Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7625

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support this policy and welcome the aim that biodiversity net gain should be at least 15% which is greater than the mandatory 10%. This will have a positive impact on the biodiversity within Rutland.

Support noted. However, a proposed change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Support

Representation ID: 7626

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support this policy and are pleased the policy encourages the use of green and blue infrastructure (GBI) in schemes design. We are also pleased that GBI must be replaced if damaged or lost.

We encourage good practice for Green Blue Infrastructure Projects as stated in the policy, where they will ensure projects will ‘retain and enhance’ infrastructure including watercourses. Developers should utilise the Catchment Data Explorer (England | Catchment Data Explorer) to see where specific developments can work to improve waterbodies.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7627

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We recommend an extra criterion is be added to this Policy explaining that no development should pose a threat to or lead to potential pollution/deterioration of Rutland reservoir and nearby/connecting watercourses.

The LPA and developers should also be aware that there are two newly designated bathing waters in Rutland water and appropriate measures that adhere to bathing water criteria should be taken when planning in and around these areas.

1. Rutland Water Whitwell Creek - Bathing water profile
2. Rutland Water Sykes Lane - Bathing water profile

This policy mentions minerals development, we support the section of the policy which states that minerals development will not be permitted if it has 'unacceptable adverse impacts' on the environment and water supply. However, it is not clear what the definition of 'unacceptable adverse impacts' is and at what point the reasons for development would outweigh any impact on the environment, as protecting the environment would be imperative to us. Additionally minerals development may require permits to discharge or abstract water in the process, in which case the Environment Agency should be consulted.

Support noted. Amend Policy.

Support

Representation ID: 7628

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Minerals and waste developments have the potential to pollute groundwater, these types of developments should therefore not be located in the most sensitive locations for groundwater. We recommend reference is made to this in policies MIN4 and WST2. See the Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen t_data/file/692989/Envirnment-Agency-approach-to-groundwater-protection.pdf

It is not appropriate to prohibit minerals and waste development in sensitive groundwater areas. Minerals in particular can only be worked where they are found and so location options for the economically viable and environmentally acceptable extraction of minerals may be limited. As outlined in Policies MIN4 and WST2, minerals and waste development will only be permitted where proposals avoid and/or minimise potentially adverse impacts to acceptable levels. Assessment of the impacts of minerals and waste development on groundwater will be undertaken on a site-by-site basis at the planning application stage.

Support

Representation ID: 7629

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Minerals and waste developments have the potential to pollute groundwater, these types of developments should therefore not be located in the most sensitive locations for groundwater. We recommend reference is made to this in policies MIN4 and WST2. See the Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen t_data/file/692989/Envirnment-Agency-approach-to-groundwater-protection.pdf

It is not appropriate to prohibit minerals and waste development in sensitive groundwater areas. Minerals in particular can only be worked where they are found and so location options for the economically viable and environmentally acceptable extraction of minerals may be limited. As outlined in Policies WST2 and MIN4, minerals and waste development will only be permitted where proposals avoid and/or minimise potentially adverse impacts to acceptable levels. Assessment of the impacts of minerals and waste development on groundwater will be undertaken on a site-by-site basis at the planning application stage.

Object

Representation ID: 7630

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We feel this policy does not contain sufficient detail on foul drainage. We would welcome specific wording on foul drainage being added into the policy, for example ‘Development proposals should demonstrate that adequate mains foul water treatment and disposal already exists or can be provided in time to serve the development ahead of its occupation, this should be through the use of phasing plan or other suitable documents’. We would also request the policy requires developers to discuss proposals with the EA and Anglian Water Services (AWS).
Although contained in policy CC14, this should also be included in INF1.
Additionally, reference should be made to the use of non-mains foul drainage, for example, ‘Non mains foul sewage disposal solutions should only be considered where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that connection to a public sewer is not feasible.’ We would also welcome reference to the ‘foul drainage hierarchy’ and associated Building Regs.

Comments noted. Amend Policy wording.

Object

Representation ID: 7631

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

There is not a drainage strategy for the Rutland area in the Local Plan. This should be considered and would include how/where development would connect to mains Water Recycling Centres (WRCs), identified Water Framework Directive (WFD) waterbodies, WFD impacts, as well as communication with AWS who can help develop the drainage strategy and provide more information on WRC capacity and sewer network connections.

AWS indicates that there is sufficient capacity at existing WRCs to accommodate housing growth proposed but have identified three main WRCs in Rutland which will require investment in the future (Oakham, Cottesmore and Empingham).

It should be highlighted again that Rutland is a water stressed area, and some WRCs in the area have been close to exceeding their permit. Discussions should take place with AWS to ensure they have planned works in place for existing WRCs to be able to take on foul flows from new developments and to protect the water environment in the area.

It is important to remember that if the WRC has capacity but is still spilling, it suggests a deeper issues and the works may not be able to take on additional flows. This should be discussed and resolved prior to development through consultation with AWS.

Noted. Text of Policy INF1 can be amended to include liaison with AWS/EA for foul water disposal and treatment

Support

Representation ID: 7632

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

Overall, we support this update of the Local Plan. However we did find the Plan was difficult to navigate online, as it was separated into individual sections rather than being a single PDF. Therefore, you could not carry out a search to find a particular item within the overall Local Plan.

Support noted.