Main Modifications Consultation

Thank you for inviting the Environment Agency (EA) to comment on the proposed Main Modifications1 to the Rutland Local Plan (pursuant to your email received 27 July 2026). As directed, our response is limited to these Main Modifications (MM) and linked documents, where relevant to our areas of interest.

MM42
Policy H10.1: The Paddocks site at Langham
It is noted that MM42 adds Policy H10.1 as an expanded/new Policy/Allocation for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation purposes (with this change also reflected in the updated Policies Map). The EA previously provided comments on this site2 in our response to the Local Plan Examination post-hearings consultation in February and have nothing additional to add in this respect other than noting the outputs of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report Addendum as issued alongside the current MM consultation. Specifically, the updated SA screens this MM out as the proposed change is not considered to significantly affect the findings of previous SA work undertaken3. The EA therefore has no issue with the changes proposed via MM42 (as relates to Policy H10.1).

Policy H10.2 – H10.4: Five Counties Extension, Greetham
It is noted that Policies H10.2 – H10.4, as relate to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, have been revised and strengthened through MM42, with Extension Areas 2 (H10.3) and 3 (H10.4) now proposed as allocations to supplement Area 1 (H10.2) alongside new development principles to inform future proposals at these locations. As part of this the recognition of the presence, and pollution susceptibility, of Groundwater SPZ 2/3 is supported as is the need for relevant evidence to mitigate risks to this through future proposals. Additionally, it is noted that the SA Report Addendum similarly considers these MM Policy amendments to not significantly alter the findings of previous SA work4. The EA therefore has no issue with the changes proposed via MM42 (including as relates to Policies H10.2 – H10.4).

MM55
Policy E1.5: Land West of Bosal Way, Barleythorpe
The EA has no comment on the inclusion of this site as a MM as it is made clear that Policy E1.5 denotes the remaining land from a previous Local Plan allocation (which has been subject to previous oversight and Examination). We note that the site is also subject to a current planning application to which the EA will feed into as a statutory consultee.
We also have no comment on the proposed content of Policy E1.5 other than to offer support for the inclusion of surface water management on site (incorporating SuDS) and the identification of relevant evidence (including Flood Risk Assessment) to
inform any application on site.
Notwithstanding this, however, we flag some features associated with the site for completeness. Notably it is located in Flood Zone 1 (albeit the southern half of the site has “high” vulnerability to groundwater flooding) and it is not located within any Source Protection Zone.
Building on the above, it is also noted that the SA Report Addendum screens this site in for further consideration (as it is a MM allocation), albeit it concludes that MM55 is not likely to have a significant effect alone, nor does it significantly affect the findings or conclusions of the SA for the Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) version of the Local Plan5. Taken together, as outlined above, these factors have informed our approach and feedback to this particular site from a MM perspective.

MM81
Policy MIN5: Site-specific allocations for the extraction of crushed rock and building
stone
M2 - Hooby Lane North, Stretton. It is noted that this MM adds Allocation M2 as a new Local Plan allocation for minerals and waste purposes. The EA provided comments on this site in our response to the Local Plan Examination post-hearings consultation in February and have nothing additional to add to at this time.
Notwithstanding this, however, we have reviewed6 the SA Report Addendum in respect of MM81 and note that Site M2 is “screened in” for further consideration as a MM allocation. This report concludes that, under the Biodiversity and Geodiversity theme, MM81 has some potential for additional significant effects on the Greetham Meadows SSSI and nearby deciduous woodland priority habitat without appropriate mitigation measures albeit these are likely to be limited by other policies of the Local Plan as well as applicable national policy provisions as relate to minerals extraction.

In terms of the other SA themes, MM81 is considered not likely to have a significant effect alone nor does it significantly affect the findings or conclusions of the SA of the Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) version of the Local Plan. Given these policy
protections, the EA has no issue with the changes proposed via MM81 (as relates to proposed allocation M2).

Other Feedback
MM’s as relate to flood risk
On review of the schedule of MM’s, we advise we have no issue with new
wording/references to “flood” (including “flood risk”) and “flooding” as have been
included/amended within. This includes MM14 as relates to Policy CC14: Flood Risk.
Woolfox Quarry (Para 2.28)
Our records show that Woolfox Quarry is now an inert landfill site and not an active
recycled aggregate facility as stated at para 2.28. This aligns with “Permission end
date” of Appendix 6 (Permitted sites for mineral extraction and recycling aggregates)
and para 21 of the “Local Waste Needs Assessment” as located within the draft
Local Plan. This is highlighted for accuracy and completeness accordingly.

