Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7519

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing PC broadly welcomes the policies, and regrets that
these were not in place and rigorously applied to recent developments in and around Oakham and Uppingham especially. The pressure that such developments have placed on existing infrastructure and community facilities should not be underestimated.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 7520

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

It is disappointing that the policies for sustainable new
developments do not include requirements for footpaths and cycle-ways to connect to exsiting facilities and facilitate non-car transport. Apart from connectivity for new
developments there is a glaring existing need for a dedicated footpath and cycle path beside the busy main road between Uppingham and Oakham, on which traffic
travels at high speed. The policy on sustainable transport deals only with electric cars and charging points

Noted. This relates more to the policy on sustainable transport which is covered in policy INF2. Amendments to that policy and to reference the Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan (LCWIP) will be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 7521

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

It is disappointing that the policies for sustainable new developments do not include requirements for footpaths and cycle-ways to connect to existing facilities and facilitate non-car transport. Apart from connectivity for new developments there is a glaring existing need for a dedicated footpath and cycle path beside the busy main road between Uppingham and Oakham, on which traffic
travels at high speed. The policy on sustainable transport deals only with electric cars and charging points.

This issue is covered by policy INF3 - Walking and Cycling.

Support

Representation ID: 7522

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing PC welcomes these policies which broadly align with those elaborated in the Wing Neighbourhood Plan.

Support Noted

Object

Representation ID: 7523

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

The policy does not acknowledge the information and local priorities reflected in Neighbourhood Plans, including Wing NP. The RCC assessment of open spaces and frontages was apparently done in 2017. The reasoning as to why some assignments in Wing were denied has never been clear or objective, and RCC have not done work they should have done in the past in relation to appraisal of Wing
conserva7on area.

Noted. This is addressed in the supporting text, Important Open Spaces designated within Neighbourhood Plans have not been duplicated within this policy and are therefore not shown on the proposals map. Conservation Area Appraisals fall outside the scope of this Policy and outside the scope of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7524

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

This policy is ironic in the context of Wing’s experience regarding maintenance of Wing Maze, and restoration of verges in Middle Street. It is appreciated that this policy is aimed at every individual not just developers, but it
should also, surely, be binding on RCC and its responsibility towards maintaining highways in conservation areas, so maintaining the character and quality of conservation areas/listed buildings. The proposals for energy efficiency and renewable energy measures for historic buildings are welcome, but it would be even better to see this policy translated into practice by RCC in terms of their own decision making.

Noted. This falls outside the scope of Policy EN9.

Support

Representation ID: 7525

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Wing PC strongly supports this policy, but again notes that RCC highways have failed to apply such a policy in protecting the character of Wing Conservation Area

Support of the policy noted.