Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8540

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The present publication/consultation of this Local Plan has been rushed – it is therefore premature and
fails to adequately properly provide for the objectives and achievement of long-term sustainable
development.We therefore seriously question how the present Local Plan Strategy helps to deliver its vision and
objectives, or the Council’s main Corporate Strategy and its 4No main priorities of:
• tackling the climate emergency
• creating a diverse and sustainable local economy
• supporting the most vulnerable
• providing good public services

Object

Representation ID: 8541

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

In the light of the presently submitted (and available) information, we question whether RCC has
adequately addressed its statutory obligations in respect of “duty to cooperate”. This goes to the heart
of the “soundness” of the Local Plan – and is our first major objection.

Object

Representation ID: 8542

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

n having regard to the “tests of soundness”, we therefore object on the grounds that:
a) it has not been Positively prepared
b) it is not Justified – as it does not represent an appropriate strategy, taking into account the
reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence (we explore this in more detail
when having regard to the accompanying Sustainability Assessment);
c) it is not Effective – as the stated Vision and Objectives will not be deliverable over the plan
period; and
d) it is not Consistent with national policy – choosing instead to rush to the present Reg 19 stage
in order to avoid meetings it identified housing needs, and failing to have regard to present
strategic cross-boundary planning objectives in seeking to ensure the delivery of sustainable
development. [It is also failing against the extant NPPF]

Object

Representation ID: 8543

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

In the light of the present Local Plan strategy, we consider it will “not be effective” in achieving the stated
Climate Change aims and objectives

Object

Representation ID: 8544

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We consider the Spatial Strategy is unsound on a variety of levels – and therefore strongly object to
many aspects of this Chapter of the draft Local Plan.
It is widely anticipated that this anomaly will be amended in the imminent NPPF, with reference to a
proportional percentage figure, as opposed to a single (crude) numerical approach.

Object

Representation ID: 8545

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council has acknowledged that it is rushing this present Local Plan in order to “avoid having to meet
higher housing targets”. This singularly fails to have any regard to seeking to meet its own “housing
needs” – especially those on its own housing register.
It is already failing to accord with the spatial planning objectives and meeting the acknowledged housing
needs (inc affordable housing) of its residents with regard to the extant NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 8546

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We strongly object to this Policy and the identification of these 2No areas presently: St George’s
Barracks and “land at Woolfox”. We do not necessarily object to the future development of either or indeed both of these areas in the longterm, but the correct place for such sites to be considered would be in the context of the next Local Plan
Review

Object

Representation ID: 8547

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

If the Local Plan is to progress, and in the absence of any published evidence base to support this Policy,
then Policy SS4 should be deleted in its entirety.

Object

Representation ID: 8548

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

supports the provision of new employment allocations at Oakham, which will help to
strengthen the important role and function of the County Town. Such allocations are welcomed

Object

Representation ID: 8549

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The draft landscape policies (Policies SC1, SC2 and SC3) are all predicated and reliant upon the findings
of the “Rutland Landscape Character Assessment 2022” and the “Settlement Landscape Sensitivity
Assessment 2023”.
We do not concur with the findings of these landscape studies