Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 6816

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

For ease of reference, policy E4 states:

“Outside Oakham, Uppingham and the larger villages, developments which:

e. encourage the creation and expansion of sustainable farming and food production businesses
and allow for the adaption of modern agricultural practices;

The Estate SUPPORTS policy E4, particularly point (e) of the policy with regards to the encouragement of
creation and expansion of sustainable farming practices.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6912

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

Although the Estate overall SUPPORTS the inclusion of a policy for holiday accommodation within the
emerging local plan, we have wish to make COMMENTS regarding the lack of reference to change of use of
accommodation. We SUPPORT the reference in the policy to:

“… Where planning permission is granted for this type of development, planning conditions and/or legal
agreement will be used to prevent the accommodation being used as a permanent residence.”
but consider that the policy should permit / encourage for the conversion of residential accommodation into
holiday lets subject to meeting the necessary criteria including not impacting on the amenity of neighbouring
properties.
Therefore, we suggest the following addition to Policy E9:
“Where planning permission is sought for the conversion of residential development to holiday accommodation,
there will be a presumption in favour of the change of use, subject to potential impact on the amenity of
neighbouring properties.”

Support noted. The policy does not preclude the re-use of existing buildings and is referred to in the last sentence of the paragraph preceding the policy.

Support

Representation ID: 6914

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

The Estate SUPPORTS this approach to Biodiversity Net Gain, whereby there is evidence to justify the higher
percentage of BNG requested above the 10% required by the Environment Act 2021. It is however recognised
that a site by site approach may be more appropriate than a blanket percentage figure where seeking in excess
of the mandatory 10%.

Furthermore, the Estate COMMENTS that there should be a consideration of reference to whether there is the
ability for some sites and parts of the District to accommodate additional levels of BNG, above and beyond requirements, in order to be used to offset other schemes which do not meet their BNG requirements.

Support noted. As the requirement for BNG is set out in legislation it would not be possible for a site-by-site approach to be adopted in the Local Plan. It is likely that, as the LNRS progresses, then priorities may be set whereby specific allocated sites for development could include biodiversity enhancements to support other developments meet their net gain objectives in the line with the LNRS.

Object

Representation ID: 6916

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

A paragraph from Policy EN4 states: “Planning permission will only be granted if the proposal provides evidence
that it has been subject to adequate consideration of the impact of the development on any existing trees and
woodland found on-site and on any trees off-site which are visible from the site”.

The Estate OBJECTS to the phrase “… visible from the site …”, which is considered unduly onerous and that
BS5837 only requires trees which are located beyond the site boundary within a distance of up to 12 times their
estimated stem diameter to be included in the tree survey. This increases to 15 times stem diameter for veteran
and ancient trees.

It is therefore recommended that the Council that the Council removes the phrasing “… visible from the site …”
and instead references British Standards guidelines.
Furthermore, the policy continues to state “… replacement trees should be of a similar size and species to that
which are being lost”. The Estate OBJECTS to this, and advises that the amended wording of “… similar species
and capable of attaining a similar size …” should be added to policy EN4.

Comments noted. Agree this is ambiguous.
Agree regarding wording for replacement trees.

Object

Representation ID: 6917

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

The Estate believes that the wording of this policy is confusing and would be made clearer if more consistent
with the standing guidance. Therefore, we propose the following amendments:

“… New development is expected to protect and enhance irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodlands
and ancient and veteran trees. Planning
permission will be refused if development would result in the loss or deterioration of:
1. ancient woodland; and/or
2. the loss of aged, ancient or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless there are wholly exceptional circumstances, and a suitable mitigation and compensation strategy is provided. (See NPPF Para 186(C) or successor.)”

Comments noted. Agree. Reword Policy EN5 in line with para 186 of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 6918

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Farms Partnership

Agent: Savills

The Estate SUPPORTS the principle of a policy focused on renewable energy within the emerging local plan.
It COMMENTS however that an additional bullet point consideration should be added to the existing text, to
state “… the use of and for this purpose would not be compatible with existing heritage or environmental
designations”. This is important to ensure no existing built or natural heritage is negatively impacted as a result.

Support noted. Disagree as these would be encompassed within part a) of the policy and with other policies in the Local Plan such as EN1, EN12 and EN13.