Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 6372

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

The 'small scale' nature of building stone operations’ is not defined and risks restrcting important sources of stone. The wording 'small scale' should be removed.
The supporting text references clay extraction at Little Casterton however this site has not operated for a considerable period of time and extraction is unlikely to resume.
The supporting text references annual production of 9,700 tonnes of building stone. Actual production levels are significantly higher and accordingly it is considered that greater consideration should be given to the importance of building stone production.

Object

Representation ID: 6374

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

MIN2 (c) supports the supply of building stone, but specifically refers to use within Rutland. Given the limited geographical extent of the County, it is inevitable that a proportion of building stone extracted will be used outside the County (principally within neighbouring counties). To ensure the adequate provision of regionally importance sources of stone it is suggested that this wording be expanded to ‘Rutland and the surrounding region’.

Support

Representation ID: 6379

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

The proposals in respect of the safeguarding of limestones, clays for use in cement manufacture, and sand and gravel are supported however there appears to be no justification for the safeguarding of fireclay.
The supporting text confirms that ‘A realistic judgment about the resource viability, practicability and potential environmental impacts will be made; the MPA will not seek to prevent development where it is unlikely that prior extraction is feasible’. This is of paramount importance to the successful application of Policy MIN3 and consideration should be given to reinforcing this approach or potentially including similar wording within the Policy itself.

Object

Representation ID: 6385

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

Within MIN4 b) iii, reference to ‘Rutland’ should be amended to ‘Rutland and the surrounding region’.
The preference for proposals at allocated sites risks prejudicing other applications, particularly if the sole proposed allocation is not brought forward. This may have a detrimental impact on material supply (particularly in relation to building stone), competition and the local economy. In order to support the continuation of existing operations, proposals for the extension/direct replacement of existing sites should be given equal importance to allocated sites.

Object

Representation ID: 6394

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

In order to avoid unnecessarily preventing non-mineral development where historically permitted mineral extraction is unlikely to resume, MIN6 b) should make it clear that a realistic judgment about the viability, practicability and potential environmental impacts of extraction at a permitted site should be made.

Support

Representation ID: 6396

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

It is important that the restoration policy recognises the potential range of restoration opportunities within the County and contains sufficient freedom to ensure that future restoration schemes can be tailored to meet emerging trends/objective (as external factors may dictate).

Object

Representation ID: 6510

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

The scale of the proposed allocation is excessive and extraction is likely to extend well beyond the Plan period.
There is uncertainty around its delivery/the extinguishment of the extant Thistleton permission.
The inclusion of such a large scale allocation undermines the spatial strategy set out in MIN1 and may prejudice other mineral applications within the Plan period. This may have a detrimental effect on minerals supply and stifle competition.
An alternative site has been proposed at Hooby Lane North which would replace the proposed allocation - and detailed comments have been made about the Mineral and Waste Site Assessment Report conclusions on the both sites.
In light of the above it is considered that the allocation should not be taken forward and instead replaced by the alternative site at Hooby Lane North.