Rutland County Council District Council

Local Development Framework Core Strategy

BACKGROUND PAPER NO.1: REVISED SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE TOWNS AND VILLAGES

April 2009

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

CONTENTS Page No. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 3

2.0 POLICY CONTEXT 3-4

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF MAIN TOWNS 4-5

5-9 4.0 LOCAL SERVICE CENTRES

9 5.0 SMALLER SERVICE CENTRES

10 6.0 OTHER VILLAGES

11-15 APPENDIX 1: POLICY CONTEXT National Regional Strategic Local 16-17 APPENDIX 2: SETTLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL MATRIX

2

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Sustainable development and the creation of sustainable communities is one of the Government‟s key aims which need to be reflected in the Local Development Framework (LDF) for .

In considering where new development should be located has to balance the requirements for development against other needs such as sustainability and the protection of the environment. Development needs to take place in the settlements where the need to travel can be reduced through a good range of facilities and services and good accessibility by public transport

This discussion paper assesses the sustainability of each village in terms of its accessibility to services from which it determines a settlement hierarchy for Rutland. The relative sustainability of settlements and the settlement hierarchy help inform strategy and policy formulation in the LDF Core Strategy by identifying the most sustainable locations for new development in Rutland. Other work being undertaken in the preparation of the Core Strategy, particularly the individual town and village appraisals (April 2009), have also been fed into the sustainability assessments of the towns and villages

2.0 POLICY CONTEXT

The settlement classification for Rutland is set out in the Settlement Chapter of the adopted Rutland Local Plan (2001). This consists of Market Towns, Rural Centres, Limited Growth Villages and Restraint Villages. However, since the Local Plan was adopted there have been changes in national and strategic planning guidance, which need to be taken into consideration when preparing the Council‟s Core Strategy. There have also been changes in the level of service provision in the settlements in the County. Therefore, it is necessary to reassess the settlement classifications identified in the Local Plan.

The Local Development Framework must have regard to national and regional policies. Appendix 1 summarises national and strategic guidance relevant to the preparation of this background paper on settlement hierarchy in Rutland.

The most relevant sources of national guidance relating to settlement hierarchy are Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development and recent PPS1 Supplement on Planning and Climate Change, PPS 3: Housing; PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas and Planning Policy Guidance PPG 13: Transport.

The key points arising from national guidance are as follows:

. Most new development should be in or near to the main towns or local service centres and should be well served by public transport and other facilities.

. Accessibility should also be a key consideration in determining the location of all new development. . The need to provide housing in rural areas not only in the main towns or local services centres, but also in villages to enhance or maintain their sustainability.

3

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

. The priority for development is developable brownfield land, but where this is either insufficient or not available developable greenfield land may need to be used. . Secure new development and shape places that minimise vulnerability, reduce carbon emissions and tackles climate change.

National planning policies are currently interpreted and applied at the regional level through the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS).

The documents which the settlement hierarchy in Rutland has taken into account are the Regional Plan (March 2009) and The Leicestershire, and Rutland Structure Plan (March 2005) which was replaced by the Regional Plan in 2009 under the revised planning system. A full analysis of relevant policies in these documents is contained in Appendix 1, but in summary, their implications for Rutland are that:

. The „Main Town‟ of should be the preferred location for housing and employment growth and comprises a third tier settlement in the Eastern sub- region . The „Small Town‟ of provides a more limited range of services and facilities and is suitable for development that meets local needs. . The „Local Service Centres‟ should form the next tier as they are the larger villages that offer access to a good range of local services; . Development in other villages should be limited, and in a form that helps to meet local needs.

Therefore, consideration needs to be given to which settlements in the County may qualify as local services centres and other centres for more limited growth in the settlement hierarchy. The following sections address this issue.

3.0 IDENTIFICATION OF MAIN TOWNS

The East Midlands Regional Plan identifies Oakham as a medium sized market town or the „Main Town‟ for housing and employment growth respectively and comprises a third tier settlement in the Eastern sub-region. In view of the terminology used in the regional plan it is recommended that the most suitable term for Oakham is „Main Town‟.

The Regional Plan (para 2.4.5) outlines in general terms that these settlements possess many or all of the following services and characteristics:

Existing and potential employment opportunities Secondary school and adult education facilities Weekly shopping facilities, some specialist shops and financial/professional services Health services Permanent library public transport to work and shops and Suitable land for housing development

Oakham is considered to be the most sustainable location in the County as it provides a range of job opportunities, higher order services and facilities for the

4

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009 surrounding rural area, holds a market twice a week and has good public transport linkages with good access by rail and bus to the surrounding higher settlements.

