Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8279

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

CPRE Rutland considers that a significant number of elements of the draft Reg 19 plan are unsound or in breach of national requirements.
Such are the extent of the deficiencies that this structured and compartmentalised plan response framework does not facilitate the detailed consultation reply necessary. This has therefore been submitted by email as a separate pdf.

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

Comments on policies CC1 and CC8

Object

Representation ID: 8641

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Comments on policies SS2, SS3 and SS4. These policies are thus judged to be 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

the charity therefore welcomes the proposal to limit any such development to no more than 500 homes.
Although the policy makes it clear that these areas do not have an allocation in this plan, the real concern is that no
need or clear public appetite to develop either of these sites has been identified, a

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 is allocated to the Stamford North development. This development has clear
dependencies on South Kesteven District Council, which must carry some degree of risk.

This policy would appear not to be
fully justified.

Object

Representation ID: 8644

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

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