Presubmission Consultation Reference # 11707319 Status

Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11707319

Status Complete

Title Mrs

First Name Marilyn

Last Name Clayton

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 9. Minerals and Waste Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which figure, paragraph or policy Policy WST1 - Waste management and in Chapter 9 that this representation relates to: disposal

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant?

Please provide an explanation below: There is a requirement to provide 2 Civic Amenity sites for each county so Cottesmore and Nprth Luffenham should be operative.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

At present the Cottesmore Site is shut although we have been informed this will re- open.

My husband, Michael Clayton and I have written to the councillors and have recieved a letter back from Collr Oliver Hemsley on behalf on the Cabinet stating that he was not sure where we have the information regarding the permanent closure of Cottesmore as this is incorrect.

This information has been gleaned as it is public knowledge that the Cottesmore site is on lease to the Council from the Exton Estate. It is feared that the budget will not cover the running of the two sites in future years. This may be due to the high cost and legal implications of contracts with the Waste Disposal contractors.

The Site at North Luffenham is totally unsuitable for a permanent site of just one site for Rutland on the edge of the county approached by narrow country lanes all round which are very steep and hilly and unsuitable for all vehicles in bad weather. Additionally there are no pavements and the verges are steep and dangerous for pedestrians to avoid traffic and hazardous for cyclists and horse riders.

Please set out the modification(s) you consider The planned opening of the Cottesmore Civic necessary to make the Pre-submission Local Amentiy Site or alternatively another second Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including Site any revised wording: in the Oakham area of Rutland. If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 18:49:40

Start Time 2020-11-05 18:29:54

Finish Time 2020-11-05 18:49:40 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11709398

Status Complete

Title Mrs

First Name Marilyn

Last Name Clayton

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 5. Delivering Quality New Homes Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph, policy or table Policy H2 - St George's Garden Community in Chapter 5 that this representation relates to: Development and Delivery Principles

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant? Please provide an explanation below: My husband, Michael Clayton ,and I feel that this proposed enormous development can be legally challenged.

We are of the opinions that it is far too big and intrusive for Rutland and totally out of proportion to the present County. It would greatly impact on the villages on eastern part of Rutland without proper and planned infrastructure to service. There are many narrow country lanes around this proposed site which are already greatly compromised by speeding traffic and heavy traffic.

Additionally, it is near and will impact on the enjoyment and facilities of Rutland Water which is an important part of Rutland.

There are already 650 new houses planned for the Quarry Farm site together with the new houses planned for St Georges is a tremendous increase in a small area of Rutland. Some new housing is obviously required and we note that the local need for housing at present is 615 plus buffer. A smaller number at St Georges which has been put forward would be considered more sensible.

With regard to older persons requirements, there has obviously been and there is continuing Residential McCarthy and Stone developments and the adjoining Care Home under construction on the junction of the Oakham Road and Pillings road. Also a few properties at Rutland Care Home. Up to fairly recent times there has been no provision in the country for such housing. There is still not provision for an attractive Residential small 'Village' or development in the county with good aspect and larger houses or bungalows. Rutland seems to have many retired people who this would suit and at the present time are unable to downsize. Other counties have addressed this admirably.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

Please provide an explanation for your answer Please refer to previous comments under the below: legal column..

Please set out the modification(s) you consider Modifications have been suggested in the necessary to make the Pre-submission Local legal column Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including any revised wording:

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-06 14:58:19

Start Time 2020-11-06 14:32:40

Finish Time 2020-11-06 14:58:19 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11702401

Status Complete

Title mr

First Name Michael

Last Name Airey

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Whole Plan Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant?

Please provide an explanation below: The lack of a fully integrated Reg.18 Document giving the residents and stakeholders the opportunity to comment on a proper co-ordinated plan is clearly contrary to Government guidance on proper plan-making procedures and as such shows the process has not been legally compliant.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local Consistent with national policy Plan is not sound please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to:

Please provide an explanation for your answer No pre submission. below:

Please set out the modification(s) you consider Provide a fully integrated document leadin on necessary to make the Pre-submission Local from the 2017 plan Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including any revised wording:

If your representation is seeking a Yes, I wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination? As you have selected yes, you wish to I want to hear what is said and by whom to participate at the oral examination, please ensure transparency outline why you consider this to be necessary here:

Last Update 2020-11-04 16:17:43

Start Time 2020-11-04 15:49:38

Finish Time 2020-11-04 16:17:43 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11705008

Status Complete

Title Mrs

First Name Melanie

Last Name Mansell

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 8. Sustainable Communities Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph or policy in Policy SC2 - Securing sustainable transport Chapter 8 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you have any comments on the Legal No Compliance of the Plan?

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Justified of soundness this relates to: • Consistent with national policy Please provide an explanation for your answer The Local Plan is unsound . Paragraphs 8.5 - below: 8.17 of the plan and Policy SC2 "Securing Sustainable transport" .

In addition to the above, Policies H2 and H3 are not consistent with National Policy, NPPF para 9. Within this paragraph it is set out very clearly that Local Planning Authorities should not only direct development towards a sustainable solution, but also that they should take account of local circumstances, need, and opportunities of each area.

The framework also makes it clear in paragraph 103 that: "Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes"

It is my view that by choosing to direct growth in Rutland towards the St Georges Barracks site, in preference to other sustainable alternatives, RCC have failed to comply with the NPPF.

The St Georges Barracks site is not a sustainable location and is somewhat isolated in terms of public transport provision . Policies H2 and H3 set out an extremely inadequate framework against which the planning application decisions will be decided.

The St Georges Barracks site (SGB ) is located next to one of 10 Local Service Centres in Rutland, Edith Weston, and the only facilities within walking distance are the village shop and post office, one public house and a primary school. The bus service is very infrequent with one of the two services available needing to be booked in advance.

In the Infrastructure Delivery Plan Feb 2020 - point 7.14 - it sets out public transport plans for the new development. It refers to a ‘pump priming’ to support bus service provision and has allowed £4m in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan for an "Extension of existing or new bus services to serve development’"

The plan fails to provide any evidence of how long this sum of money is likely to last, what the new service will consist of, or any evidence from a bus service provider that such a service would be viable in the long term. To be practicable in terms of serving the needs of a new large community at SGB, the bus service would need to be run frequently throughout the day. It would need to have a rapid journey time taking users by the most direct route to the market towns of Uppingham, Oakham and Stamford. To encourage take up, any bus service would need to be quicker and less costly than traveling by car, otherwise it is highly likely that the new settlement at St Georges Barracks will be dependent on residents using their cars.

Unless a service of this nature can be provided, and guaranteed to be fully operational from the very beginning of development and, in the future, the Rutland Local Plan should be considered unsound.

Policy references :-

National Planning Policy Framework references - Paragraph 9 and 103

9. These objectives should be delivered through the preparation and implementation of plans and the application of the policies in this Framework; they are not criteria against which every decision can or should be judged. Planning policies and decisions should play an active role in guiding development towards sustainable solutions, but in doing so should take local circumstances into account, to reflect the character, needs and opportunities of each area.

103. The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision- making.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan Feb 2020

7.14. Two public transport projects have been identified related to the proposed Local Plan allocations: • Pump priming to support bus service provision during the early phases of development at St George’s Barracks; • Support for additional school bus/taxi transport provision generated by new developments.

Please set out the modification(s) you consider It is difficult to make suggestions which will necessary to make the Pre-submission Local make the plan sound, due to a lack of Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including evidence. any revised wording: However , given that the planned future development of Rutland is being directed towards a location that currently does not have sustainable transport, this needs to be looked at further. A more effective and integrated public transport system needs to be implemented.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-06 10:09:53

Start Time 2020-11-06 10:03:32

Finish Time 2020-11-06 10:09:53

Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11709723

Status Complete

Title Mr

First Name Mike

Last Name Wyatt

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 4. Spatial Strategy and Location of Local Plan that this representation relates to Development here:

Please select which paragraph, figure or policy Paragraph 4.1 in Chapter 4 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you have any comments on the Legal No Compliance of the Plan?

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local Justified Plan is not sound please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to:

Please provide an explanation for your answer Introduction of the St George's Barracks below: development into the Local Plan cannot be justified on the rounds that it is neither needed for housing or employment now or in the future, will have an adverse impact on the character of the adjacent historic villages and will create traffic, noise and disruption in an area appreciated for its natural beauty and rural environment. It has miniscukle support in the local community Please set out the modification(s) you consider Return to the 2017 provisions in that version of necessary to make the Pre-submission Local the Local Plan and examine the myriad Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including alternative use suggestions for the SGB site, any revised wording: which include environmental, leisure, tourism and conservation.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-06 16:13:57

Start Time 2020-11-06 16:05:36

Finish Time 2020-11-06 16:13:57 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11706440

Status Complete

Title Dr

First Name Peter

Last Name White

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 3. The Vision and Strategic Local Plan that this representation relates to Objectives here:

Please select which paragraph, vision or Paragraph 3.1 strategic objective in Chapter 3 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant?

Please provide an explanation below: I strongly support the comments made by Empingham Parish Council.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local Consistent with national policy Plan is not sound please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to:

Please provide an explanation for your answer I strongly support the comments made by below: Empingham Parish Council.

Please set out the modification(s) you consider I strongly support the comments made by necessary to make the Pre-submission Local Empingham Parish Council. Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including any revised wording:

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 13:52:56 Start Time 2020-11-05 13:42:48

Finish Time 2020-11-05 13:52:56 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11706479

Status Complete

Title Dr

First Name Peter

Last Name White

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 8. Sustainable Communities Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph or policy in Policy SC2 - Securing sustainable transport Chapter 8 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local Consistent with national policy Plan is not sound please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to:

Please provide an explanation for your answer I strongly support the comments made by below: Empingham Parish Council.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 14:25:18

Start Time 2020-11-05 14:02:56

Finish Time 2020-11-05 14:25:18 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11706589

Status Complete

Title Dr

First Name Peter

Last Name White

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 5. Delivering Quality New Homes Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph, policy or table Policy H2 - Site H2 - St George’s Garden in Chapter 5 that this representation relates to: community

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant?

Please provide an explanation below: I strongly support the comments made by Empingham Parish Council.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Justified of soundness this relates to: • Consistent with national policy

Please provide an explanation for your answer I strongly support the comments made by below: Empingham Parish Council.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 14:50:00

Start Time 2020-11-05 14:45:36 Finish Time 2020-11-05 14:50:00 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11706613

Status Complete

Title Dr

First Name Peter

Last Name White

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 5. Delivering Quality New Homes Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph, policy or table Policy H6 - Meeting All Housing Needs in Chapter 5 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to:

Please provide an explanation for your answer I strongly support the comments made by below: Empingham Parish Council.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 14:56:24

Start Time 2020-11-05 14:53:29

Finish Time 2020-11-05 14:56:24 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11706625

Status Complete

Title Dr

First Name Peter

Last Name White

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 5. Delivering Quality New Homes Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph, policy or table Policy H4 - Cross Boundary Development in Chapter 5 that this representation relates to: Opportunity - Stamford North

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant?