The East Midlands Regional Plan identifies Uppingham as a smaller sized market town or „Small Town‟ that provides a more limited range of services and facilities and is suitable for development that meets local needs. In view of the terminology used in the emerging regional guidance it is recommended that the most suitable term for Rutland is „Small Town‟.

Uppingham is the second largest settlement in the County in terms of population, provides a range of convenience shopping, education, community and health facilities catering for the local area, a weekly market, job opportunities and more limited public transport linkages.

4.0 LOCAL SERVICE CENTRES

The tier of settlements below the towns is referred to in different terms in various strategic policies: „service centre‟/local service centres‟ in PPS3 and PPS7; „rural centres‟ in the old Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan and Rutland Local Plan, and „larger villages for providing local services‟ in the East Midlands Regional Plan. In view of the terminology used in the national and emerging regional guidance it is recommended that the most suitable term for Rutland is „local service centre‟.

To assist in the identification of Local Service Centres regard has been made to the criteria in the Regional Plan set out above and, although no longer an extant policy, old Structure Plan Strategy Policy 2C (see Appendix 1) which provides a more local interpretation. There are common elements in the criteria contained in both plans and it is considered appropriate to adapt the criteria to make it more relevant to rural Rutland as follows:

. A primary school; . A general convenience store that meets the day to day needs (particularly for food shopping) . A post office . A general medical practice . Local Employment opportunities . Frequent public transport services to higher centres. . Community and leisure facilities . Public house . Library . Sports/recreation ground . Childrens play area

Assessment of settlement sustainability

The assessment focuses on the accessibility of a settlement to essential services such as education, health, recreation, retail facilities and to employment taking into account access and frequency of public transport and accessibility by means other than the car and public transport. Settlements have been identified and a matrix prepared showing how they satisfy these criteria in Appendix 2.

5

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

Information included in the matrix is derived from a number of sources, including information held by the Council, community web sites, local directories, information supplied by Leicestershire & Rutland Rural Community Council, site surveys and a Local Parish Council survey undertaken in August 2006, Post Office network review, the 2001 census and village appraisals (April 2009) and other studies undertaken for the LDF.

The availability and frequency of public transport is considered an important factor in determining the most sustainable locations, particularly in providing a service as an alternative to the car to enable people in rural communities to access the services, facilities such as shops, hospitals, leisure activities and employment opportunities.

The Regional Plan and Structure Plan indicate that the criteria are not a rigid „test‟ to be met in full to merit Local Service Centre designation. However, a settlement that fails to meet the majority of these tests would not be the type of settlement that the Local Service Centre designation is intended to apply to.

For the purpose of this analysis, the criteria outlined above have been interpreted as follows:

Primary schools and extended school services: A primary school which provides an opportunity to reduce the need to travel by car and is used in the evening or out of term time as a community facility. All primary schools are now providing extended school services including such services as child care, parenting skill centre and health services. General convenience store: A permanent general convenience store is located in the village provides access to basic goods and reduces the need to travel by car A post office: A post office which provide access to banking facilities and benefits and pension payments. General medical practice: Provides an opportunity to access to medical facilities in the settlement and reduces the need to travel by car Local Employment opportunities: access to employment opportunities as identified in the LDF Employment land assessment, Parish Council questionnaire, village appraisals and site surveys in the settlement. The settlement has an industrial/business park, or has one or more employment sites of 500sqm. This is considered beneficial as it reduces the need to travel and provides an opportunity to work close to home. This data has been used as we do not currently have data employment figures for individual companies in the County. Good access to higher order centres: these include Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford, Melton Mowbray, Corby and Leicester. Public transport availability is considered important in determining the most sustainable locations. Bus services were the only form of public transport considered for Rutland, given the only railway station is in Oakham. A regular bus service is important in providing a service for those without a car or as an alternative to the car. Settlements have therefore been given a positive score if a minimum 2 hourly bus service operates to a higher order centre is provided between 7am and 7pm Monday to Saturday.

Also considered is the potential to use public transport to access employment opportunities in the higher order centres if a bus service operates before 8.30am in the morning or after 5pm in the evening reduces reliance on a private car.

