Main Modifications Consultation

Support

Representation ID: 8962

Received: 30/07/2026

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Supported

Support

Representation ID: 8963

Received: 30/07/2026

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

However, the proposed wording introduces uncertainty regarding the standards that may be applied at the decision-making stage.To ensure effectiveness and consistency, the Council should clarify that any future guidance or supporting evidence must be proportionate, consistent with the adopted Local Plan evidence base, and should take account of site-specific circumstances, existing provision and viability considerations.

Support

Representation ID: 8966

Received: 30/07/2026

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

The proposed locational hierarchy risks imposing additional requirements beyond those established by the statutory BNG Framework. The Council has not demonstrated that sufficient off-site biodiversity capacity exists within Rutland and the specified hierarchy to accommodate planned development throughout the plan period. This could affect deliverability and viability. It should be amended to provide greater flexibility and to recognise that off-site biodiversity units delivered elsewhere through the statutory framework remain capable of achieving policy-compliant biodiversity outcomes. The requirement to demonstrate "no possibility" of delivery should be replaced with a proportionate test based on availability of suitable and reasonably deliverable biodiversity units.

Support

Representation ID: 8967

Received: 30/07/2026

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

The modification will assist in ensuring that biodiversity objectives can be achieved alongside the delivery of sustainable development and is therefore considered justified, effective and consistent with national planning policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8968

Received: 30/07/2026

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

MM74 is not justified in its current form. Whilst the protection of Best and Most Versatile agricultural land is supported in principle, the proposed policy risks placing disproportionate weight on agricultural land considerations relative to the need to deliver housing growth in sustainable locations. The policy should make explicit that the delivery of identified housing needs, the implementation of the adopted spatial strategy and the provision of sustainable development are material benefits that should be afforded significant weight in the planning balance.

Support

Representation ID: 8969

Received: 30/07/2026

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

The proposed wording lacks certainty regarding what constitutes a 'significant impact', 'proximity to environmentally sensitive areas' and 'cumulative impact'. There should be greater clarity on guidance to ensure requirements are applied consistently and proportionately.
The policy should also confirm that transport evidence requirements will be proportionate to the scale and nature of development and should not place unnecessary burdens on otherwise sustainable development sites.

Support

Representation ID: 8970

Received: 30/07/2026

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

The policy should make clear that requirements will be applied proportionately having regard to the scale, type and characteristics of development and any site-specific constraints. The Council should ensure that Appendix 5 standards remain sufficiently flexible to avoid unnecessary impacts on site design, viability and housing delivery.