Please provide an explanation below: I strongly support the comments made by Empingham Parish Council.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Effective of soundness this relates to: • Justified

Please provide an explanation for your answer I strongly support the comments made by below: Empingham Parish Council. Please set out the modification(s) you consider I strongly support the comments made by necessary to make the Pre-submission Local Empingham Parish Council. Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including any revised wording:

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Please tick if you wish to be notified of the • Submission of the Local Plan to the following stages of the Local Plan: Secretary of State for independent examination under Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 • Publication of the recommendations of the Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent examination • Adoption of the Local Plan by the Council • Future revisions to the Local Plan, new planning policies and guidance

n Market Overton Parish Council – Response to RCC Pre Submission Local Plan Reasons to object – Soundness Reasoning In the Site Allocations Assessment dated December 2019 updated 14/01/2020 Market Overton was listed as having three sites for suitable allocation SHELAA MAR01 – Land off Thistleton Road- capacity 17 houses - scoring 27 out of 84 in the Assessment SHELAA MAR04a- Land North of Main street (Half of available land area closest to Main St) capacity 27 houses- scoring 24 out of 84 in the Assessment SHELAA MAR04b–Land North of Main Street (second half of available land area furthest from Main St)- capacity 27 houses- scoring 23 out of 84 in the Assessment. Despite scoring the highest of the three sites MAR01 was rejected in favour of site MAR04a with further development possible on MAR04b.It was considered as site MAR01(indicative capacity for 17 dwellings) had insufficient capacity to comply with estimated housing requirement for Market Overton as a Local Service centre and, in addition, the other sites had “a better relationship to the existing settlement” ( Rutland Local Plan - Site Allocations Development December 2019 - page 39). On the 11th February 2020, an extraordinary meeting of Market Overton Parish Council was held in the Village Hall attended by many villagers. A presentation was made by the Parish Council to outline the details and implications of Planning Application 2020/0056/MAO to construct 22 houses on the available land North of Main Street compared to the proposed contained in RCC Local Plan which had split the available land in half creating two sites MAR04a and MAR04b with each individual site having capacity for 27 dwellings. MAR04a to be built first followed by MAR04b at some time in the future giving a possible total of 54 dwellings. Both the Parish Council and Villagers were greatly concerned at the possible large percentage increase in the village population outlined in the Local Plan, especially the potential to erect a total of 54 houses on sites MAR04a and MAR04b. At the end of the presentation and subsequent discussion the villagers present voted overwhelmingly in favour of accepting the Planning Application for a total of 22 houses built on the combined sites MAR04a and MAR04b. The villagers were opposed to the RCC Local Plan proposal of erecting 27 houses on site MAR04a followed by another 27 houses on site MAR04b sometime in the future. Concern was expressed about the effect of such a large increase in village population on local schools and transport thereto, the Doctors Surgery and traffic conditions within the village. The Parish council unanimously voted to approve the Planning Application f2020/0056/MAO and Rutland County Council Planning were advised accordingly.

Representation 1) The percentage increase to the population of Market Overton due to site development would be the largest of any of the Local Service Centres being 9.2% (27 houses) or 18.5% (54 house) of the 2011 Census figure of 584 (using an average of 2 persons per new household). The latter figure of 18.5 % being likely to substantially change the character and nature of the village with increased strain on local schooling and medical facilities. 2) By splitting the land into two sites (MAR04a and MAR04b) the subsequent developments of 27 houses on each site would result in spatial compression on each site not in keeping with adjacent existing housing on The Finches and The Limes. 3) The indicated site MAR04a has a capacity for 27 houses BUT the Rutland Local Plan Policy -H1.14-h page 164 states the site must retain appropriate access for further development (being MAR04b). Development of site MAR04b, although not needed to meet current Local Plan housing needs ( RCC Local Plan – Site Allocations Assessment – December 2019 SHELAA MAR04b- “ The additional dwellings provided by this site are not required in order to meet the need across the Local service centres “) would create capacity for a further 27 houses sometime in the future. As the plan is to be reviewed every five years site MAR04b could be developed on within a six-year timeframe. The plan therefore is misleading in its stated allocation of 27 houses over the life of the plan (2036) whereas in fact, it has hidden inbuilt capacity for 54 dwellings and is the only site allocation in the Rutland Local Plan to have this “hidden” extra capacity. 4) Build traffic would have to pass through existing site MAR04a to access Site MAR04b and, given the special compression required to build 27 houses on site MAR04a, road access will be both narrow and unsuitable for heavy traffic once MAR04a is built upon. 5) Building 27 houses will add additional traffic to the village which is currently served by a limited bus service at two-hour intervals to the two nearest towns. Residents of any new development will inevitably require two cars per household to travel anywhere out of the village. The number of cars exiting onto Main St from site MAR04a into one single exit will be 50+ (MAR04a) rising to 100+ when/if the development of MAR04b goes ahead. This would represent a huge increase on existing traffic through a s mall village. Policy H1-14-g does acknowledge this problem.

Proposed wording change to Site Allocation Policy H.i.14

a) Delete site MAR04a and refer only to one site being MAR04 b) Allocate site MAR04 for indicative capacity of 30 dwellings c) Delete H1.14 -g - “retain the potential to access future development beyond the allocated site”

Note 1 30 dwellings would be excess of capacity requirements for Market Overton of 27 houses ( RCC Local Plan Site Allocations December 2019 - Table 8 page 44-) in the Pre-Submission Local Plan in order to achieve the total Local Service Centre Supply of 240 dwellings and therefore is not reducing the number of dwellings proposed in the plan. In the opinion of the Parish Council 30 dwellings would be the maximum that could sustain extra vehicle movement onto Main Street and would also be in line with the results of the Market Overton Neighbourhood Plan – Village Survey Response 2017. The capacity of 30 dwellings (possibly an extra 60 vehicles) exiting via a single entrance onto Main Street, whilst increasing traffic volume considerably. could be manged as acknowledged by RCC Local Plan Pre Submission Policy H1.14 section g which states “ ensure appropriate access solution via Main Street only with any n3ecessary highway mitigation measures” unquote whereas potential capacity of 54 houses (108 additional vehicles)) could not. Note 2 Since Stie SHELAA MAR01 /01 is identified for delivery in 2023/24 (RCC Local Plan – Site Allocations December 2019- page 39) any further development in Market Overton could be achieved by use of this site beyond 2036 - which additionally would not increase traffic entering and exiting into the village road system through one access, as would be the case if both MAR04a and MAR04b were developed.

Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11704435

Status Complete

Title Mr

First Name Richard

Last Name Gray

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 5. Delivering Quality New Homes Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph, policy or table Policy H2 - Site H2 - St George’s Garden in Chapter 5 that this representation relates to: community

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Effective of soundness this relates to: • Justified • Consistent with national policy Please provide an explanation for your answer below: The inclusion of H2 & H3 in the local plan is in total contrast the principles contained within NPP 11

The determination of the MOD to capitalise on this site has driven the numbers to a size that will be the second biggest town in the county. In our neighbouring counties, the scale of this compares to a town of more than 50,000 houses. The 2215 is deemed to be the minimum number of houses acceptable in terms of monetary reward to the MOD. The sustainable 350 was dismissed as not acceptable to the MOD

To comply with NPP chapter 11, number 117, this plan should have consider in full, the effective use of land.

It has failed to look at this site for other uses, it fails to safe guard or improve the environment, it certainly does not consider the safe & healthy living conditions of the residents of Edith Weston and is surrounding communities, upon which this town sits.

NPP 118 a)This development not only does not create a new habitat, but it has the very real potential to disrupt and destroy a bio diverse piece of land and an adjacent site of international importance – the impacts of this have not been assessed to sufficient detail and test the longer term implications.. b)RCC & the MOD have given no due regards to this patch of undeveloped land in terms of improving wildlife, carbon storage or food production – rather it will destroy all of this. c)Failed to consider the amount of this site that has rewilded and should not be categorized as Brownfield – google earth confirms this. d)There is no doubt there are some brown areas that should be developed – but these amount to a significantly smaller site – and therefore should be considered as the smaller option of a sustainable 350 homes and thus fulfil the majority of NPP criteria above. e)We have no idea what the air space of this site will look like as there simply is NO detail. There is no consistency that can be applied to building higher building , as Edith Weston is a conservation village of a mix of 2 story houses with an historic street scene, however the landscape assessment should be looked at from a full 360 – the fact that this site is on a significant plateau has not been duly considered. (hence its strategic selection by the Airforce).

Please set out the modification(s) you consider Policies H2 & H3 should be reviewed and a full necessary to make the Pre-submission Local and detailed assessment of the land and the Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including potential for its alternative uses should be any revised wording: balanced out with the loss of habitat and impacts of this sustainable location.

This needs to be looks at by a professional team of consultants that can measure the social, economic and environmental nets gains together with the impacts & benefits of this land with and without development on the location in the short, medium and longer term.

It also concerns me that the plan makes little reference to the fact that there will be a full working quarry beside this development for 10-15 years – WHO will choose this as a place to live when we are surround by 50 beautiful sustainable villages and 2 prosperous market towns?

Revert to a suitably located smaller development of a sustainable number of 350 homes which would be more appropriate for the rural location of the site.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination? Last Update 2020-11-04 16:17:09

Start Time 2020-11-04 16:01:05

Finish Time 2020-11-04 16:17:09 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11699407

Status Complete

Title Mr

First Name Malcolm

Last Name Touchin

Organisation CPRE Rutland

Are you? Responding on behalf of an organisation

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Whole Plan Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant? Please provide an explanation below: CPRE Rutland submits that the Rutland Regulation 19 Pre-submission Local Plan is both legally non-compliant and fails the tests of soundness in a number of significant ways, including: - The consultation process has failed to allow adequate community engagement regarding the significantly revised spatial strategy implicit in the incorporation of the St George's proposals following the Regulation 18 Consultation in July 2017. - The plan seems to be written around supporting the proposal for a garden community at St George's, rather than to meet in an objective fashion the established housing needs around the county. - The assessment of options for housing distribution is flawed in so far as: - Growth options around the market towns of Oakham and Uppingham are largely ignored in favour of the proposed new garden community - Concentration of affordable housing provision at one site (St George's) would seriously constrain growth in other settlements - Alternative distributions, which might be needed should the St George's option not prove deliverable, are not considered - Alternative uses for the St George's site (i.e. other than housing), should it become available, are not effectively considered. - The Sustainability Appraisal fails to meet many of the relevant directives and regulations. - Cooperation across borders has been limited to assessing the Quarry Farm development for South Kesteven District Council, but should have addressed other authority boundaries, in particular with respect to Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. - The plan lacks strategic vision, particularly in the light of important changes in environmental legislation and the likely long-term impact of the Coronavirus pandemic, and offers strategic objectives that are far too generic. Full details of all these issues, and many others, are provided in separate detailed responses. Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Effective of soundness this relates to: • Justified • Consistent with national policy Please provide an explanation for your answer CPRE Rutland submits that the Rutland below: Regulation 19 Pre-submission Local Plan is both legally non-compliant and fails the tests of soundness in a number of significant ways, including: - The consultation process has failed to allow adequate community engagement regarding the significantly revised spatial strategy implicit in the incorporation of the St George's proposals following the Regulation 18 Consultation in July 2017. - The plan seems to be written around supporting the proposal for a garden community at St George's, rather than to meet in an objective fashion the established housing needs around the county. - The assessment of options for housing distribution is flawed in so far as: - Growth options around the market towns of Oakham and Uppingham are largely ignored in favour of the proposed new garden community - Concentration of affordable housing provision at one site (St George's) would seriously constrain growth in other settlements - Alternative distributions, which might be needed should the St George's option not prove deliverable, are not considered - Alternative uses for the St George's site (i.e. other than housing), should it become available, are not effectively considered. - The Sustainability Appraisal fails to meet many of the relevant directives and regulations. - Cooperation across borders has been limited to assessing the Quarry Farm development for South Kesteven District Council, but should have addressed other authority boundaries, in particular with respect to Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. - The plan lacks strategic vision, particularly in the light of important changes in environmental legislation and the likely long-term impact of the Coronavirus pandemic, and offers strategic objectives that are far too generic. Full details of all these issues, and many others, are provided in separate detailed responses. Please set out the modification(s) you consider Suggested modifications are set out in the necessary to make the Pre-submission Local detailed representations separately submitted. Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including any revised wording:

If your representation is seeking a Yes, I wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

As you have selected yes, you wish to Many of the issues raised may well require participate at the oral examination, please further clarification and presentation of more outline why you consider this to be necessary detailed evidence at the enquiry. here:

Last Update 2020-11-06 15:58:59

Start Time 2020-11-06 14:45:26

Finish Time 2020-11-06 15:58:59 Please return to Rutland County Council no later than 4.15pm on Friday 6th November 2020.