6

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

Community and leisure facilities: This includes facilities available for use by the community, including a village or community hall, library, public house and recreational facilities, sports hall and children‟s play area. This provides an opportunity to access facilities within the settlement and reduces the need to travel by car.

The assessment has looked at the general accessibility of villages and with the exception of villages in the north east of the county (Market Overton, Greetham, Thistleton, Stretton and Clipsham) all villages are within a 5 mile radius of a full range of retail, employment, education and community services at either Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or Corby. Rutland has a close- knit settlement pattern and all settlements have relatively good access by car and public transport to Oakham, Uppingham , Stamford, Melton Mowbray and Corby.

The Sustainability Matrix

A summary of the sustainability assessment is shown in the matrix in Appendix 2. It lists each settlement in Rutland and sets out the services, facilities and accessibility criteria taken into account in the assessment. The approach to scoring adopted avoids, where possible, subjective weighting assumptions and applies a system of positive and negative scoring based on the presence or absence of a facility.

The total score achieved for each settlement is indicative of its level of sustainability and provides the general basis for three groupings of villages under the heading of Local Service Centres, Smaller Service Centres and Other Villages.

Explanation of Scoring.

Services and Facilities

The range of facilities considered comprise a post office, general store, public house, primary school, village hall/community centre, library/mobile library; general medical practice, sports recreation area and children‟s play area...

The existence of a facility in a settlement provides a high level of accessibility and 1point is scored, apart from the presence of a primary school/extended school service where, because of the importance attributed to the role of a primary school/ extended school service, 2 points is awarded.

A minus point is scored where there is no village hall, pub or post office/shop. This negative scoring is applied because these three facilities were the most highly rated village facilities in the survey of village facilities undertaken with Parish Councils in 2006.

The existence of employment within a village or nearby is acknowledged as important in terms of sustainability and scores 2 points. The assessment relates to employment within the settlement or just outside the village.

Accessibility

The potential for access by public transport to employment and the wide range of services available in Oakham, Uppingham, Melton and Corby is an important sustainability consideration. The assessment is made on the basis of the frequency of a regular Mon-Sat 7am -6pm service. The existence of an hourly service scores 3

7

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

points, 2 hourly service 2 points, daily service 1 point and a weekly service gets no points.

The 2001 Census provides information on travel to work modes, by parish. In Rutland an average of 30% of the economically employed travel to work on foot or by cycle or work from home. This is considered to be a positive sustainability factor and is indicative of accessible local employment. The scoring applied relates to where the Rutland average of 30% is exceeded. 2 points are scored where > 40% in a parish travel to work in this way, 1 point where the figure is 30-39%.

Some villages are in easy and safe walking/cycling distance of Oakham, Uppingham and Stamford. Where the distance is within two miles and there is potential for cycling or walking via a suitable road, cycle/footway a point is scored.

Table 1:

Extent to which settlements meet the selection criteria

Post Gen. Public Primary/ Village/ Library Gen. Sports/ Play Emp Access Access Access Number PARISH & Office Store House Extended Hall Medical Rec. Area opps to emp On to of SETTLEMENT School Practice Ground by foot, Foot/ higher points service cycle/ cycle order scored home centre working Cottesmore 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 Edith Weston 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 1 1 1 2 1 1 *p/t 1 1 2 2 14

Ryhall 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 12

Empingham *pt 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 11 Greetham 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 11 Market 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 Overton

Langham * p/t -1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 10

Barrowden 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 Great -1 1 2 1 1 1 3 8 Casterton Whissendine -1 1 2 1 1 1 3 8 Wing 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8

Exton -1 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 Manton -1 1 1 1 2 3 7 North -1 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 Luffenham South -1 1 1 1 1 2 2 7 Luffenham

Caldecott *p/t -1 1 1 1 3 6 -1 1 1 1 2 2 6 -1 1 1 1 1 3 6 -1 1 1 2 1 2 6

Belton -1 1 1 1 3 5 Essendine *p/t -1 -1 1 1 2 2 5 Tinwell -1 1 1 1 1 2 5

As explained above, meeting the criteria in full is not a rigid test to merit Local Service Centre designation and a degree of judgement is required where settlements do not satisfy all of the criteria. The following paragraphs discuss the merits of the settlements that score 11 or more points.

