7518

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

It is good to see “perpetuity” for local people being included. However, it is not just “affordable” and “rural exception” housing that needs to remain in perpetuity for people with local connections. This policy could be more
imaginatively considered so preventing buy to let landlords block purchasing properties/developments (as in Wing and Uppingham) or properties being purchased as second homes/holiday lets.

The comment regarding "perpetuity" and rural exception sites is noted. Other comments are more relevant to Policy H7, which are considered there.