PRE-SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 19 REPRESENTATION RESPONSE BOOKLET Guidance Note

These notes are intended to assist you in making representations to Rutland County Council’s Pre-Submission Local Plan. At this stage of consultation, the Council is seeking views on whether the Local Plan is legally compliant and meets the tests of ‘soundness’, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), and summarised in the boxes below.

Legal Compliance Soundness  The Local Plan should have been prepared  Positively prepared - provides a strategy in accordance with the Council’s latest Local which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the Development Scheme. area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other  The Local Plan should be accompanied by a authorities, so that unmet need from Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat neighbouring areas is accommodated where Regulations Assessment. it is practical to do so and is consistent with  Consultation on the Local Plan should have achieving sustainable development. been carried out in accordance with the  Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.  The Council should have worked  Effective - deliverable over the plan period, collaboratively with neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies on strategic and cross and based on effective joint working on cross- boundary matters, known as the Duty to boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced Cooperate. by the statement of common ground.  The Local Plan should comply with all  Consistent with national policy - enabling relevant laws including the Planning and the delivery of sustainable development in Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the accordance with the policies including the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) National Planning Policy Framework. (England) Regulations 2012.

General Advice  This booklet has four parts: ➢ Part A – Contact Details ➢ Part B – Your Representation ➢ Part C – Future Notifications and Privacy Notice ➢ Part D – Other Monitoring Information

 You must provide your contact details within Part A of this booklet. We are unable to accept anonymous representations. The name of respondents and the representations made will be made available on the Councils website. Personal information such as telephone numbers, addresses, and email addresses will not be published. By submitting a representation you confirm your agreement to the publication of your name and consultation response.  Please do not include any personal information within Part B of this booklet. All comments submitted as part of this consultation will be made publically available in reports and online.

Part B – Your Representation Important note: You must complete a separate Part B for each representation that relates to a different part or issue of the Local Plan. Part B contains five sets of questions for you to make five separate representations. Should you wish to make more than five separate representations please use additional booklets. Representation 1 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number Duty to co-operate: paras 2.39 - 2.41

Policy Number

Table Number

Figure Number

Appendix

Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes ☐ No x

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1) Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended) imposes a duty on the Council to co-operate with other local planning authorities, county councils and prescribed bodies/persons in maximising the effectiveness of the preparation of the Local Plan in so far as it relates to a strategic matter. A strategic matter is defined as “sustainable development or use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas, including (in particular) sustainable development or use of land for or in connection with infrastructure that is strategic and has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas. The Council is required to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in any process by means of which the Local Plan is prepared.

It has been established (see R (Central Bedfordshire Council) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2015] EWHC 2167 (Admin)) that, in assessing whether a local planning authority has performed its duty, it is necessary for the inspector to come to a planning judgement involving “not a mechanistic acceptance of all documents submitted by the plan-making authority but a rigorous examination of those documents and the evidence received so at to enable an Inspector to reach a planning judgement on whether there has been an active and ongoing process of co-operation.” Patterson J goes on to conclude: “The key phase is my judgement is ‘active and ongoing’ and, in the circumstance of that case, the Inspector was entitled to conclude that there were gaps and that the process had not been either active or ongoing.

pg. 2

Planning Practice Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework Feb 2019 (NPPF, “The Framework”) provides (Paragraph 9) that strategic policy making authorities are required to:

“…cooperate with each other, and other bodies, when preparing, or supporting the preparation of policies which address strategic matters. This includes those policies contained in local plans (including minerals and waste plans), spatial development strategies, and marine plans.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out that these authorities should produce, maintain, and update one or more statement(s) of common ground, throughout the plan-making process. Local planning authorities are also bound by the statutory duty to cooperate.”.

CPRE Rutland submits that in preparing the Reg 19/pre-submission consultation draft Rutland Local Plan (“RLP”) that Rutland County Council (“The Council”) as the strategic policy making authority has not met that statutory duty.

The Council has issued a Duty to Cooperate Statement (“DtC”) as part of the suite of consultation documents pursuant to the Reg 19 consultation. This does not in our opinion address the most apparent or important cross-boundary issues affecting the RLP area resulting from the influence of surrounding major conurbations, primarily the City of Leicester and surrounding districts in Leicestershire County. Primarily these influences are between the Housing Market Area and Hierarchy of Town Centres.

It is clearly the case that there is a strategic relationship between Leicester City and Rutland County Council and that sustainable development or use of land within Rutland would have (or at least be very likely to have) significant impact on Leicester City and vice versa. The same conclusion could be reached in relation to other surrounding authorities.

Housing Market Areas

The RLP acknowledges at para 2.38 that “There are major proposals for new housing and employment growth in neighbouring areas that may impact on the demand for housing, employment and recreation facilities in Rutland in particular. Of particular relevance are proposals for housing growth in Leicestershire (in Melton and Harborough Districts); South Kesteven District; Peterborough City; Corby and East Northamptonshire.” The nature and extent of these influences are not further clarified, and it is submitted that cross Housing Market Area (HMA) influences are known and neither acknowledged nor addressed.

Rutland County, the RLP area, is to the extreme east of the Peterborough Sub-Regional Housing Market Area, which combines Peterborough, South Holland, South Kesteven and Rutland. Rutland County therefore has a direct boundary with the Leicester and Leicestershire Authorities HMA to the west, adjoining districts being Harborough and Melton.

In defining the Peterborough Sub Regional HMA area, GL Hearn in the July 2014 report (subsequently partly updated in 2016 and 2017) identify strong links between Melton and Rutland in terms of migration patterns (para 2.36) and that stakeholders had identified influence from Leicester and North Northamptonshire on parts of Rutland (para 2.53). Out commuting to both West Leicestershire and Leicester is pronounced (para 2.48 and table 5). Further evidence on commuter patterns is available from 2016 ONS statistics, which demonstrates almost equal out commuting rates to Leicester, South Kesteven (primarily Stamford?) and Peterborough from Rutland :

pg. 3

The 2014 HMA report identifies cross boundary issues between Melton and Rutland that are quite similar, in terms of affordability gap, skewed demographics towards an older, more affluent professional cohort, and out commuting eastwards.

In terms of Duty to Cooperate, there is therefore clear evidence that a significant number of people working in Leicester are choosing to live in Rutland, we would suggest for its quality of life, environmental assets, etc., and, as such, Rutland is, to some degree, most likely in and around the existing towns of Oakham and Uppingham to the west of the county, meeting housing need from Melton and Leicester. The RLP strategy of focusing growth predominantly to the east, with the St George’s Barracks proposal in particular likely to look east to Peterborough and Stamford, does not address these pressures to the west.

There is no evidence that there was joint working between the two neighbouring HMA bodies, albeit that GL Hearn produced both reports. Leicester and the Leicestershire Housing and Employment Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) 2017 lists at Appendix 8 the outcomes of Stakeholder Consultation and it is telling that no representative of Rutland County Council nor any other of the Peterborough Sub Area HMA authorities attended the public sector session on 27th June 2016.

The DtC statement confirms (Appendix 2) that there was no joint working with the Leicester and the Leicestershire HMA authorities on housing matters. Liaison had occurred with Melton and Harborough authorities on employment matters, presumably regarding warehouse growth along the M1 corridor although the DtC does not clearly define the purpose of engagement, matters discussed, and outcomes in terms of how such engagement influenced emerging RLP strategy or policy.

It is considered that Rutland County Council was under a duty to cooperate and engage with Leicester City and other affected local authorities within the Leicester and Leicestershire HMA. That engagement should have been active and ongoing. As no engagement has taken place with Leicester City Council, Rutland County Council has failed in its duty to cooperate.

Retail

The 2017 Rutland Retail Capacity Assessment (2016 Update) by GVA looks at retail expenditure leakage. This finds (para 4.11) “…Leicester remains a strong ‘pull 'on spending for residents in the County”, accounting for 22% (or £38.7m) of Rutland’s Comparison Goods Trade draw (table 4.2).

pg. 4

There is no evidence that the Council has engaged with Leicester City Council at all over this matter in terms of influencing retail site allocations in the city and surrounding districts (e.g. Harborough where Market Harborough accounts for £5.7m of Rutland’s Comparison Goods Trade draw). Given the threats to town centre resilience, particularly in light of the ongoing Covid pandemic, this is surely an area on which joint working is prudent and timely.

This further highlights the failure of Rutland County Council to comply with its statutory duty to cooperate.

Conclusion

It is clear that the Rutland Local Plan (RLP) will have a significant impact on strategic matters in Leicester City (and other Leicester and Leicestershire HMA authorities). It is therefore under a statutory duty to engage with Leicester City Council and the other authorities affected. It has failed to do so completely, let alone on an active and ongoing basis as identified by the Courts as the key level of engagement.

The RLP must therefore be considered to have failed this legal requirement.

pg. 5

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x

3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared ☐ Justified x Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

The Framework at Para 35 states that a Plan will be sound if policies are Effective, “…based on

effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred…”. It is considered the Plan does not meet this test of soundness for the reasons set out above on matters of legal compliance.

pg. 6

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

The Council should provide evidence that they have constructively engaged with neighbouring authorities, in particular Leicester and the Leicestershire Housing Market Area Authorities, to address the issues identified above, and set out how this process of engagement will continue through the Rutland Local Plan process to adoption.

pg. 7

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

☐ No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination x Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

This is a matter that will require presentation of substantive evidence.

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

pg. 8

pg. 9 =

Representation 2 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number 3.7 - Strategic Objectives

Policy Number

Table Number

Figure Number

Appendix

Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes ☐ No x

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

Para 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, “The Framework”) Feb 2019 provides that for a plan to be justified, it must provide “an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.” (Our emphasis).

There is also a legal requirement pursuant to s19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 for Rutland County Council to identify the strategic priorities for the development and use of land in the Council’s area (ss1A) and policies to address those priorities (ss1B).

In general terms the Vision and Strategic Objectives are somewhat generic and “any place”. They do not relate back to issues earlier identified in the Spatial Portrait section, page 12. One would expect to see specific statements such as “The Main Town of xxxx has challenges in terms of xxxx and to address this the plan will seek to xxxxx”.

CPRE Rutland makes specific separate representations on whether reasonable alternatives have been considered and matters regarding the Reg 19 Rutland Local Plan (RLP) evidence base. However, considering the Strategic Objectives outlined on page 24 RLP, it is considered that Strategic Objectives are not wholly consistent with achieving the “Vision of Rutland in 2036”, that the Strategic Objectives are in some cases incompatible with each other, and that the policies in the plan do not achieve and/or conflict with some of the Strategic Objectives. In these circumstances, it is questionable whether the legal requirement to identify the strategic priorities and to include policies to address those priorities could be concluded to be rationally satisfied by the RLP. Strategic Objective 1: Sustainable Locations for development

- Incompatibilities with Strategic Objective 2: Deliver a new Garden Community:

• St George’s Barracks (SGB) ability to “access services and facilities locally” and “minimise the

need to travel” is not certain (In relation to the assessment of the proposed Strategic Development Sites (ASDS) at St George’s Barracks and RAF Woolfox August 2019, para 5.84 on Community Facilities states: “…there is no certainty of delivery,..”, and on Availability of public transport, para 5.100 “..further work will be required in order to test viability and to increase certainty from potential bus operators”, para 6.15 “…an independent assessment of the submitted transport evidence … needs to be undertaken by suitably qualified and experienced person”.).