8

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

Cottesmore, Edith Weston, Ketton and Ryhall are the largest villages, each with a population in excess of 1000 and the most sustainable, scoring 14 or 12 points in the sustainability assessment. These villages meet all local service centre criteria listed above with the exception of a general medical practice which only Ketton has on a part-time basis. In addition, apart from Ryhall, they all have employment opportunities within the village or nearby and good public transport access to larger service centres.

Empingham, Greetham and Market Overton are villages with approximately 500 or more population. They each score 11 points in the sustainability assessment and have all the basic facilities of post office, general store, public house and village hall. Empingham has a village school and medical practice but no employment; Greetham and Market Overton do not have a school but do have employment opportunities and Greetham has good cycle /walking access to Cottesmore.

The remaining villages shown in Table 1 score between 5 and 10 points and are shown to have poorer access to services and common weaknesses of having no general convenience store, no general medical practice, no primary school and extended school services and no or limited employment opportunities. Therefore it is proposed that the following settlements should be designated as Local Service Centres; Cottesmore, Edith Weston, Empingham, Greetham, Ketton, Market Overton and Ryhall.

The identified Local Service Centres, are the most sustainable in terms of access to services and would appear suitable for some further additional development including meeting local needs. This will assist in supporting and retaining existing services and facilities so that local people enjoy the benefits and reduces the need to travel.

5.0 SMALLER SERVICE CENTRES

The current Rutland Local Plan designates a further level in the settlement hierarchy of smaller villages with fewer shops and services, but where some limited growth is appropriate. This has ensured some flexibility and the continued evolution of these villages. The smaller villages with some services and reasonable access to services in other centres are considered suited to taking limited levels of development and meeting local needs. With the exception of Whitwell, villages scoring between 5 and 10 points in the sustainability assessment are considered to be sufficiently sustainable for this policy approach to continue.

Whitwell‟s scoring in the assessment is boosted by the presence of an hourly bus service and the nearby employment opportunities at Whitwell Manor. It has no general store or post office and no village hall. In addition its physical suitability for any further development is constrained by its location on the A606, rising land to the north and its inclusion within Rutland Water Policy Area. Whitwell is, therefore classified in the Other Villages category.

It is therefore recommended that the villages of Belton, , Caldecott, Essendine, Exton, Glaston, Great Casterton Langham, Lyddington, Manton, Morcott , South Luffenham, Tinwell, Whissendine and Wing are selected as Smaller Service Centres.

9

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

6.0 OTHER VILLAGES

In the context of the recommended settlement hierarchy, villages that are not a Local Service Centre or Smaller Service Centre maybe classified as Other Villages.

In general none of the other villages score more than 5 points in the sustainability assessment and some have negative scores. Common weaknesses are a limited range of shops and services, no employment and poor or no accessibility by public transport. It is considered that these settlements are not sufficiently sustainable to justify further development unless it is small scale to meet the local needs of the village and development normally acceptable in the countryside, such as house extensions and replacement dwellings, could be permitted.

Therefore it is recommended that based on the sustainability of settlements, the following settlements as listed in Table 2 below be classified as other villages.

Table 2: List of Other Villages.

Ashwell Hambleton Thistleton Little Casterton Barleythorpe Lyndon Tickencote Barrow Pickworth Belmesthorpe Pilton Toll Bar Bisbrooke Preston Wardley Braunston Ridlington Whitwell Brooke Seaton Burley Stoke Dry Clipsham Stretton Egleton Teigh

10

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

APPENDIX 1: POLICY CONTEXT

NATIONAL

The following national planning guidance contains the most relevant sources of national guidance on settlement strategy issues: -

. PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005) . PPS 1 (Supplement): Planning and Climate Change (2007) . PPS 3: Housing (2006) . PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004) . PPG 13: Transport (2001)

PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development (2005)

PPS 1 on „Delivering Sustainable Development‟ sets out the Government‟s planning policies on the delivery of sustainable development through the planning system and states that sustainable development is the core principle underpinning planning. At the heart of sustainable development is the simple idea of ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for future generations. A widely used definition was drawn up by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987: “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

PPS 1 refers to the Government‟s 1999 strategy „A Better Quality of Life – A Strategy for Sustainable Development for the UK‟ which sets out the four aims for sustainable development. These are:

. Social progress which recognises the needs of everyone; . Effective protection of the environment; . The prudent use of resources; and . The maintenance of high and stable levels of economic growth and employment.

