Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

Read Across Need & Source of Specialist Reports No. Policy Ref. Description A or D Feedback / Key Points Old Policy New Policy Rep Req? N Plan L Plan Brief Strategic Objective 2 talks about two vibrant market towns. a It is good to see a strategic objective that legally requires RCC to support Strategic Objective 9 confirms RCCs commitment to public b transport. This is important to Uppingham in respect of the 1 The Spatial Portrait No 747 bus and the Hopper Bus. Strategic Objective 10 reinforces the point at a) above and c is welcomed. d Welcome the support to both Market Towns. e We have a question about 7? 2 Vision & Objectives Yes a In general UTC supports this section In general UTC supports this policy Presumption in 3 RLP1 Favour of Sustainable Yes a Development

In general UTC supports this policy Sustainable 4 RLP2 Development Yes a Principles UTC objects strongly to the imposition of sites for RLP3 a development when these should be dealt via the refreshed Neighbourhood Plan. The planned limits of development for Uppingham should RLP3 b not be amended by RCC but should be a matter for the Spatial Development 5 No refreshed Neighbourhood Plan in Towns & Villages The areas for development within Uppingham should not RLP3 c be imposed by RCC but be a matter for the refreshed Neighbourhood Plan. Delete the word moderate in relation 'Uppingham should RLP3 d be a focus for growth'.

Response Tracker 1 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

In general UTC supports this policy Built Development in 6 RLP4 Yes a Towns & Villages

In general UTC supports this policy Residential 7 RLP5 Development in Yes a Towns & Villages RLP6 Development in a In general UTC supports this policy 8 Yes RLP6 Countryside b Revisit planned line of development (EJ Toon) Non-Residential 9 RLP7 Development in the Yes a Countryside In general UTC supports this policy Re-Use of Redundant 10 RLP8 Military Bases & Yes a Prisons In general UTC supports this policy Use of Military Bases Whilst UTC generally agrees with this policy we would not & Prisons for like to see development that competes with or unfairly 11 RLP9 No a Operational & Other disadvantages similar developments elsewhere in the Purposes county.

Whilst UTC generally agrees with this policy we would like RLP10 a Delivering Socially to see banks included in the list of key assets where 12 No Inclusive Communities alternative use would not be supported. A key part of social inclusivety is community and public RLP10 b transport (not mentioned) In general UTC supports this policy Developer 13 RLP11 Yes a Contributions

RLP12 a UTC supports UPP/04, UPP/06 (A),UPP 08 and UPP 11 UTC does not support UPP 05 (A) without an independent Sites for Residential No review first being produced to demonstrate safe access to RLP12 Development b the site and no adverse impact on local employment site opposite.

Response Tracker 2

14 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

Oakham, Land South OAK/04 f of Brooke Rd UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site , Land off OAK/05 g Uppingham Road UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Oakham, Land off UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site OAK/08(A) Stamford Rd & h Uppingham Road Oakham, Land off UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Burley Road (part OAK/13 i mixed use development) Uppingham, Land UTC supports allocation of this site for housing UPP/04 South of Leicester Yes j Road

UTC does not support UPP 05 (A) without an independent Uppingham, Land off review first being produced to demonstrate safe access to UPP/05(A) No k Ayston Road the site and no adverse impact on local employment site opposite. This impacts the northern entrance to the town in terms of 'townscape'. Uppingham, Land off UTC supports allocation of this site for housing as already by UPP/06(A) Yes l Leicester Road the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Uppingham, Land UTC supports allocation of this site for housing as already by UPP/08 North of Leicester Yes m the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Road Uppingham, Land UTC supports allocation of this site for housing as already by UPP/11 South of Leicester Yes n the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan 14 Road Cottesmore, Land off COT/13 o Mill Lane UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Edith Weston, The EDI/02(A) p Yews Well Cross UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site

Response Tracker 3 14

Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Empingham, West of EMP/01(A) q 17 Whitwell Road UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Greetham, Part of Greetham Quarry, GRE/01(A) r Stretton Road (as part of mixed use site)

UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Greetham, Land South GRE/02 s of Oakham Road UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Ketton, Land Adjacent KET/02 t to Empingham Road UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Ketton, Land West of KET/03(A) u Timbergate Road Market Overton, Main UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site MAR./04 v Street Ryhall, River Gwash UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site RYH/04 Trout Farm, w Belmesthorpe Lane UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Ryhall, Between RYH/06(A) Meadow Lane & x Belmesthorpe Road Whissendine, Land off WHI/06 y Melton Road UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Whissendine, South WHI/09(A) z Lodge Farm UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Cross Boundary RLP13 Development a Opportunity UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site NEW

15

Response Tracker 4 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Little Casterton, Land 15 LIT/01 at Quarry Farm f (Stamford North) UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Land at Quarry Farm LIT/02 g (Stamford North) This is currently in conflict with the N Plan and will be RLP14 a addressed in the refresh. Housing Density & UTC is not convinced that all new developments should 16 No Mix provide a mix of property types and would wish to see RCCs RLP14 b evidence to support this policy before committing ourselves further. Whilst UTC generally supports the policy of self build we do Self Build & Custom 17 RLP15 No a not agree with para 2 requiring 5% of new build to be Building allocated to self build. NEW In general UTC supports this policy 18 RLP16 Affordable Housing Yes a NEW Rural Exception UTC supports this policy. 19 RLP17 Yes a Housing In general UTC supports this policy 20 RLP18 Gypsies & Travellers Yes a

New Provision for In general UTC supports this policy Industrial & Office 21 RLP19 Yes a Development & Related Issues UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Oakham, Land to OAK/13 Northeast of Oakham f off Burley Road Greetham, Greetham GRE/01 g Quarry UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site

Response Tracker 5 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

Whilst UTC supports the use of this site for employment Uppingham, Land at UPP/02 No h land we are conscious that it has not been fully occupied for Uppingham Gate some time. For this reason we would support joint use for employment and some residential development. Ketton, Land at Pitt KETT/11 i Lane UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Expansion of Existing Please see comments above re site UPP/02 (19h) Businesses & 22 RLP20 No a Protection of Employment Sites 23 RLP21 The Rural Economy Yes a In general UTC supports this policy In general UTC supports this policy Agricultural, Horticultural, 24 RLP22 Yes a Equestrian & Forestry Development

In general UTC supports this policy 25 RLP23 Local Visitor Economy Yes a

In general UTC supports this policy 26 RLP24 Water Yes a

RLP25 a In general UTC supports this policy

RLP25 Eyebrook Reservoir b UTC would like to see the evidence base upon which RCC 27 No Area seeks to ban camping and caravan sites at this location. The same general policies that apply to RLP25 c should be applied to Eyebrook Reservoir. Caravans, Camping, This policy does not seem to address caravan and camping RLP26 Lodges, Log Cabins, a sites and again UTC would wish to see evidence from RCC as 28 Chalets & Similar No to the stance being taken. Forms of Hol. In general terms UTC wishes to see policies that support RLP26 b Accomm growth in tourism in support of RLP23.

Response Tracker 6 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

UTC welcomes the general policy of supporting retailing in Uppingham but challenges the recommendations of the Retail Capacity Assessment Update 2016 which seeks to RLP27 a downgrade some of Uppinghams primary shopping area in direct defiance of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan.

UTC gives notice that it intends to commission its own RLP27 b Yes Yes TBC independent retail assessment and requires that RCC await Town Centres & 29 No the outcome of this before moving this matter forward. Retailing UTC considers it undemocratic of RCC to restrict development in Uppingham in favour of Oakham and RLP27 c considers RCC to be failing in its duty to represent the interests of all Rutland residents fairly.

The redsignation of High Street West, Orange Street and Queen Street is not supported the RCC retail assessment RLP27 d 2016 update which suggests "no change to the primary shopping frontage in Uppingham town centre is recommended". (page 41) Please see comments above regading RLP27 Primary & Secondary 30 RLP28 No a Shop Frontages Again UTC considers the Oakham centred approach being Site for Retail taken by RCC to be failing in its duty to all residents of 31 RLP29 No a Development Rutland and asks to see firm evidence to support RCCs proposed policy.