• The ability to “facilitate the provision of minerals” has not been resolved (para 6.23, 2019 ASDS “Confirmation will be required from the Minerals Planning Authority’s agents (Northamptonshire County Council) that the evidence submitted is robust and that development options will not unacceptably sterilise economically workable mineral reserves”.)

Strategic Objective 2 : Deliver a new Garden Community

- Incompatibilities with Strategic Objectives 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

• The viability of the deliverability of a “garden community” has not been resolved, the Oct 2019 “Viability Note – Strategic Sites” concludes (para 4.32) that “We recommend the Council is cautious with regard to including either of these sites in the Plan pending the outcome of the HIF process. If the HIF bid on the St George’s Barracks site Is successful the Council will then be able to demonstrate that this site is deliverable and will come forward”. An HIF award of £24.9m was announced in November 2019, but no subsequent work has been undertaken to demonstrate this is a sufficient award to overcome shortfalls (which could exceed £55m, para 4.19, viability note Oct 19) in Residual Land Values identified.

• In terms of delivering a “Garden Community”, there are no agreed sustainability outcomes or targets, or any requirements for commitment to such, e.g. by way of meeting existing accreditation models such as BREEAM Communities. Policies H2 and H3 effectively abrogate establishing performance indicators for a “Garden Community” to the application stage. If SGB is robustly justified as the preferred option, these targets and outcomes need including in polices H2 AND H3 as part of a comprehensive implementation and delivery strategy.

Strategic Objective 3: Vibrant and prosperous market towns

- Incompatibilities with Strategic Objective 2:

• The impact of the SGB proposal (and Policy H4 – Cross boundary development opportunity – Stamford North) on vitality and viability of the existing market towns of Uppingham and Oakham has not been assessed, in terms of the implications of focusing the majority of housing and employment growth over the plan period in locations other than the existing market towns.

• The potential impacts on the existing town centre hierarchy of proposed retail provision at SGB (Policy H3 Criteria c. allows town centre uses of an undefined floorspace quanta and it may be difficult to subsequently restrict out of centre retailing and food and drink uses to “appropriate local” in what would be a potentially attractive location for this sector, although it is acknowledged that this can be overcome by amending this criteria to restricting uses to the new “F” use class). Similarly “appropriate B class uses” under criteria b) of Policy H3 has potential to attract bulk retail and distribution users.

Strategic Objective 4: Diverse and thriving villages

- Incompatibilities with Strategic Objective 2:

• The impact of the SGB proposal (and Policy H4 – Cross boundary development opportunity – Stamford North) on vitality and viability of the existing market towns of Uppingham and Oakham and the smaller settlements in their hinterlands has not been assessed, in terms of the implications of focusing the majority of housing and employment growth over the plan period in locations other than the existing market towns and their functional hinterlands.

• The Council’s 2019 Settlements Assessment Update Report is in effect simply a facilities audit of existing community infrastructure provision. There is a paucity of analysis of existing multi modal transport connections between existing settlements both within and adjoining the Plan Area (including the conurbations of Leicester, Corby, Peterborough and Northampton), including analysis of strategic routes and gaps in routes and service provision), and analysis of historic roles of settlements within the plan area and connections with surrounding smaller settlements to ensure hinterlands and sub areas are identified, and if necessary planned for with specific policies. Neither is there apparent evidence of consultation (as required in para 25 of the Framework) with infrastructure providers (including utilities, NHS Trust, Education and others) to identify strategic issues for community infrastructure provision over the plan period that might affect both the future role and function of existing settlements to 2036. The Local Plan Viability Report update 2020 assesses these matters only in terms of the impact of the proposed strategy, not in terms of baseline needs etc., which in our opinion should have been an important factor is deriving and developing growth options.

Strategic Objective 5: Housing for everyone’s needs

- Incompatibilities with Strategic Objective 2:

• The allocation of the SGB site and Policy H4 – Cross boundary development opportunity – Stamford North) would mean that the greater proportion of Affordable Housing (AH) will be delivered over the plan period as part of these sites rather than in existing centres or their functional hinterlands. No evidence has been provided that this is an acceptable location for AH in terms of accessibility to primary support services, the interests of creating a balanced community, and whether this aligns with the delivery strategy of AH providers including Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) and such.

Strategic Objective 6: Healthy and socially inclusive communities

- It is difficult to see how this objective can be achieved without a more thorough understanding of future community infrastructure needs as discussed under Objective 4 above. The decision

to distribute growth away from existing towns should have been underpinned by a clear understanding of whether the proposed residual allocations, especially to the main towns, are sufficient to make future delivery of community infrastructure viable.

Strategic Objective 8: Strong and diverse economy

- Incompatibilities with Objective 2 for the same reasons as discussed under Objective 4 above.

Strategic Objective 9: Rural economy and communities

- POLICY E5 on Local Visitor Economy is considered so unduly restrictive as to actually prevent Objective 9 being achieved, allowing “… provision for visitors which is appropriate ...” whilst lacking precision or definition of what might be considered “appropriate”. Similarly, requiring new development to be adjacent to or on the edge of existing settlements is unrealistic. For instance, woodland chalet lodge parks are high value generators of visitor expenditure and extended visitor stays, which by their nature intrinsically require tranquil countryside locations, are an increasingly common feature of rural areas and can often be accommodated subject to sufficient control to prevent unduly urbanising effects. It is notable that, should the SGB or Woolfox Barracks sites not succeed as residential sites, policy E5 would prevent their coming forward as leisure or tourism uses, which are uses that would arguably have lesser cumulative impacts than residential schemes.

Strategic Objective 10: Sustainable transport and infrastructure

- Incompatibilities with Objective 2 for the same reasons as discussed under Objective 1 and 4 above.

Strategic Objective 11: Town Centres

- Incompatibilities with Objective 2 for the same reasons as discussed under Objective 3 above.

Strategic Objective 12: Safeguarding minerals and waste development

- Incompatibilities with Objective 2 for the same reasons as discussed under Objective 1 above.

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x 3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared x Justified ☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Para 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, “The Framework”) Feb 2019 provides

that for a plan to be justified, it must provide “an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.” (Our emphasis). It is considered the Plan does not meet this test of soundness for the reasons set out above on matters of legal compliance.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

A fundamental review of the overall plan strategy is required to address all the above, undertaken in conjunction with a fit for purpose SA/SEA (see separate representation on SA/SEA matters).

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

☐ No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination x Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

This is a matter that will require presentation of substantive evidence.

Representation 3 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number 4.5 - The Spatial Strategy for development.

Policy Number

Table Number

Figure Number

Appendix

Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes ☐ No x

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

Selection of Alternative Options

1. The SEA Directive (2001/42/EC) deals with requirements in respect of environmental issues that have to be taken into account in relation to plans and programmes and are in turn applied within the UK via transposing regulations. Article 5 of the SEA Directive requires environmental reports to be prepared in which the likely significant effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme, and reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and geographical scope of the plan or programme are identified, described and evaluated. Article 6 requires a draft plan or programme of the environmental report to be made available and the public must be given an early and effective opportunity within appropriate time frames to express their opinion on the draft plan or programme and the accompanying environmental report before the adoption of the plan or programme or its submission. 2. The environmental evaluation of alternatives must be on a comparable basis to the evaluation of the preferred option. 3. The SEA Directive is transposed into domestic law by the Environmental (Assessment of Plans and Programmes) Regulations 2004 (“2004 Regulations”).

4. Regulation 12 of the 2004 Regulations requires an environmental report to identify, describe and

evaluate the likely significant effects on the environment of the following:

1. implementing the plan or programme;

2. reasonable alternatives taking into account the objectives and the geographical scope of the plan or programme.

It has been established that the duty is not simply to assess all reasonable alternatives but also to explain the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with as, unless this is done, the reader of the environmental report will be unable to understand the basis for selecting the alternatives and whether the selection was deficient (Heard v Broadland DC [2012] Env. L.R. 23). This should be dealt with explicitly in the environmental report to avoid a “paper chase” through earlier documents to find the basis for selection/rejection and that, even if the issues were discussed at an early stage in the policy formation, it still must be set out in the report or sustainability appraisal (Save Historic Newmarket Ltd V Forest Heath DC [2011] J.P.L.).

How were options derived?

The Issues & Options stage, undertaken in November 2015 - January 2016, essentially presented 2 options on settlement hierarchy, and options for growth surrounding the main towns of Uppingham and Oakham. In the case of Oakham, 8 different directions of growth were presented and 2 for Uppingham.

In July 2018 a further consultation was undertaken, “Focused Changes Consultation”, which introduced the option of a new settlement of over 2000 dwellings at the St George’s Barracks (SGB) site.

The document “Sustainability Appraisal for the Rutland Local Plan May 2020 (“the SA”) assesses a total of 12 options, essentially different levels of distribution of growth between the 2 main towns and the Local Service Centres, with and without potential new settlements at the Woolfox and SGB sites. How these options were derived is somewhat opaque, para 4.20 of the SA stating ”…a number of new spatial strategy options were considered as reasonable alternatives through the SA process in late 2018”, although there do not appear to be any published SA documents of or around that date. Certainly no public consultation was undertaken to present the pros and cons of each of the 12 options assessed in the SA, hence there was no community involvement that would have allowed the public to assess the respective merits of those options, derive public opinion on options, or to identify any other reasonable options.

It should also be noted that the SA Report – fig 3.1 states specific consultation by Rutland CC as Local Planning Authority (LPA) on St Georges Barracks – July 2018, but makes no reference to Woolfox, hence there was no evident parity of approach in consideration of the two alternative new settlement options.

Para 4.17 refers to a public consultation event on proposals to Woolfox, by the site promoters in April 2019, but this consultation clearly lacked the “endorsement” of formal joint consultation between the site promoter and the LPA that St George’s Barracks received, and indeed is not included in the 2020 LDS as a formal consultation stage in the Rutland Local Plan preparation process.

The SA essentially simply states the strategy presented in the Local Plan is the most sustainable, neither offering critique nor suggesting improvements, changes, further work, etc. It must also be noted that nowhere is the simple, yet in our view essential, premise of “where is growth most needed/beneficial” ever iterated in the SA, it being apparent that there is a fundamental lack of supporting baseline evidence on community infrastructure needs, etc. of the existing main towns and smaller settlements over the plan period.

How were options assessed?

While the actual robustness of the options presented are subject to separate representations (representations on the Housing Site Selection process raise issues such as whether the potential site supply was grossly underestimated, whether it is correct to essentially abrogate site selection in

Uppingham to a Neighbourhood Plan, etc.), it would seem that the core of the SA methodology which determined the selected option was the 7 matrices presented at table 5.5, “Appraisal of spatial strategy option, overall appraisal findings.” These matrices rank the 12 options (all of which, incidentally, would meet the housing requirement of 159 dwellings p.a over the plan period). No commentary is included as to the methodology behind the rankings, which can hence only be considered as subjective.

Commentary in table 5.5 raises further uncertainties regarding the robustness of this process of selecting options. Take for example commentary under the assessment of the “population and communities” matrix on p.35 of the SA. “Focusing growth at Oakham and Uppingham through options 1,2,4,9 and 10 would lead to help support accessibility to services and facilities.”. This would surely result in these options being highly ranked, compared to the (published/selected) option around reducing distribution at the existing main towns to deliver a new settlement at St George’s (which is stated as being “relatively disconnected from the existing settlements and the services they provide”.) Yet the (ultimately published) Option around St George’s (Option 7) is ranked 4 compared to the option of maximum growth at the Main Towns and Service Centres (Option 4) which is ranked 5. In fact, averaging the overall rankings of Option 7 and 4 only shows Option 7 as marginally better (with an average ranking of 6.7 out of the 7 criteria) compared to Option 4 (average ranking 7.1). In short, the methodological robustness of how the chosen strategic option for the Reg 19 RLP was selected must be questioned.