PPS 1 (Supplement): Planning and Climate Change (2007)

This PPS on climate change supplements PSS1 by setting how planning should contribute to reducing emissions and tackling climate change in delivering sustainable patterns of urban growth and rural development. This PPS is a material consideration which may supersede the development plan in determining planning applications (para 11)

PPS 3: Housing (November 2006)

PPS 3 sets out what is required at regional and local levels to deliver housing within sustainable communities. Paragraphs 36-39 states in relation to levels of housing provision that local planning authorities should have regard to the sub-regional housing market and land availability assessments, the Regional Spatial Strategy, and the Housing Strategy.

Paragraph 38 states the need to provide housing in rural areas, not only in market towns or local service centres but also in villages in order to enhance or maintain their sustainability. This should include particularly in small rural settlements

11

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009 considering the relationship between settlements so as to ensure that growth is distributed in a way to have social, economic and environmental benefits. This policy enables local planning authorities to allocate or release small sites for affordable housing (using Rural Exception Site Policy) within or adjoining existing small rural communities which may be subject to policies of restraint and would not be released for market housing (Para 30).

Paragraphs 40-44 also sets out the priority for development should be developable brown field land and where this is insufficient or not available, developable green field land may be used.

PPS 7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (2004)

One of the key principles of PPS 7 is that new development in the countryside, away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated for development in development plans should be strictly controlled (Para 1(iv)).

Accessibility should also be a key consideration in determining the location of all new development (Para 1(iii)) and that good quality, carefully sited accessible development within existing towns and villages should be allowed, where it benefits the local economy and/or community (e.g. Affordable housing for identified local need), maintains or enhances the local environment and does not conflict with other planning policies (Para 1(ii))

PPS 7 (Para 3) states in relation to new development away from larger urban areas, local planning authorities should focus it in or near to local service centres (which might be a country town, a single large village or a group of villages) where employment, housing, services and other facilities can be provided close together. This would ensure that these facilities are served by public transport and provide improved opportunities for access by walking and cycling. PPS 7 states that these centres should be identified in the development plan as the preferred location for such development.

PPS 7 (Para 4) also states that local planning authorities should set out policies in their local development documents allowing for limited development in or next to rural settlements that are not designated as local service centres, in order to meet local business and community needs and to maintain the vitality of the local communities. In particular PPS 7 states local authorities should be supportive of small-scale development of this nature where it provides the most sustainable options in villages that are remote from, and have poor public transport links with service centres (Paragraph 4). PPS 7 defines „Local Service Centre‟ as:

“where employment, housing, services and other facilities can be provided close together”

PPG 13: Transport (2001)

In order to meet the objectives of PPG 13, local planning authorities should when preparing development plans actively manage the pattern of urban growth and focus major generators of travel demand in city, town and district centres and near to major public transport interchanges (Para 6(i)). Local Planning authorities should also seek to locate day to day facilities which need to be near their clients in local centres so that they are accessible by walking and cycling (Para 6(ii)).

12

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

PPG 13 states that housing development should be principally accommodated within existing urban areas, planning for increased intensity of development for both housing and other uses at locations which are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling (Para 6 (iii)). Local authorities should recognise that they may be less achievable in some rural areas. In the selection of key sites, local planning authorities should seek to make maximum use of the most accessible sites such as those in town centres and others which are located close to major transport interchanges (Para 21).

In rural areas PPG 13 states local planning authorities should locate most development for housing, jobs, shopping, leisure and services in local service centres which are designated in the development plan. These should act as focal points for housing, transport and other services and encourage better transport provision in the countryside (Para 6(v)).

PPG 13 states that local planning authorities should make sufficient land available either within or adjoining existing villages to meet the needs of the local community. However, PPG 13 also states that villages will only be suitable locations for accommodating significant additional housing where it can be demonstrated that the additional housing will support local services (Para 15).

PPG 13 in relation to accessibility states a key planning objective is to ensure that jobs, shopping, leisure facilities and services are accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Local Planning authorities should give particular emphasis to accessibility in identifying the preferred areas and sites where such land uses should be located, to ensure they will offer realistic, safe and easy access to a range of transport modes other than by car (Para 19).

However, PPG 13 acknowledges in rural areas the potential for using public transport and for walking and cycling is more limited (Para 40). In remote locations away from urban areas PPG 13 states local authorities should focus most development comprising jobs, shopping, leisure and services in or near to local service centres to ensure it is served by public transport and provides some potential access by walking and cycling. Where previously developed land is available for housing in rural areas, PPG 13 states that these areas should be evaluated against paragraphs 30 and 31 of PPG 3. The availability of previously developed land is not in itself, a sufficient reason for developing in such locations (Para 41).