If you have any queries on this do not hesitate to contact me, otherwise I trust this is
of use.

Footnotes:
1 Including consideration of accompanying technical documentation also subject to consultation.
2 Then referred to as Site 8746 pursuant to RCC 24: “Supplementary Sites Consultation Document”
(August 2025)
3 The July 2026 (Post-Examination Modifications and HRA Conclusions) Habitats Regulations Assessment
(HRA) also concludes MM42 to not introduce new likely significant e􀆯ects, nor materially alter the
magnitude of e􀆯ects previously assessed through the 2024 HRA (which therefore remain valid).
4 The “Post-Examination Modifications” HRA reaches a similar conclusion in this respect.
5 The “Post-Examination Modifications” HRA also considers MM55 and concludes this allocation “is not
considered to materially alter the e􀆯ects previously assessed or the conclusions of the 2024 HRA.
6 The review of MM81 within the Post-Examination Modifications” HRA is also noted, with it concluded
that this change is “not considered to materially alter the magnitude of e􀆯ects previously assessed” so
“the conclusions of the HRA remain unchanged”.

Policy E1.5: Land West of Bosal Way, Barleythorpe. We have no comment on the proposed content of this Policy other than to offer support for the inclusion of surface water management on site (incorporating SuDS) and the identification of relevant evidence (including Flood Risk Assessment) to inform any application on site. Notwithstanding this, we flag some on site features for completeness. Notably it is located in Flood Zone 1 (albeit the southern half of the site has “high” vulnerability to groundwater flooding) and it is not located within any Source Protection Zone. The SA Report Addendum conclusions are also noted.

Thank you for inviting the Environment Agency (EA) to comment on the proposed Main Modifications1 to the Rutland Local Plan (pursuant to your email received 27 July 2026). As directed, our response is limited to these Main Modifications (MM) and linked documents, where relevant to our areas of interest.

MM42
Policy H10.1: The Paddocks site at Langham
It is noted that MM42 adds Policy H10.1 as an expanded/new Policy/Allocation for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation purposes (with this change also reflected in the updated Policies Map). The EA previously provided comments on this site2 in our response to the Local Plan Examination post-hearings consultation in February and have nothing additional to add in this respect other than noting the outputs of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report Addendum as issued alongside the current MM consultation. Specifically, the updated SA screens this MM out as the proposed change is not considered to significantly affect the findings of previous SA work undertaken3. The EA therefore has no issue with the changes proposed via MM42 (as relates to Policy H10.1).

Policy H10.2 – H10.4: Five Counties Extension, Greetham
It is noted that Policies H10.2 – H10.4, as relate to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, have been revised and strengthened through MM42, with Extension Areas 2 (H10.3) and 3 (H10.4) now proposed as allocations to supplement Area 1 (H10.2) alongside new development principles to inform future proposals at these locations. As part of this the recognition of the presence, and pollution susceptibility, of Groundwater SPZ 2/3 is supported as is the need for relevant evidence to mitigate risks to this through future proposals. Additionally, it is noted that the SA Report Addendum similarly considers these MM Policy amendments to not significantly alter the findings of previous SA work4. The EA therefore has no issue with the changes proposed via MM42 (including as relates to Policies H10.2 – H10.4).

MM55
Policy E1.5: Land West of Bosal Way, Barleythorpe
The EA has no comment on the inclusion of this site as a MM as it is made clear that Policy E1.5 denotes the remaining land from a previous Local Plan allocation (which has been subject to previous oversight and Examination). We note that the site is also subject to a current planning application to which the EA will feed into as a statutory consultee.
We also have no comment on the proposed content of Policy E1.5 other than to offer support for the inclusion of surface water management on site (incorporating SuDS) and the identification of relevant evidence (including Flood Risk Assessment) to
inform any application on site.
Notwithstanding this, however, we flag some features associated with the site for completeness. Notably it is located in Flood Zone 1 (albeit the southern half of the site has “high” vulnerability to groundwater flooding) and it is not located within any Source Protection Zone.
Building on the above, it is also noted that the SA Report Addendum screens this site in for further consideration (as it is a MM allocation), albeit it concludes that MM55 is not likely to have a significant effect alone, nor does it significantly affect the findings or conclusions of the SA for the Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) version of the Local Plan5. Taken together, as outlined above, these factors have informed our approach and feedback to this particular site from a MM perspective.