In assessing both Woolfox and St George’s Barracks under the “population and communities” theme, there has been no consideration as to the benefits to Stretton or Clipsham in the case of Woolfox or to Edith Weston in respect of St George’s as a result of the proposal, although of course in the absence of any robust evidence on future community infrastructure needs of existing settlements it was not possible to carry out this assessment for the growth options focused on the existing Main Towns and Local Service

Villages either.

Again referring to table 5.5, under the theme “Biodiversity and geodiversity” – significant negative effects are identified for any location – but these are considered on a site by site basis (not cumulatively), and also there is no up-to-date landscape scale strategic green infrastructure plan, or biodiversity plan, to support this assessment.

The SA places great weight against the effects of Woolfox on SSSI’s but gives a cursory note on the “potential to lead to the most significant impacts to Rutland Water (internationally important site)”, it being an International Ramsar/SPA designation as well as an SSSI. Additionally, growth at Edith Weston is dismissed in the SA analysis because it falls within a SSSI IRZ – again ignoring the Ramsar/SPA designations, but in dismissing growth at Edith Weston it takes no consideration of the fact that the St George’s Barracks site effectively abuts Edith Weston. It dismisses Woolfox as having the potential to have the most significant effects – but Ramsar, SPA “trumps” SSSI, so there is clear inconsistency in how Woolfox as having the potential to have the most significant effects – but Ramsar, SPA “trumps” SSSI, so there is clear inconsistency in how Woolfox has been appraised against St Georges Barracks site. The Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) is cited as being undertaken at the same time as the SA/SEA and states it will ‘help limit any significant effects relating to the SPA through avoidance and mitigation measures’, which is clearly highly methodologically unsound, any potential mitigation being abrogated to and predicting the findings

of a future document.

Under the theme in table 5.5, “Historic environment”, the assessment identifies that growth in Uppingham and Oakham are likely to cause negative effects on local heritage assets. The same is described for the Thor missile site at St Georges, but here the SA suggests this can be mitigated with “high-quality and sensitive design with reference to Historic England guidance”. This is also true for any developments that take place on the outskirts of either town; however this is not suggested as a suitable mitigation measure. Hence all options with historic environment impacts should have arguably been ranked equally.

In terms of assessment under the “Landscape” theme, no independent (i.e other than those commissioned by the site promoters) Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been undertaken for either Woolfox or St George’s Barracks.

The theme of “Economy & employment” concludes that a new garden settlement is unlikely to enhance the viability of towns and local centres due to its remoteness. It should be noted that no assessment has been undertaken on the impact of Woolfox or St George’s Barracks on existing town centres, the Rutland Retail Capacity Assessment (2016 Update) predating the commencement of Local Plan preparation. Yet Growth Options focused on the existing main towns are ranked lower than the selected option of low growth in the existing towns and a new settlement at the St George’s Barracks site. This is surely inconsistent with interests of maintaining the vitality and viability of existing settlements, as required in the NPPF.

Under the theme “Climate change”, the SA assumes that energy efficient design and renewable energy installations can only be achieved on large developments, however it does not consider the use of solar or air source heat pump technologies which do not rely upon significant infrastructure. In effect, the SA dismisses the virtually identical opportunities by all growth options to also provide for renewables and to collectively contribute to reductions in climate change.

While separate representations address gaps in the Local Plan Evidence Base, in relation to options appraisal there are no documents relating to transport and travel, such as a County wide Transport Study. The Evidence base is not considered adequate to support assessment of alternative options in this respect. If a Transport Study was undertaken, one would reasonably surmise that it would demonstrate that options of focusing the majority of growth around existing centres would have:

a) made most of existing transport infrastructure; b) made existing bus services more viable (and thus supported the other villages); c) used existing infrastructure; and d) reduced climate change.

In table 5.5 there is no comparison of emissions resulting from different growth options, and given that RCC have a duty under the Climate Change Act 2008 to achieve zero CO2, it is considered that all options should additionally have been assessed against such criteria, supported by robust evidence/studies on emissions for all options.

Are there other reasonable alternative options?

While again the reader is referred to separate representations on Housing Site Selection and our concerns over how the overall level of supply identified in the 2019 SHELA translates into the proposed housing allocation, it is submitted that there are reasonable alternative options that have not been assessed and which should have reasonably been assessed. As an example I refer to

page TA130 of the Technical Annex to the SA. (The maps that accompany all the site appraisals in the Technical Annex seem to be the only transparent presentation of the totality of SHELA sites by location). The map accompanying the assessment of site SHELAA/OAK/05 clearly shows that there is potential to combine 10 adjoining sites to provide the option of a Sustainable Urban Extension to Oakham. Yet none of the SHELA, the Dec 2019 Site Appraisal Assessment, and the SA assess the potential to bring sites together in conjunction, by way of joint masterplanning to overcome land assembly, individual site sustainability issues etc.

The SA, in considering options for lower growth at St Georges effectively states that 350 homes is the maximum viable level of growth that can be supported without needing the higher quanta to upgrade existing infrastructure, remediate and mitigate site conditions and impacts etc. This pre- supposes an entirely residential focused scheme. The option of St George’s Barracks as a mixed use scheme, perhaps residential combined with hotel, leisure, visitor attraction or such uses, particularly given its proximity to Rutland Water, would surely also be a reasonable alternative option that should have been assessed. This might in fact support a lower residential component than 350 dwellings.

In summary there are demonstrably reasonable alternative options to deliver the majority of the Local Plan housing requirement as SUEs to the main towns. Following robust appraisal these options may well be proven to be unfeasible, non-viable etc, but the magnitude of the strategic decision to accommodate the majority of additional growth on new settlements must surely be underpinned by at least some recognition and robust assessment of such clear alternatives.

The failure of proper consideration of reasonable alternatives demonstrates a failure to comply with Regulation 12 of the Regulations and makes it impossible for the RLP to be considered sound.

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Para 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, “The Framework”) Feb 2019 provides that for a plan to be justified, it must provide “an appropriate strategy, taking into account the

reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.” (Our emphasis). It is considered the Plan does not meet this test of soundness for the reasons set out above on matters of legal compliance.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Review the SHELA and the SA to consider conjoined sites, options of SUEs to the main towns, and the potential for a mixed use scheme on the St George’s Barracks site, and seek public views on these by way of further consultation.

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

☐ No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination x Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

This is a matter that will require presentation of substantive evidence.

Part C – Future Notifications and Privacy Notice

Future Notifications Please let us know if you would like us to use your details to notify you of any future stages of the Local Plan by ticking the relevant box(es):

 Submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination under Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

 Publication of the recommendations of the Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent examination

 Adoption of the Local Plan by the Council  Future revisions to the Local Plan, new planning policies and guidance

How we will use your information We will use your details to contact you regarding your comments on the Local Plan consultation. In submitting comments to this consultation we are also required, under The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012, to notify you of when the independent examination will take place. We will use the contact details you have provided to do this. Please note: At the end of the consultation period, all comments will be made public and will be submitted to the Secretary of State, who will pass them to a Planning Inspector, along with the Local Plan and other relevant supporting documents. Your comments and name will be published, but other personal information will remain confidential. Your comments will be reviewed by the independent Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent examination for the Local Plan. You may be invited to discuss your comments at the oral examination if you have expressed a wish to do so. If you chose not to provide your data for this purpose, or ask us to erase your data, you will be unable to participate in the Local Plan process. If you would like to find out more about how the Local Plan Team at Rutland County Council use your personal data please go tohttps://www.rutland.gov.uk/my- council/data-protection/privacy-notices/planning-policy/local-plan/.

Signature: MG Touchin Date: 6 Nov 20

Please return this form to Rutland County Council no later than 4.15pm on Friday 6th November 2020: By Email: [email protected] By Post: Local Plan Team, Rutland County Council, Catmose House, Catmose Street, Oakham, LE15 6HP

Please return to Rutland County Council no later than 4.15pm on Friday 6th November 2020.

PRE-SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 19 REPRESENTATION RESPONSE BOOKLET Guidance Note

Legal Compliance Soundness  The Local Plan should have been prepared  Positively prepared - provides a strategy in accordance with the Council’s latest which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the Local Development Scheme. area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other  The Local Plan should be accompanied by authorities, so that unmet need from a Sustainability Appraisal and Habitat neighbouring areas is accommodated where Regulations Assessment. it is practical to do so and is consistent with  Consultation on the Local Plan should have achieving sustainable development. been carried out in accordance with the  Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking Council’s Statement of Community Involvement. into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.  The Council should have worked  Effective - deliverable over the plan period, collaboratively with neighbouring authorities and prescribed bodies on strategic and and based on effective joint working on cross boundary matters, known as the Duty cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as to Cooperate. evidenced by the statement of common  The Local Plan should comply with all ground. relevant laws including the Planning and  Consistent with national policy - enabling Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the the delivery of sustainable development in Town and Country Planning (Local accordance with the policies including the Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. National Planning Policy Framework.

General Advice  This booklet has four parts:  Part A – Contact Details  Part B – Your Representation  Part C – Future Notifications and Privacy Notice  Part D – Other Monitoring Information

 Please do not include any personal information within Part B of this booklet. All comments submitted as part of this consultation will be made publically available in reports and online.

 Comments which are deemed to be unlawful or discriminatory will be inadmissible and will not be accepted. We would ask that you avoid the use of such comments when making your representations.

 You will need to fill in a separate Part B for each representation that relates to a different part or issue of the Local Plan. This booklet contains five sets of questions in Part B for you to make five separate representations. Should you wish to make more than five separate representations

please use additional booklets.

 You should be as concise as possible when making your comments.  Where there are members of a group who share a common view on the Local Plan, a single representation will be sufficient. In such cases the group should indicate how many people it is representing and how the representation has been authorised.

 Responses must be received by the Council no later than 4.15pm on Friday 6 h November 2020.

Part A – Contact Details Please tick as appropriate: ☐ Responding as an individual (complete section 1) ☐ Agent responding on behalf of a client (complete sections 1 and 2) x Responding on behalf of an organisation (complete section 2)

1. Individual/Client Details 2. Organisation/Agent Details

(Please complete in block capitals) (Please complete in block capitals)

Title Title Mr

First Name First Name Malcolm

Last Name Last Name Touchin

Chairman Address Line 1 Job Title/Dept

Line 2 Organisation CPRE Rutland

Line 3 Address Line 1

Line 4 Line 2

Postcode Line 3

Tel. No (Daytime) Line 4

Email Postcode

Tel. No (Daytime)

Paragraph Number 1.21: SA/SEA Policy Number Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes ☐ No x

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

Reference to compliance with the requirements of the SEA Directive: Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC 'on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment' (Directive) and of the 'Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (Regs).

Stage A Scoping – setting the context and objectives, establishing the baseline and deciding on the scope. Identifying other relevant plans, programmes and environmental protection objectives (PPP’s) This does not include some key PPP’s, including the Leicestershire & Rutland Biodiversity Action Plan, the UK Clean Growth Strategy; the Industrial Strategy. It does not include plans relating to community services and facilities, which are important to inform the viability and deliverability of spatial strategies – (e.g. local Clinical Commissioning Groups, MOD strategies, nor the most up to date RCC Corporate Plan). These reports contain strategies that will influence the focus of sustainability outcomes for the council. Decisions on the significance of sustainability effects cannot be justified when important background information is not incorporated.