In order to reduce the need for long distance out commuting to jobs in urban areas, PPG 13 states it is for local planning authorities to promote adequate employment opportunities in rural areas which includes the diversification of agricultural businesses and/or the re-use of existing farm buildings to other business purposes, possibly in remote locations (Para 43).

Due to accessibility concerns in relation to transport, PPG 13 recommends that local planning authorities may need to locate larger employment uses in or near a designated local service centre. Employment uses which are regional or sub- regional in scale should be located where they accord with regional planning guidance and where they offer a realistic choice of access by a range of transport modes (para 44).

13

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

REGIONAL

East Midlands Regional Plan (March 2009)

The Regional Plan provides a broad development strategy for the East Midlands up to 2026. It identifies the scale and distribution of housing and aims to deliver sustainable development within the East Midlands.. The Regional Plan outlines the regional priorities for development in Eastern Sub-area, in which Rutland falls classifying Oakham as a „Main Town‟ which should provide a range of higher order district –wide services and facilities., and Uppingham as a „Small Town‟. It also outlines the regional priorities for development in rural areas. The key priorities in relation to the settlement hierarchy in Rutland are to identify settlements, or groups of settlements which are accessible to the rural population, as the preferred location for development outside of the two towns for local needs housing including affordable housing and the provision and retention of most other services.

STRATEGIC

Leicestershire, Leicester & Rutland Structure Plan 1996 – 2021 (Adopted 2005)

The Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan was replaced by the East Midlands regional Plan in March 2009. Strategy Policy 2A of the old Structure Plan established the sequential approach for the location of development, this is intended to limit the loss of countryside and promote accessibility. The approach applies to land that will be allocated in the following priority order in Rutland:

. Previously developed land and buildings within or adjoining the town centres of Oakham and Uppingham . Previously developed land elsewhere in Oakham and Uppingham . Other land within Oakham and Uppingham . Land adjoining Oakham and Uppingham particularly where this involves the use of previously developed land . Land within or adjoining the rural centres or other settlements which are or will be well served by public transport, particularly where this involves the use of previously developed land and . In other locations subject to the consideration of the countryside policy SP 8.

Strategy Policy 2B looked at the suitability of land for development and set out the criteria to be taken into account in considering the suitability of land using the sequential approach, as follows:

. Actual or potential accessibility of sites by non-car modes; . Actual or potential capacity of existing public transport, utilities and social infrastructure to support further development; . Physical constraints on development; . The impact of development on natural resources and environmental and cultural assets; . The economic viability of sites; . The need to secure a balance of land uses within the area; and . The contribution that development could make towards the strengthening of a local community, supporting local services and meeting local needs, particularly within the Rural Centres.

14

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

Strategy Policy 2C set out the criteria to justify the designation of settlements as Rural Centres. The settlements need to serve a rural hinterland and contain all or most of the following functions:

. A primary school; . A post office; . A general store; . A general medical practice; . A pharmacy (if not within a general medical practice); . Community and leisure facilities; . Additional employment to that provided above; . A regular six day a week return bus service.

The Structure Plan stated that in deciding which settlements are best able to serve their surrounding areas as Rural Centres, account should be taken of proximity to other locations identified for growth in the Plan and the need for a geographic spread of Rural Centres to serve all parts of the Plan Area. The location of larger settlements beyond the Plan Area or should also be taken into account. It also states the choice of centres should be based on an analysis of services currently provided.

LOCAL

Rutland Local Plan (Adopted 2001)

The Rutland Local Plan sets out the current settlement classification for Rutland. This consists of Market Towns, Rural Centres, Limited Growth Villages and Restraint Villages. The settlement classification is intended to act as a broad guide for policies and proposals contained within the Local Plan.

The classification of the settlements is based on the number of services provided. The Market towns of Oakham and Uppingham provide a wide range of services for the surrounding rural areas including shopping facilities, regular markets and other community services. The Rural Centres are generally the largest and best served villages in the County acting as service and to some extent employment centres for surrounding villages. The Rural Centres also tend to be better served by public transport than other villages, providing links to the Market Towns and other urban areas. The Limited Growth Villages are of a moderate size and possess a limited range of services and facilities. The Restraint Villages comprise of the smallest villages and have only a very low level of facilities and services.