MM81
Policy MIN5: Site-specific allocations for the extraction of crushed rock and building
stone
M2 - Hooby Lane North, Stretton. It is noted that this MM adds Allocation M2 as a new Local Plan allocation for minerals and waste purposes. The EA provided comments on this site in our response to the Local Plan Examination post-hearings consultation in February and have nothing additional to add to at this time.
Notwithstanding this, however, we have reviewed6 the SA Report Addendum in respect of MM81 and note that Site M2 is “screened in” for further consideration as a MM allocation. This report concludes that, under the Biodiversity and Geodiversity theme, MM81 has some potential for additional significant effects on the Greetham Meadows SSSI and nearby deciduous woodland priority habitat without appropriate mitigation measures albeit these are likely to be limited by other policies of the Local Plan as well as applicable national policy provisions as relate to minerals extraction.

In terms of the other SA themes, MM81 is considered not likely to have a significant effect alone nor does it significantly affect the findings or conclusions of the SA of the Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) version of the Local Plan. Given these policy
protections, the EA has no issue with the changes proposed via MM81 (as relates to proposed allocation M2).

Other Feedback
MM’s as relate to flood risk
On review of the schedule of MM’s, we advise we have no issue with new
wording/references to “flood” (including “flood risk”) and “flooding” as have been
included/amended within. This includes MM14 as relates to Policy CC14: Flood Risk.
Woolfox Quarry (Para 2.28)
Our records show that Woolfox Quarry is now an inert landfill site and not an active
recycled aggregate facility as stated at para 2.28. This aligns with “Permission end
date” of Appendix 6 (Permitted sites for mineral extraction and recycling aggregates)
and para 21 of the “Local Waste Needs Assessment” as located within the draft
Local Plan. This is highlighted for accuracy and completeness accordingly.

If you have any queries on this do not hesitate to contact me, otherwise I trust this is
of use.

Footnotes:
1 Including consideration of accompanying technical documentation also subject to consultation.
2 Then referred to as Site 8746 pursuant to RCC 24: “Supplementary Sites Consultation Document”
(August 2025)
3 The July 2026 (Post-Examination Modifications and HRA Conclusions) Habitats Regulations Assessment
(HRA) also concludes MM42 to not introduce new likely significant e􀆯ects, nor materially alter the
magnitude of e􀆯ects previously assessed through the 2024 HRA (which therefore remain valid).
4 The “Post-Examination Modifications” HRA reaches a similar conclusion in this respect.
5 The “Post-Examination Modifications” HRA also considers MM55 and concludes this allocation “is not
considered to materially alter the e􀆯ects previously assessed or the conclusions of the 2024 HRA.
6 The review of MM81 within the Post-Examination Modifications” HRA is also noted, with it concluded
that this change is “not considered to materially alter the magnitude of e􀆯ects previously assessed” so
“the conclusions of the HRA remain unchanged”.

Thank you for inviting the Environment Agency (EA) to comment on the proposed Main Modifications1 to the Rutland Local Plan (pursuant to your email received 27 July 2026). As directed, our response is limited to these Main Modifications (MM) and linked documents, where relevant to our areas of interest.

MM42
Policy H10.1: The Paddocks site at Langham
It is noted that MM42 adds Policy H10.1 as an expanded/new Policy/Allocation for Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation purposes (with this change also reflected in the updated Policies Map). The EA previously provided comments on this site2 in our response to the Local Plan Examination post-hearings consultation in February and have nothing additional to add in this respect other than noting the outputs of the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report Addendum as issued alongside the current MM consultation. Specifically, the updated SA screens this MM out as the proposed change is not considered to significantly affect the findings of previous SA work undertaken3. The EA therefore has no issue with the changes proposed via MM42 (as relates to Policy H10.1).

Policy H10.2 – H10.4: Five Counties Extension, Greetham
It is noted that Policies H10.2 – H10.4, as relate to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation, have been revised and strengthened through MM42, with Extension Areas 2 (H10.3) and 3 (H10.4) now proposed as allocations to supplement Area 1 (H10.2) alongside new development principles to inform future proposals at these locations. As part of this the recognition of the presence, and pollution susceptibility, of Groundwater SPZ 2/3 is supported as is the need for relevant evidence to mitigate risks to this through future proposals. Additionally, it is noted that the SA Report Addendum similarly considers these MM Policy amendments to not significantly alter the findings of previous SA work4. The EA therefore has no issue with the changes proposed via MM42 (including as relates to Policies H10.2 – H10.4).