Collecting baseline information Baseline information is required on the environmental, social and economic characteristics of the area affected by the plan, and their likely evolution without the implementation of the new policies or spatial growth options. This provides the basis against which to assess the likely effects of alternative proposals. This should include data on historic and likely future trends, including a business as usual scenario (and trends in the absence of the new policies being produced), but unfortunately the baseline framework does not. pg. 2

Contd. Collecting baseline information There is no information on likely future trends or business as usual scenarios for each sustainability topic. For example, there is no baseline information relating to St George’s Barracks, Woolfox, or Stamford North – there is no understanding of the environmental, social or economic issues of these sites. Much of the baseline data is derived from information in 2015/2016; this needs to be more up to date to reflect changes - for example climate change and biodiversity impacts have changed significantly over the last 5 years. Policies relate to the use of brownfield land, however the policies maps within the LP do not show locations of brownfield land around the county to help identify where development would be supported.

Identifying environmental problems The development of this part of the SA/SEA process is undertaken by reviewing background baseline information and reviewing the priorities of PPP's (e.g. water company - water resource management plans help to identify current and future issues with supply - this information is highly relevant to a) creating a sustainability objective that addresses the issue; b) identifies trends with and without the plan; c) understands the baseline; d) creates an indicator/target/goal which can be used to measure and monitor the impacts of the policy/growth option over the course of the plan. Within the May 2020 SA there is no reference to the significant sustainability issues that were identified resulting from the baseline information. For example, there is no reference to the environmental issues that decommissioning a site such as St George’s Barracks would present. To find a list of sustainability issues, one must refer to the LP document itself (para 2.35), however there is no reference to how these have informed the creation of a new SA/SEA framework.

Developing SEA objectives The SEA objectives are key to the assessment of the local plan and lead the creation of a sustainability framework. They should relate to each of the environmental receptors described within the Directive and Regulations and are also focused around addressing the significant environmental (including social and economic) issues previously identified. This should include decision making criteria that prevent adverse issues to occur as a result of implementation of a plan or growth option.

Consulting on the scope The May 2020 SA states that the SA scope underwent consultation with the statutory authorities in July 2015 (para 2.9), which is prior to the most recent presentation of new growth and spatial strategy options (higher housing figures and the inclusion of St George’s, Woolfox and Stamford North). The SA process has undergone several iterations since then, and evidence of more recent consultation responses from Natural England, Environment Agency and Historic England should be made available to identify how the SA has evolved as a result of their review.

Stage B Developing and refining alternatives and assessing effects. Testing the plan objectives against the SEA objectives; developing the strategic alternatives This has not been undertaken either for the plan policies or the strategic growth options. The importance of this part of the SEA Directive is that it identifies potential synergies or inconsistencies between the objectives of the plan and the SEA and helps in developing alternatives.

Predicting and evaluating the effects of the plan including alternatives. Mitigating adverse effects. The May 2020 SA report provides no transparent methodology as to how effects have been assessed. The SEA Directive requires assessment of the characteristics of the plan to include: (a) the degree to which the plan or programme sets a framework for projects and other activities, either with regard to the location, nature, size and operating conditions or by allocating resources; The 2019 Interim SA implies that St George’s and Woolfox will be subject to an SA/SEA, however the most up to date Evolving Masterplan for St George’s has not been subject to a sustainability assessment prior to it being included in the LP(other than basic site assessment), and there is no evidence of an SA for Woolfox as a site (other than basic Site Assessment methodology, which is different to the LP SA/SEA). Similarly, any Neighbourhood Plans need to refer to the SA, and the SA needs to identify how the effects of the plan will influence these and other projects or activities. (b) the degree to which the plan or programme influences other plans and programmes including those in a hierarchy; There is no reference to this – at a minimum it should state how St George’s Barracks will be influenced by the SA/SEA, and Stamford North (which has been appraised by South Kesteven District Council – the results of that are not identified in the RCC SA/SEA). (c) the relevance of the plan or programme for the integration of environmental considerations in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development; The Plan includes a series of ‘sustainability principles' in Policy SD1, however several of these do not promote sustainable development (for example it does not include the social aspects of sustainability other than providing services and infrastructure for new development – it does not protect or enhance existing facilities/services or prevent them from closing (more sustainable than using resources for new buildings). (d) environmental problems relevant to the plan or programme; This is not possible to establish without considerable resources being devoted to a detailed review of how environmental/ sustainability issues have actually been considered within each policy/growth option proposal. This is due to the layout of the SA and the lack of transparency in how decisions were made pertaining to the effects of the plan and its alternatives. The SA of growth options, is presented in Appendix C (Jan 2020 SA) with the following showing as exhibiting significant effects for each of the options: biodiversity and geodiversity, historic environment, landscape, soil, water, land, and environmental quality, population and communities, however there is no detailed analysis of the scope, scale, duration, frequency, timescale, or likelihood of these effects, nor whether the effects are positive or negative (or the extent of significance). Instead, the spatial strategy options are ranked in terms of their merits (there is no evidence of a ranking methodology or the decision making process for ranking one site above another). The principles behind the SEA Directive are that all effects should be recognised, that is negative as well as positive; meaning that an approach that is based upon ranking of merits, does not illustrate the outcomes of the assessment process.

The SEA Directive also requires description of the characteristics of the effects and of the likely area to be affected considering: (a) the probability, duration, frequency and reversibility of the effects; This is a significant issue with the SA as there is no transparency over whether the effects are likely to occur, how long they will last (the SA refers to long term - but what does that mean - effects over the short, medium and long term need to be identified); how frequent will the effects be and are they reversible? None of this information is available, meaning that we do not know whether the significant effects that have been highlighted can be addressed. There is no information on negative effects, nor on how any negative effects can be mitigated against. The SA reports that there are significant impacts resulting from growth plans but the level of significance is not provided, nor information on how impacts can be mitigated against. The SA of the site allocations (SA Technical Annex Jan 2020) does not refer to these requirements of the Directive and the Regs and does not appear to use the SA framework and decision making criteria.

(b) the cumulative nature of the effects; There is no attempt to determine the cumulative impacts of the site appraisals in the SA Technical Annex (Jan 2020), either as a whole, or in relation to particular areas within Rutland (e.g. around the county towns, service centres, and around Woolfox or St Georges). The site appraisal maps in the Technical Annex show the red line boundary of the site being appraised, but also other possible options (outlined in dotted blue lines) however these are not taken into account separately, or cumulatively with the red line boundary sites. The SA Report (May 2020) includes reference to cumulative effects but does not provide information on how the in-combination, or synergistic effects have been arrived at (paras 7.7 – 7.130). All discussions result in conclusions that there are no negative impacts. There is no analysis of the inter-plan effects, for example transboundary considerations, which is particularly important when assessing Stamford North (consideration of SKDC strategies and policies).

Contd. (b) the cumulative nature of the effects; The SA recognises the potential for cumulative effects, and concludes in 7.137 there will be increases in traffic and congestion – resulting in increases in air and noise impacts and landscape character issues, and ecological networks. The conclusion on cumulative impacts on ecological networks is not an issue because it states that there is a policy focus on biodiversity net gain and enhancements in green infrastructure corridors, however this assertion is not substantiated because the policies state ‘where possible’, which undermines the certainty that adverse cumulative impacts will not arise as a result of development. Similarly, the SA assumes that ecological and green infrastructure corridors are in existence, when this is not the case. This means that there is no coordinated approach to protecting and improving these two major environmental receptors. Other effects noted include those relating to increases in traffic flows and congestion and the SA offsets this with proposals to enhance public transport, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure. The SA does not recognise that these measures are only possible in the main towns. The reality is that public transport services are diminishing around the county’s villages and the LP strategy to focus the majority of growth at St George’s will result in the greater use of the private car in the rest of the county. The SA also makes reference to cumulative impacts on regional housing demand particularly in terms of combining the Rutland LP with other sub-regional LP’s. However, the SA does not state what the effects of this will be, or the mitigation measures proposed to prevent this. There is no mention of the effects of Brexit, or the development of the new Environment Bill (which should have been included in the list of PPP’s) throughout the SA. Each of these could potentially have significant impacts on local plan policies. Significant impacts would include the implementation on new legislation on managing waste; air quality; water; biodiversity net gain, objectives and reporting, local nature recovery strategies; and conservation covenants. Para 7.142 concludes with the recognition that the delivery of the LP will result in inevitable trade-offs to take place between the various environmental, social and economic elements which have been highlighted within the SA process. It is of particular note that a cumulative impacts assessment has not been conducted for individual site allocations, where they are adjacent to one another.

(c) the transboundary nature of the effects; There is no reference to transboundary effects other than passing reference to Stamford North. (e) the magnitude and spatial extent of the effects (geographical area and size of the population likely to be affected); There is no reference to the magnitude of impacts or the spatial extent of effects.

Stage C – Preparing the Environmental Report Information to be included in the environmental report includes: 6. The likely significant effects on the environment, including short, medium and long- term effects, permanent and temporary effects, positive and negative effects, and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, on issues such as— (a) biodiversity; (b) population; ;

Contd 6. The likely significant effects on the environment, including short, medium and long- term effects, permanent and temporary effects, positive and negative effects, and secondary, cumulative and synergistic effects, on issues such as— (c) human health; (d) fauna; (e) flora; (f) soil; (g) water; (h) air; (i) climatic factors; (j) material assets; (k) cultural heritage, including architectural and archaeological heritage; (l) landscape; and (m) the inter-relationship between the issues referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (l). The SA framework broadly includes each of the environmental receptors listed however the assessment of significant effects does not take into account the impacts in the level of detail to determine the actual effects. Similarly the SA concludes that policies do not prevent negative effects taking place, and that the delivery of housing and employment provision will require inevitable trade-offs to take place. These are not expanded upon.

7. The measures envisaged to prevent, reduce and as fully as possible offset any significant adverse effects on the environment of implementing the plan or programme. This has not been addressed in the SA. There are no mitigation measures proposed within the SA. 8. An outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives dealt with, and a description of how the assessment was undertaken including any difficulties (such as technical deficiencies or lack of know-how) encountered in compiling the required information. There is no evidence that supports how the alternatives were developed, or reasons behind selecting the growth options that were appraised in the SA. The process of determining reasonable alternatives would normally occur through the assessment of sites. This was undertaken in SA Technical Annex, however these were individual site assessments, and were not subsequently assessed as potential land assemblages around the main towns and service centres to ascertain the most sustainable locations for growth and failed to look at combined sites. This analysis may have resulted in advice being given to RCC on sites/growth areas that were not put forward initially; thus encouraging the move towards greater achievement of the LP’s sustainability objectives. There is no description of how the assessments were undertaken (either the ranking process, or the SA assessment process itself, or how sites were ruled out). There is no transparency in a methodological decision making process being undertaken. In terms of difficulties encountered, SA is open in that it states clearly that the assessment process has lacked baseline information relating to a ‘now and in the future under a no plan scenario, and, in light of this there is a need to make considerable assumptions on the implementation of scenarios and the effects on receptors’ (para 5.12). and that testing the significance of impacts has been difficult (5.14 – 5.16).

