Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 6511

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: BCH UK Ltd.

Agent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

The 'small scale' nature of building stone operations’ is not defined and, as there is a critical size beneath which sites cannot operate economically, risks restricting important sources of stone. The wording 'small scale' should be removed.
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.

The NPPF para 217 states: ‘In considering proposals for mineral extraction, minerals planning authorities should: recognise the small-scale nature and impact of building and roofing stone quarries’. In the Local Plan the small-scale nature of building stone extraction is defined through reference to the average annual amount (9,700 tonnes) of building stone produced by operators in Rutland. This figure was derived from annual monitoring survey returns data collected between 2013 and 2022. It is considered to be small-scale when compared with crushed rock extraction in Rutland for example (which averages 283,000 tpa over the last 10 years).
The importance of building stone for conservation purposes and / or maintaining the local distinctiveness of the built environment within Rutland is recognised throughout the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6515

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: BCH UK Ltd.

Agent: Hughes Craven Ltd.

MIN2 (c) supports the supply of building stone, but specifically refers to use within Rutland. This is overly restrictive, ultimately risking the recovery of building stone resources within the County. Given the limited geographical extent of the County, it is inevitable that a proportion of building stone extracted will be used outside the County and it is suggested that this wording be expanded to include ‘Rutland and the surrounding region’.

Agreed in part. Amend MIN2 c) to: ‘support the supply of minerals where necessary for conservation purpose and / or maintaining the local distinctiveness of the built environment within Rutland and the surrounding sub-region’.

Object

Representation ID: 6519

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: BCH UK Ltd.

Agent: 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, 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.

Agreed in part. Amend Policy MIN4 iii ‘Supporting conservation of the historic environment or maintaining the local distinctiveness of the built environment within Rutland and the surrounding sub-region;’
Amend MIN2 c) to: ‘support the supply of minerals where necessary for conservation purpose and / or maintaining the local distinctiveness of the built environment within Rutland and the surrounding sub-region’
To build in flexibility for non-allocated building stone sites to come forward amend Policy MIN4: a) ‘Preference will be given to proposals for mineral extraction at allocated sites. Proposals on unallocated sites or outside of the areas identified in the spatial strategy will be considered where: a) the proposal relates to extraction of aggregates, building stone, or cement materials (limestone and clay) and cannot reasonably or would not otherwise be met from committed or allocated reserves, or from within the cement primary and secondary materials Area of Search; or’

Object

Representation ID: 6520

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: BCH UK Ltd.

Agent: 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. No information on the assessment of the site and other submitted sites has been published. In light of the above it is considered that the allocation should not be taken forward.

The allocated site Land off New Road, Hooby Lane has been assessed and is considered to be a viable and deliverable site. It meets emerging Policy MIN 1 – compliant as located within limestone for aggregate and building stone Area of Search and operations include recovery of building stone to service the local market for new and historic buildings and Policy MIN2 Mineral provision - Supports the supply of minerals for conservation purposes and / or maintaining the local distinctiveness of the built environment within Rutland. The yield of building stone is unknown at present, as such is the annual extraction rate and length of operations. The extraction of building stone is however typically small-scale and often intermittent. The surrender of the Thistleton permission in exchange for Hooby Lane is supported by industry and landowners and they are committed to the bringing the site at Hooby Lane forward for development.
The site assessments and site allocation assessment methodology are now available to view on the councils website: (https://www.rutland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/Mineral%20and%20waste%20sites%20proforma%20-%20Appendix%20B.pdf) and (https://www.rutland.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2024-02/Site%20Allocation%20Assessment%20Methodology%20final%20updated%20jan%202024.pdf). Apologies that they were not published alongside the Draft Plan as they should have been.