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.

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’.

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.

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.