Contd. Reference to compliance with the requirements of the SEA Directive: Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC 'on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment' (Directive) and of the 'Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 (Regs). 9. A description of the measures envisaged concerning monitoring in accordance with regulation 17. The significant effects of implementing a plan should be monitored to ensure that unforseen effects to be identified at an early stage. The monitoring plan put forward in the May 2020 SA Report only includes eight topics to be monitored (use of land, loss of best and most versatile agricultural land, effect of housing, employment and infrastructure on greenhouse gas emissions, effect on the delivery of renewable energy, effect on landscape character, employment in traditional sectors of Rutland's economy, employment in emerging sectors of Rutland's economy, and car use). These do not reflect the wide range of significant impacts that were reported in the spatial growth options. Other considerations relating to the SA/SEA The May 2020 SA report states at para 4.20 that a number of new spatial strategy options were considered as reasonable alternatives through the SA process in late 2018. There is no evidence of this iterative process. There is a gap in evidence that shows the decision making process that result in the inclusion of Woolfox and St George’s as being necessary to meet the sustainability needs of the county. This is vital information that may bridge the information gap – that is the SA/SEA of the plan’s objectives, emerging policies and spatial options which take the plan from its 2017 iteration (without St George’s, Woolfox), to the most recent plan where these sites are embedded within policy and, in terms of St George’s, are taken as being a pre- agreed site for a garden community. There is no evidence in previous SA reports that there is a requirement for the county to seek additional sites to meet its housing, employment or sustainability objectives. 'Para 6.17 - 6.18 The SA states the preferred option is for the Local Plan to provide growth in the towns and some service centres as well as St George’s, despite there being significant issues with the site (lack of clarity on transport infrastructure, uncertainty of deliverability - extreme caution was issued by the Viability Report and other evidence reports)'. HDH Viability report (Oct 2019) states that 'we have concerns about the deliverability of both these sites. We would urge caution about relying on either of these sites to deliver the Council's housing requirements…If the HIF bid on the St Georges Barracks site is successful, the Council will then be able to demonstrate that this site is deliverable and will come forward'. The amount awarded could potentially fall significantly short of that required to decontaminate and develop the site, and there remains no clarity as to how additional funding will be secured. Therefore, the conclusion has to be that in sustainability terms, there is doubt over the viability and deliverability of St George’s Barracks. The SA contains a disclosure that considerable assumptions have been made about infrastructure delivery to support development. AECOM state that efforts to predict the effects accurately have been challenging due to limited baseline data. The SA states that where it cannot predict significant effects, it has simply tried to identify the merits of each option. There are several issues with this: 1. Where there is a lack of baseline data, the role of the SA is to call for this to be addressed in order to make an accurate assessment. Where information cannot be produced, the SA should state clearly that there is not enough information to make a valid assessment on the aspect of the environment affected by the proposal option (for example, if transport infrastructure data was not available for an option, then the SA should recognise this and the assessment should reflect this in order for it to evaluate the air and climate impacts of a proposal), and this information should be recognised prior to choosing the preferred options; 2. The assessment of an SA should not be based solely on the merits of a proposal without full consideration of the negative impacts and indirect impacts as this leads to a biased impact rating.

Contd. Other considerations relating to the SA/SEA 3. Whilst there is a political will to bring forward St George’s Barracks, there remains significant work to be carried out to a) create a masterplan that is realistic (the current evolving masterplan aims to deliver significantly higher levels of sustainability benefits than are reflected in planning policy statements); b) to ensure that there are no adverse effects to towns and villages of Rutland, and the surrounding areas; c) that it will provide the required community infrastructure and services that are currently lacking in the county (or at risk) – this being determined through detailed community services audits, and significant consultations with schools, specialist providers, health and community care representatives. The same should apply to economic and employment audits, to avoid an overburden of retail or business types that do not add to the local economy, or provide local jobs.

In addition, it is very difficult to ascertain what the impacts are, and how sites have been selected for inclusion in the LP. Members of the public should not be expected to work their way through confusing documents, especially where important baseline information is not available, nor is there transparency in the decision making process – this in itself can be a flaw in the SA/SEA. THE ABOVE FLAWS DEMONSTRATE THAT REGULATION 12 HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH IN THAT THE APPRAISAL FAILS TO PROPERLY IDENTIFY, DESCRIBE AND EVALUATE THE LIKELY SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT OF (A) IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN OR (B) REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE OBJECTIVES AND THE GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE OF THE PLAN.

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x 3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) x Positively prepared x Justified

☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

 Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.

The SA/SEA lacks up to date baseline data to determine the local needs and issues as the information provided is for 2015-2017 at the latest. There is no understanding of the pressures and needs of neighbouring authorities within the SA/SEA The SA/SEA does not provide a transparent analysis of the assessment process or outcomes to reasonably identify which are the most sustainable strategic growth or policy options. The SA/SEA does not provide recommendations for reasonable alternatives to be proposed (e.g. alternative sites for a garden village such as on the edges of the main towns). The evidence required to conduct a SA/SEA and identify significant impacts is lacking, and this is confirmed within the disclaimer within the SA/SEA itself. The SA/SEA Technical Annex, does not provide a cumulative impact assessment to identify the most sustainable sites.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Review the SA/SEA framework to a) bring it up to date with national policy and legislation relating to post Brexit legislation, and industrial/ economic growth strategies (PPP’s) b) incorporate sub regional and local strategies and plans that are missing c) update the baseline data to get an understanding of the sustainability related issues, and identify targets and indicators that will enable the LP to be assessed and monitored d) identify from the PPP’s and baseline data the issues that are the most significant to be addressed and use these to create an up to date decision making framework e) Review the SA objectives – have these changed as a result of more up to date information

Carry out a compatibility assessment between the SA objectives and the LP objectives – explicitly highlight incompatibilities and amend. Carry out transparent SA/SEA assessments of spatial growth strategies, site allocations and policies and be explicit over the results in order that the impacts can be understood and mitigated against. Carry out a complete cumulative impacts assessment, showing the effects of sites and strategic growth areas and use this to create reasonable alternatives. Clearly identify which sites, strategies and policies have the most significant remaining potential impacts and create a monitoring programme that addresses these.

Representation 2 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number Policy Number SD1 – Principles of Sustainable Development Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes Y No ☐

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x

3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared x Justified

☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

 Justified - an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence.

The RCC LP policies firstly stand on policy SD1 which describes the sustainability principles to which the rest of the LP is based. Therefore, this assessment both reviews those topics within SD1 where there are issues relating to achievement of sustainability and validity and test of soundness. The policy is not considered justified in that it fails to provide an effective sustainability policy to underpin the implementation of the entire Rutland Local Plan strategy.

Policy SD1 review Other policies Recommended actions/changes affected Sustainable Development H1 - SD1 is SD1 This is an any town policy - this needs to reflect the sustainability issues Principles reflected in H1 and ambitions of the county (and international and national sustainability goals) SD1 This policy is too - including targets to achieve carbon reduction, biodiversity enhancements, generic - there is no waste minimisation, pollution control (soil, water and air), etc. This policy has reference to any the potential to make a significant positive impact on the future of the county sustainability targets or and falls far short in this. At the very least, developments should require a ambitions for Rutland. This sustainability statement that clearly shows how the principles are being met policy has not been subject and how it will contribute to locally set targets (currently the principles are weak to an SA and they do not reflect any targets - both of which need to be addressed). Transport: Policy states E5 (see note Policy SD1 should promote the use of the electric vehicle; ensuring that priority of minimising the under developments include the necessary charging infrastructure. The continuing need to travel and wherever 'Economic'), reduction in bus services in the county means that such reliance on this possible promote direct, safe EN4 method is increasingly uncertain as a viable option. The other options available and convenient access to to access services and facilities on foot or by bicycle do not take into account services and facilities on the increasing age of the county's residents, as a policy SD1 is wholly foot, by bicycle or public unreasonable to expect an elderly person to access a doctors surgery by foot transport. This is an or by bicycle. EN4 is positively written to allow for future electric vehicle unworkable policy in such a charging points - SD1 is out of step as it makes no reference to this - SD 1 fails rural county – how will the test of soundness here because SD1 omits a key sustainability opportunity. ‘wherever possible’ be tested? What is the threshold? Climate change k) no issue, E2 (see note The RCC Corporate Plan states that there will be a range of strategies h) minimise the impact on under addressing the environment, biodiversity and climate change between by climate change and include 'Economic'), January 2020 and September 2020 including Environment, Waste, Biodiversity measures to take account of EN4, EN6, EN8 Strategies - these do not exist, yet Policy EN4 states that development will be future changes in the climate expected to contribute to local targets on reducing carbon emissions and energy use. This aspect of Policy EN4 is undeliverable as there are no targets - this is a test of soundness issue for planning applications coming forward early in the plan period. Also, greater clarification is needed on the definition of zero carbon homes - there are several definitions. Plus the policy includes utilising energy efficient supplies - including connecting to available heat and power networks - this aspect does not contribute to the achievement of zero carbon homes as these networks could refer to existing networks of gas or other non-renewable fuels. EN6 policy needs rewording - an FRA should be required in areas where flood predictions show future likelihood of flooding (applies particularly to areas that are not known to flood currently) and not just areas that have been known to flood in the past (this then conforms with the increases in flood risk at key points around the county, and not just the boundaries of where flood risk zones are applied currently - see RCC Flood Risk Report). This policy also allows for developers to carry out land reforming

to reduce flooding, e.g. increasing height of land, as the policy allows flexibility under the wording 'considering the layout and form of development', and therefore the policy should consider the impacts to topography, landscape, biodiversity and character where proposals suggest this. EN8 should also include impacts to bats (not just birds) as a result of wind turbine placement, as there are many studies showing negative impacts on bat populations. EN8 solar farms - no issues or amendments Land: c) states that EN7 (see notes Reword policy SD1 to be more definitive rather than use loose terms relating to previously developed land in Air, Water, practicality and possibility. EN7 to be reworded to be more proactive. EN7 also etc. should be used in Pollution). EN11 needs to make better reference to St George’s Barracks where there will be preference to new greenfield high likelihoods of complex contaminants - the policy asks for remediation land wherever practical and strategies but does not state the standard to which remediation should be possible, this is weak achieved, or the promotion of green and sustainable remediation methods sustainability - what is the (GSR) (includes bioremediation of toxic pollutants). EN7 should also include judgement of practical and reference to development proposals allowing sufficient time for GSR possible (this can be left techniques to take place prior to development being implemented. EN11 - this open to the developers own policy could be open to abuse as developers wishing to develop on agricultural interpretation and is difficult land can justify 'that the needs for development are sufficient to override the to defend by the LPA). need to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land' - this would be easy because needs could be expressed as housing needs, which could arguably be greater than the agricultural outputs of the area of land. Recommend taking this wording out of the policy. Housing and non- H1, H6. H7, H9, Re word SD1 to indicate that all development must support the residential development: d) H10, EN2 (see creation/provision of a mixed and balanced community; providing for the needs no issue, e) this principle note under of everyone at all life stages and circumstances. This can be achieved through would lead to the creation of Character), EN3 the creation of homes that are Lifetime Homes/ M4, and which are affordable, housing for young families (6) (refer to note in line with local affordability indicators. Improve H7 to require all homes to be and older people, 'as the here in H7), Lifetime Homes/M4 compliant, not just on developments of 10 or more needs of aspirations of dwellings. Improve policy H6 to require all homes built to allow work from home existing and future residents' opportunities. Policy H9 requires developments of 6 or more in the parishes would be skewed by the should include 30% affordable housing (that is just over 2 out of 6) - this does demographic predictions not enable Cottesmore, Barleythorpe or Empingham to create a range of over the plan period affordable homes to meet the needs of their communities (see Policy H1). Policy H9 should also include a requirement that affordable housing should be low cost to run (energy efficient) and suitable for families and working people (adequate internal insulation to buffer against internal and external noise). Policy H10 rural exception housing should make provision for off grid/ low carbon living, and thus reword/clarify the statement that homes should have access to a basic range of services. EN3 refers to a requirement that all major new developments should perform positively against Building for Life 12 - this should be reworded because these standards get updated regularly and therefore the policy needs to stand the test of time - reword this to say 'or most up to date version/ best alternative available at the time'. Waste water i) this does not H1, H3, EN4 SD1 should promote a water hierarchy for new proposals where there is no contribute to any principle of existing treatment infrastructure. A hierarchy should include 1) waste water sustainability - it does not leaving the site should not cause additional pollution loading on local waste require the developer to water treatment facilities, or result in diffuse pollution of surface or include sustainable solutions groundwater; 2) rainwater collection and grey water systems should be for waste water. included in design features; 3) waste water should be minimised - using efficient appliances etc. H3 St Georges is not required to adopt sustainable waste water treatment facilities. Policy EN4 on water resources requires water neutrality, but at the same time should meet Building Regs - these two are in conflict water neutrality and efficiency requirements should go above and beyond Building Regs and as a result, this policy does not stimulate a move towards sustainability. EN4 requires non domestic buildings to achieve BREEAM Very Good Status as a minimum. It does not make sense that the BREEAM standard should only be used for water consumption (non-domestic buildings) and not for other aspects of the environment (including energy efficiency) as the BREEAM standard is well understood and respected by developers to achieve sustainable design and construction. Policies should set objectives in relation to the chemical status of surface water or ground water (including objectives to maintain specified standard or to achieve specified standards by specific dates, and provision for monitoring for new development proposals (Environment Bill 81 (3)) Resource use: j) This policy H1, EN4 Reword policy SD1 to require the implementation of the most sustainable should promote the design and construction methods available using BATNEEC principles. If sustainability principle of proposals do not comply, require justification of why through the production of BAETNEEC - best available deliverability and viability statement. EN4 is much stronger than SD1 - review environment technology not SD. Policy should ensure that proposals provide sufficient space to allow for entailing excessive costs. storage of various recyclable waste streams for each property/non domestic

