Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8635

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council's approach would thus appear to be
contrary to the NPPF, Paragraph 16c, which requires that plans should be shaped by early, proportionate and effective engagement between plan-makers, communities and local organisations, amongst others

Object

Representation ID: 8636

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

A significant concern is the statement in the Council Leader's Foreword that, because of the forthcoming update to the NPPF, the Local Plan will need to be revised as soon as the current draft will have been adopted. CPRE Rutland challenges this assertion

Object

Representation ID: 8637

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Economy, Page 9 – The text refers to Table 1 but the relevant data are in Table 2 which follows

The plan recognises that Rutland must co-operate with neighbouring authorities in
several ways, but there is no mention of those other authorities co-operating with Rutland.

Object

Representation ID: 8638

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Tying the achievement of the vision to the end date
of the plan period is too specific and ignores the expectation that the plan will, in any case, be updated every five years

Object

Representation ID: 8639

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Surely local food production can also be a significant contributor.

Object

Representation ID: 8641

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policies SS2, Development within Planned Limits of Development, and SS3, Small scale development on the edge of settlements, are crucial in preventing development from straying into open countryside. However, it is unclear whether PLDs around smaller villages have caused problems in the past and why they have been removed. Without PLDs, there will be more opportunities for development to encroach on the surrounding rural environment. The policy is not fully compliant with Strategic Objective 8, Protect and enhance the built and natural environment. The Council's Authority Monitoring Reports show that unsustainable development in small villages has exceeded planning intentions, and additional measures are needed to achieve sustainable development. PLDs play a crucial role in containing development, but their removal may increase unsustainable development. These policies are considered inconsistent with Policy H1, unjustified, and unlikely to be effective.

Object

Representation ID: 8642

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

CPRE Rutland supports the proposal to limit St George's Barracks development to 500 homes, but warns that the site may not be relinquished for future development. The consultation on the St George's Barracks opportunity was part of a larger development, while no consultation has been conducted on the Woolfox opportunity area. The policy does not allocate these areas, but there is no clear public appetite to develop either site. The current Regulation 19 Local Plan does not show a need for such development, and there is no requirement to demonstrate it in masterplans. CPRE Rutland believes this policy adds uncertainty and confusion to the housing development situation in Rutland, leading to housing numbers exceeding established needs. The policy is deemed unsound at this stage.

Object

Representation ID: 8643

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

More than half of new housing is allocated to the Stamford North development. This development has clear dependencies on South Kesteven District Council, which must carry some degree of risk, and is not fully justified.
The allowance for windfalls is unrealistically small, given previous rates of development in small villages/hamlets.
The plan needs to align its policy in respect of Uppingham Gate with the policies in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8644

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The provision of other infrastructure, including energy and broadband, is not specifically mentioned but should surely be included.

Object

Representation ID: 8645

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

If it should be agreed that a commuted sum in lieu of onsite provision should be made, how will the Council ensure that this sum is then spent on providing the requisite affordable homes?

Confusion remains under the heading 'Why is this policy needed', including definitions of affordable housing and whether there is capacity to meet this need.