Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8703

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The DIO support the inclusion of detailed wording in respect of site-specific viability, in line with national guidance. However, given the continued and
evolving need for Service Family Accommodation in the County provision should be made for this, without the need for a viability assessment to avoid the affordable housing requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 8704

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We note that there remains a reference to future provision of land for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople at emerging Policy H10, to be delivered at the Future Opportunity Areas of St George’s Barracks and Woolfox. This approach is unsound and contrary to NPPF paragraph 35 as this approach is unjustified and not positively planned.

Object

Representation ID: 8705

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We are not supportive that part (i) of Policy SC6
The DIO wish to reiterate their concerns in relation to the practical implementation of this part of the policy, which is unlikely to be available for all developments at the point of submission of a planning application.

Object

Representation ID: 8706

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The suggested requirements at parts g) and h) related to materials and equipment, and arrangements for RoSPA accredited inspection, as well as funding strategies and mechanisms for maintenance and management, should be dealt with via appropriately worded planning conditions and S106 obligations. The requirement for this information to be submitted at full application or reserved matters stage is unreasonable and not justified. The DIO maintain that these are not policy related matters and should be removed from the Policy, as it is currently unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 8707

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council’s proposed approach as part of the Regulation 19 Plan has no justification, and results in an overly lengthy and unclear policy, which is ineffective and will only serve to delay development. The draft Policy is wholly contrary to the brownfield first principles set out in the NPPF and represents a failure to proactively bring forward land held in public ownership.