MM55
Policy E1.5: Land West of Bosal Way, Barleythorpe
The EA has no comment on the inclusion of this site as a MM as it is made clear that Policy E1.5 denotes the remaining land from a previous Local Plan allocation (which has been subject to previous oversight and Examination). We note that the site is also subject to a current planning application to which the EA will feed into as a statutory consultee.
We also have no comment on the proposed content of Policy E1.5 other than to offer support for the inclusion of surface water management on site (incorporating SuDS) and the identification of relevant evidence (including Flood Risk Assessment) to
inform any application on site.
Notwithstanding this, however, we flag some features associated with the site for completeness. Notably it is located in Flood Zone 1 (albeit the southern half of the site has “high” vulnerability to groundwater flooding) and it is not located within any Source Protection Zone.
Building on the above, it is also noted that the SA Report Addendum screens this site in for further consideration (as it is a MM allocation), albeit it concludes that MM55 is not likely to have a significant effect alone, nor does it significantly affect the findings or conclusions of the SA for the Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) version of the Local Plan5. Taken together, as outlined above, these factors have informed our approach and feedback to this particular site from a MM perspective.

MM81
Policy MIN5: Site-specific allocations for the extraction of crushed rock and building
stone
M2 - Hooby Lane North, Stretton. It is noted that this MM adds Allocation M2 as a new Local Plan allocation for minerals and waste purposes. The EA provided comments on this site in our response to the Local Plan Examination post-hearings consultation in February and have nothing additional to add to at this time.
Notwithstanding this, however, we have reviewed6 the SA Report Addendum in respect of MM81 and note that Site M2 is “screened in” for further consideration as a MM allocation. This report concludes that, under the Biodiversity and Geodiversity theme, MM81 has some potential for additional significant effects on the Greetham Meadows SSSI and nearby deciduous woodland priority habitat without appropriate mitigation measures albeit these are likely to be limited by other policies of the Local Plan as well as applicable national policy provisions as relate to minerals extraction.

In terms of the other SA themes, MM81 is considered not likely to have a significant effect alone nor does it significantly affect the findings or conclusions of the SA of the Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) version of the Local Plan. Given these policy
protections, the EA has no issue with the changes proposed via MM81 (as relates to proposed allocation M2).

Other Feedback
MM’s as relate to flood risk
On review of the schedule of MM’s, we advise we have no issue with new
wording/references to “flood” (including “flood risk”) and “flooding” as have been
included/amended within. This includes MM14 as relates to Policy CC14: Flood Risk.
Woolfox Quarry (Para 2.28)
Our records show that Woolfox Quarry is now an inert landfill site and not an active
recycled aggregate facility as stated at para 2.28. This aligns with “Permission end
date” of Appendix 6 (Permitted sites for mineral extraction and recycling aggregates)
and para 21 of the “Local Waste Needs Assessment” as located within the draft
Local Plan. This is highlighted for accuracy and completeness accordingly.

If you have any queries on this do not hesitate to contact me, otherwise I trust this is
of use.

Footnotes:
1 Including consideration of accompanying technical documentation also subject to consultation.
2 Then referred to as Site 8746 pursuant to RCC 24: “Supplementary Sites Consultation Document”
(August 2025)
3 The July 2026 (Post-Examination Modifications and HRA Conclusions) Habitats Regulations Assessment
(HRA) also concludes MM42 to not introduce new likely significant e􀆯ects, nor materially alter the
magnitude of e􀆯ects previously assessed through the 2024 HRA (which therefore remain valid).
4 The “Post-Examination Modifications” HRA reaches a similar conclusion in this respect.
5 The “Post-Examination Modifications” HRA also considers MM55 and concludes this allocation “is not
considered to materially alter the e􀆯ects previously assessed or the conclusions of the 2024 HRA.
6 The review of MM81 within the Post-Examination Modifications” HRA is also noted, with it concluded
that this change is “not considered to materially alter the magnitude of e􀆯ects previously assessed” so
“the conclusions of the HRA remain unchanged”.