R1 Tim Norton, Long Row f UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site

RLP30 a UTC awaits with interest the publication of the Local Transport Plan (LTP) before it can comment on this policy. Securing Sustainable Transport & 32 No Accessibility Through Development Response Tracker 7 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

Securing Sustainable UTCs initial view (subject to sight of the LTP) is that this RLP30 Transport & b 32 No policy is at variance with RLP27 which seeks to restrict the Accessibility Through development of shopping amenities in Uppingham. Development

Following recent government announcement regarding RLP30 c mainline electrification from Corby public links from Uppingham to Corby take on a greater importance. Electric Car Charging In general UTC supports this policy 33 RLP31 Yes a Points NEW We would like to see evidence that alternative service High Speed 34 RLP32 No a providers are being encouraged by RCC to ensure that Broadband Rutland receives the very best deal.

Whilst UTC is in general agreement with this policy we feel that it does not go far enough. We strongly recommend to Delivering Good 35 RLP33 No a RCC the adoption across the county of the policy in the Design Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan that requires developers to submit to an independent architectural review on every site of more than 25 dwellings. Accessibility In general UTC supports this policy 36 RLP34 Yes a Standards NEW In general UTC supports this policy 37 RLP35 Advertisements Yes a In general UTC supports this policy 38 RLP36 Outdoor Lighting Yes a Energy Efficiency & In general UTC supports this policy 39 RLP37 Low Carbon Energy Yes a Generation The Natural In general UTC supports this policy 40 RLP38 Yes a Environment In general UTC supports this policy Sites of Biodiversity & 41 RLP39 Geodiversity Yes a Importance

Response Tracker 8 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

In general UTC supports this policy The Historic & Cultural 42 RLP40 Yes a Environment Protecting Heritage In general UTC supports this policy 43 RLP41 Yes a Assets In general UTC supports this policy Green Infrastructure, 44 RLP42 Yes a Sport & Recreation Important Open In general UTC supports this policy 45 RLP43 Yes a Space & Frontages Provision of New In general UTC supports this policy 46 RLP44 Yes a Open Space Landsacpe Character In general UTC supports this policy 47 RLP45 Yes a Impact Spatial Strategy For In general UTC supports this policy 48 RLP46 Minerals Yes a Development 49 RLP47 Mineral Provision Yes a In general UTC supports this policy Safeguarding In general UTC supports this policy 50 RLP48 Rutland's Mineral Yes a Resources In general UTC supports this policy Development Criteria 51 RLP49 Yes a for Mineral Extraction Site Specific UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this policy Allocations for the 52 RLP50 a Extraction of Crushed Rock NEW UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Greetham Quarry M4a f North West Extension Site Specific UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this policy Allocations for the 53 RLP51 a Extraction of Building Stone NEW

Response Tracker 9 Uppingham Local Plan Response - Tracker 24/08/201716:18

Hooby Lane Quarry M5a f Extension UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site Safeguarding of In general UTC supports this policy 54 RLP52 Minerals Yes a Development 55 RLP53 Borrow Pits Yes a In general UTC supports this policy NEW UTC does not feel that sufficient evidence has been Development of provided by RCC to allow such a wide ranging policy (which 56 RLP54 Criteria for Other No a lacks detail) to be adopted without such evidence being first Forms of Minerals provided. NEW In general UTC supports this policy Waste Management 57 RLP55 Yes a & Disposal Waste Related In general UTC supports this policy 58 RLP56 Yes a Development Sites for Waste UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this policy 59 RLP57 Management & a Disposal Cottesmore, Burley UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site W1 f Road Greetham, Wood UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site W2 g Lane UTC does not feel it appropriate to comment on this site W3 Ketton, Ketco Avenue h Restoration & In general UTC supports this policy 60 RLP58 Yes a Aftercare NEW a b 61 Other Commnents (1) c d e a b 62 Other Commnents (2) c d e

Response Tracker 10