Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8179

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Rutland County Council (RCC) claim that the Local Plan is community-led, but this is not the intention as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework. The plan process has felt done to rather than involved, resulting in a plan that the community could more readily support. The plan has produced a large amount of paperwork, and few changes have been made to it. The lack of an executive summary and immediate review compromises this position.

The Leader's Foreward to the Local Plan highlights the need to meet NPPF requirements and proceed to the EiP under current regulations. However, the Local Plan must be reviewed due to emerging new draft guidance, including a higher dwelling target for Rutland. The review is likely to begin before the EiP starts and has no clarity on whether it will cover the entire plan or specific topic areas. This makes commenting on the Local Plan difficult and potentially unreliable.

Object

Representation ID: 8180

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Residents have expressed significant opposition to the proposed developments, viewing them as excessive given Rutland's small size. RCC have consistently increased development targets while downplaying actual windfall site numbers, leading to mistrust in planning intentions. The proposed developments, including significant projects like the Mallard Pass solar farm, threaten Rutland’s rural identity and agricultural land. The scale of proposed developments contradicts the RCC's vision for development that respects the county’s rural character and community. The Local Plan should reflect community aspirations and local needs rather than accommodating external demands excessively.

Object

Representation ID: 8181

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

4. Role of Neighbourhood Plans We continue to welcome the support for Neighbourhood Plans - Cottesmore’s having been adopted (made) in December 2016. We do however consider that contrary to the national guidance there is not sufficient attention played to their role in allocating development sites, most particularly for housing. It is for this reason (as set out in point 1 above) that we have consistently emphasised the need for more community participation- which could have identified suitable sites using that process. We accept that at least some of Cottesmore’s Neighbourhood Plan would need to be reviewed in the light of a new adopted Local Plan for Rutland, but it is really not clear when this should best be implemented. In practical resource terms it probably would need to be after the 2025 onwards plan review. Better still would be to work with the relevant parishes to identify sensible and sustainable locations for future development. None of this is covered in the Reg.19 consultation, which again appears to challenge the soundness of the draft.

Object

Representation ID: 8182

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The PLD has historically functioned effectively within Rutland Local Plans, providing clarity on development locations. The Parish Council opposes the removal of PLD from smaller settlements, believing it could weaken policy enforcement and lead to increased development pressure in rural areas. Eliminating PLD is seen as relying solely on resisting development in the countryside, which the Council argues is inadequate for managing growth in larger settlements. Historical data indicates that smaller settlements have contributed significantly to housing development, contrary to assumptions made in planning documents. The Council contends that the proposed changes are neither justified nor effective, as they could disrupt the balance of development across various settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 8183

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The backland site and COT15 have been excluded from the residential development plan, which is welcomed by the Parish Council. The exclusion aligns with the concerns raised by residents regarding the appropriateness of large-scale developments in specific locations. There are concerns about the implications of reserving sites like Mill Lane, which may still be perceived as suitable for development despite community objections. The plan predominantly focuses on large sites, such as Stamford North, which raises questions about their deliverability and the potential for complications. The reliance on large sites could jeopardise the five-year land supply for Rutland, leading to uncertainties in effective delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 8184

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Reg.19 consultation has introduced Woolfox as a Future Opportunity Area so has not been tested through consultation. No proven need for large developments in Rutland; proposals appear to stem from the controversial St. George’s Barracks plan. There is little public support for such developments, which are seen as exceeding local needs. While policy SS4 outlines 16 criteria for Masterplans, it fails to assess the necessity of the proposed settlements. Local communities, particularly around Cottesmore, have not been adequately consulted about the implications of the Woolfox development.

Object

Representation ID: 8185

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8. Use of Redundant Military Bases (SS6) This is important for Cottesmore as the Kendrew Barracks, together with HMP Stocken, are the two main locations this policy relates to, given that St George’s Barracks has been identified as a Future Opportunity Area. We welcome the idea of it being led, by implication at least, by the Local Planning Authority, via a development brief/ master plan approach. We also welcome the emphasis on involving local communities but once again ask why no mention of parish councils, which from our experience local communities look to a lead in such arrangements.

Object

Representation ID: 8186

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

9. Environment chapter - presumption in favour of development Section 3 above has discussed the seeming determination to cover Rutland in development of all kinds way beyond its needs. This position is further exacerbated in policy EN 1 that underpins the following environmental policies. Even here where the policies are aimed at protecting and conserving, they are drafted as a presumption in favour of development, to the potential detriment of Rutland’s environment. They need to be turned round and written with a presumption against development, with clearly defined conditions and standards to indicate where exceptions to this policy would be accepted. As drafted this policy is neither positively prepared or justified and is therefore unsound.