15

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

APPENDIX 2: SETTLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL MATRIX

Table 4: Settlement Sustainability Appraisal matrix

Parish Post General Public Primary Village/ Library General Sports/ Children’s Employment Access to Access by Access to Number PARISH & Pop. Office Store House School & community Medical Recreation Play Area opportunities employment walking higher of criteria SETTLEMENT 2001 extended Hall Practice Ground in settlement by foot, or cycling order met school cycle or centre service working from home LOCAL SERVICE CENTRES Cottesmore 2332 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 Edith Weston 1042 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 14 Empingham 815 1* p/t 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 11 Greetham 609 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 11 Ketton 1666 1 1 1 2 1 1 *p/t 1 1 2 2 14 Market 494 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 11 Overton Ryhall 1644 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 12 SMALLER SERVICE CENTRES Belton 335 -1 1 1 1 3 5 Barrowden 420 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 8 Caldecott 256 1*p/t -1 1 1 1 3 6 Essendine 368 1*p/t -1 -1 1 1 2 2 5 Exton 600 -1 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 Glaston 185 -1 1 1 1 2 2 6 Great 434 -1 1 2 1 1 1 3 8 Casterton Langham 1042 1* p/t -1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 10 Lyddington 397 -1 1 1 1 1 3 6 Manton 364 -1 1 1 1 2 3 7 Morcott 329 -1 1 1 2 1 2 6 North 704 -1 1 2 1 1 1 2 7 Luffenham South 432 -1 1 1 1 1 2 2 7 Luffenham Tinwell 209 -1 1 1 1 1 2 5 Whissendine 1189 -1 1 2 1 1 1 3 8 Wing 315 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 OTHER VILLAGES Ashwell 290 -1 -1 1 2 3 4 Ayston 46 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 Barleythorpe 178 -1 -1 -1 2 1 1 3 4 Barrow 67 -1 -1 -1 2 -1 Belmesthorpe n/a -1 1 -1 1 0 Bisbrooke 211 -1 1 -1 -1 Brooke 67 -1 -1 -1 -3 Braunston 392 -1 1 1 1 1 1 4

16

Background Paper no.1: Revised Sustainability Assessment of the Towns and Villages April 2009

Parish Post General Public Primary Village/ Library General Sports/ Children’s Employment Access to Access by Access to Number PARISH & Pop. Office Store House School & community Medical Recreation Play Area opportunities employment walking higher of criteria SETTLEMENT 2001 extended Hall Practice Ground in settlement by foot, or cycling order met school cycle or centre service working from home Burley 577 (239) -1 -1 -1 2 1 2 2 Clipsham 120 -1 1 -1 2 1 2 Egleton 79 -1 -1 1 1 0 Hambleton 140 -1 1 1 2 1 4 Little 148 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 Casterton Lyndon 80 -1 -1 1 -1 Pickworth 81 -1 -1 -1 -3 Pilton 39 -1 -1 -1 -3 Preston 179 -1 -1 1 1 3 3 Ridlington 202 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 2 Seaton 178 -1 1 1 1 1 3 Stoke Dry 35 -1 -1 -1 -3 Stretton 770 (235) -1 1 -1 2 1 2 Teigh 48 -1 -1 -1 2 -1 Thistleton 99 -1 -1 -1 1 -2 Thorpe by 56 -1 -1 -1 -3 Water Tickencote 67 1 -1 -1 2 3 4 Tixover 174 -1 -1 1 2 1 Toll Bar n/a -1 -1 -1 1 3 1 Wardley 32 -1 -1 -1 -3 Whitwell 41 -1 1 -1 2 3 4 Notes and scoring Negative scoring for no general store, Village Hall and Public House. Access to employment by foot, cycle & working from home relates to % of economically employed. Scoring 40+% =2 pts, 30-39% =1pt, under 29%=0pts. Access by walking or cycling if within 2 miles of town and there is easy/safe access on foot or cycle - Scoring 1 point. Access to higher order centres is based on a regular 6 day/ week bus service: Hourly and 2 hourly services Mon – Sat 7am – 6pm. Scoring: Hourly service =3pts, 2 hourly = 2 points, daily = 1 points, weekly = 0 points *p/t – Part-time

For Burley and Stretton, the figure within brackets is the population excluding the prison population.

17