This policy is out of step with building. current national policies to reach carbon targets and limit impacts on natural resources. Natural and cultural H1, E6, E7, EN2 Reword SD1 to reflect national policy and the pending requirement for at least heritage: SD1 (l) 'maintain (see note under 10% biodiversity net gain; for the purchase of biodiversity credits; for the and wherever possible Character), EN3 general duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity; and for the provision of enhance' does not reflect (see also note quantitative data to contribute to RCC’s requirement to publish biodiversity current national biodiversity under reports (Environment Bill Part 6: 90 - 94l). E6 and E7 - no issues with these strategy. This aspect of the Character). EN8 policies. EN8 see notes regarding bats and wind turbines under climate policy is the get out clause to (see notes change. EN9 remove 'where possible' when describing delivery of net gain and prevent developers from under Climate ecological networks as this is a requirement. Wood (HRA 2020), reinforces this achieving biodiversity net Change). EN9, with the statement at 2.3.26 ‘it is usually possible to incorporate caveats or gain. EN10, EN12, measures within policy text that are sufficient to ensure that adverse effects will EN13, EN14, not occur’. (EN9 include multi-functional land to maximise ecosystem services EN15, EN16 and function. EN9 include a requirement for long term management of natural assets (30 years) as part of development proposals to prevent future loss or degradation of assets and function. EN9 re-word this policy to require that all development must include an assessment of the potential impact of development - not just major developments (potential test of soundness issue). EN9 reword d) to take out the phrase relating to veteran trees describing where the need for and benefits of development clearly outweigh the loss - this can be difficult to uphold - no loss should occur - and in rare circumstances provision should be made for deliberate planting of the veteran trees of the future. EN9 e) remove 'and where appropriate enhance' statement when relating to priority habitats and species - this should always be maintained and enhanced to ensure losses to biodiversity are addressed. EN9 f) remove 'and where appropriate enhance' when describing geodiversity sites - these should be improved if existing maintenance methods are eroding the asset. EN9 g) remove wording' and where possible enhance' when describing other sites, features, species or networks of ecological interest - otherwise further losses in biodiversity will occur. EN9 i) needs to go beyond 'identifying' measures to avoid/reduce adverse impacts - should be reworded more positively to actively require the implementation of measures. EN10 reword a) to include 'accessible' network in order that people with disabilities can use these networks (Equality Act 2010), c) by having a clause that allows green/blue infrastructure to be lost 'if there is no longer a need for the existing infrastructure' undermines a) which is trying to establish a network in and around towns and villages - the opportunity to take parts of the network out will result in a fragmented provision, and also provides developers with a 'get out' to avoid retaining important features. EN10 is unenforceable because there is no existing blue/green infrastructure network (not identified on the proposals map in the LP). EN12 - no issues. EN13 - allocation of local green spaces within Neighbourhood Plans - this policy should require the submission of a statement of responsibility from the Parish Council as part of the application to ensure that the green space will be maintained, this will avoid NP's from allocating spaces that are not viable, or become neglected in the long term (utilise wording from EN14). EN14 should include natural spaces for wildlife as part of their delivery requirements for parks, gardens and amenity green space - not just for allotments. EN15 no issue. EN16 - 'the council will apply national policy to development proposals which affect designated heritage assets' this is because there isn't a county heritage strategy, which given that the county's character is dominated by its built heritage and archaeology, is a significant issue - this is another example of an 'anytown' policy that has not been drawn up with Rutland in mind (recommendation that a heritage specialist compares NPPF requirements with Policy EN16) SD1 etc do not reflect the impacts identified within the HRA screening report – reduction to habitat area, disturbance of key species, habitat or species fragmentation, reduction in species density, changes in key indicators of conservation value (e.g. water quality) and climate change, either as a whole or in terms of interference with key relationships that define the structure and function of the site (HRA Screening 2017, pg 11). HRA (Wood 2020) identifies impact pathways which should be reflected in the SA/SEA framework and as a result, wording in policies should also reflect the avoidance of impacts to these pathways. HRA (2017) includes requirement of plans to identification of significance and scale/ magnitude of effect. Policies should prevent negative impacts to Natura 2000 by increased casual recreation caused by development (incl St George’s Barracks) (refer to HRA Screening Report 2017nand Wood 2020 pages 19-20).

Character m) Emerging H1, EN1, EN2, Reword SD1 to reflect the status of NP's. EN1 - remove the phrase 'distinctive NP's are a material EN3, character of Rutland's landscape will be conserved, and wherever possible, consideration and therefore enhanced' as the policy itself requires landscape qualities to be enhanced. The this policy should not solely policy refers to Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity studies - there are various refer to 'made' plans. iterations of these - including one from 2010 for Oakham which predates the Oakham Heights development - landscape sensitivity may now be different for this area. St Georges needs to be referred to in EN1 to minimise impacts on landscape character. EN1 should require a landscape and visual impact assessment (proportionate to the size of proposal). EN2 refers to a Design SPD that will be used to assess proposals against place shaping principles - however there is no Design SPD put forward with the Regulation 19 Local Plan - this is a test of soundness issue. EN3 - policy should be reworded to replace 'where possible' in relation to enhancement of nature conservation and biodiversity enhancement - this is a potential test of soundness issue as biodiversity enhancement is a requirement. EN3 requires the creation of high quality and creatively designed public realm - this should include the requirement to provide multi-functional spaces that maximise ecosystem services. EN3 streets need to be able to accommodate mobility scooters and pushchairs - these are often forgotten when considering the width of streets for pedestrians with mobility limitations. EN3 design for streets - ensure street layouts design out crime. Economic f and n) How can H1, H2, E1, E2, Review this policy wording to make it scalable and make it clear if it refers to this be assessed at the small E4, E5, E8, E9, CIL, or if it refers to non-residential development (therefore require an scale - how would a one E11 employment and economic statement). What happens to policy H2 and H3 if it dwelling application is uneconomic to deliver community infrastructure (as was the case with contribute to the local Oakham Heights), what provisions are there for phasing community economy or bring economic infrastructure in early in the development to ensure they are delivered - make benefits to the county - this sure these considerations are accounted for. Economic policy E1 identifies a needs more information. This need for more employment land - this should be reviewed given the changes in seems unworkable at the employment/ working circumstances resulting from COVID-19. A review of the small scale. How can St Economic Strategy should take place and clear targets to support home George’s adhere to this, working included. The LP orientates towards Lincolnshire in economic terms, when the economic viability but the Leicester Eastern Growth corridor is important for many people - of the development is in particularly from a retail perspective. Policies should reflect the benefits of question. economic relationships across all geographic boundaries. E1 should plan positively for the future and enable the provision of hot desking and reception facilities to support micro and small businesses and those working from home (village halls could be utilised for hot desking, and a financial contribution from micro businesses to a virtual receptionist would help diversify parish councils and village halls which would also support the viability of these spaces). Policy E2 and E4 should require expansion of existing businesses to be as carbon neutral as possible to ensure climate impacts are limited; that biodiversity net gain is achieved; and that environmental resources are not negatively impacted (e.g. pollution). Policy E5 should be reconsidered in relation to the limitations imposed as a result of transport requirements - this is a rural county with a diminishing bus service - this policy needs to reflect more accurately the reality of transport options. Policy E8 could reflect opportunities to create facilities not currently enjoyed by small villages. These types of development proposal offer substantial opportunity to replace lost community facilities and services - this would prevent the national issue of genteel decline which is reducing villages and hamlets to commuter zones or retirement villages. Policy E9 should also include reference to St George’s to ensure that existing town centres are not adversely impacted as a result of the implementation of policies H2 and H3. E11 - consider the provision for retail development at Uppingham (not just Oakham) to ensure that residents at St George's utilise this location rather than those outside the county - thus increasing the stability of Uppingham and increasing inward investment. Waste management. The H1 Reword SD1 to include sustainability principles wording of this part of SD1 is not a sustainability principle, there is no requirement to demonstrate that proposals for alternative uses positively contribute to the sustainability requirements of the county Waste minimisation: There H1 Include the waste hierarchy in policy SD1 and require that waste plans are is nothing in the included in development proposals sustainability principles that requires waste minimisation

to be considered. This is important in the construction process of developments, as well as in the use of dwellings and buildings. This is achievable through the use of existing sustainable design and construction codes of practice and accreditations (e.g. BREEAM) and should be included as a key sustainability outcome Air, light, noise or other EN2, EN7 (see SD1 Ensure that this is reworded to prevent incremental changes to air, light, environmental pollution. p) notes in 'Land') noise or pollution. EN7 should be reworded to take out the statement 'where this requires the prevention possible' when relating to the protection and improvement of the quality of air, or mitigation against land and water - these are indicators in the 25 Year Environment Plan and significant air, light, noise or should be protected and enhanced to improve water air and soil quality. This is other environmental a potential test of soundness issue because policy EN7 does not comply with pollutions - this does not national policy. allow for consideration of cumulative impacts of diffuse pollution, or the incremental increase in light pollution, or noise levels People and communities. EN3 (7) SD1 should be updated to include social sustainability principles. This is Policy SD1 does not include particularly important in existing villages and hamlets that are undergoing the social aspects of 'genteel decline', e.g. a loss of community facilities and services that are sustainability. g) requires essential to the maintenance of thriving and balanced communities, but which that services and cannot be maintained due to lack of investment/ changes in lifestyle that infrastructure are created for encourage patronage of shops, culture, recreation to take place outside of the new developments, but the village (e.g. as is typical of commuter villages), resulting in loss of shops, pubs policy does not and other services. These villages become unsustainable over time and rely protect/enhance existing upon large scale developments/public rural regeneration funding to provide services/facilities from investment and reinvigorate the demographic structure of the community. closing. Policy EN3 (7) sets the design principles for safer and healthier communities on new developments and this wording should be updated to enable spaces to be designed to incorporate social distancing. General comments- Policy SD1 which lays out the sustainability principles does not positively contribute to the other policies in the plan, which go above and beyond SD1. Therefore, either SD1 should be updated or should be removed. Other policies are 'anytown' policies and are not specific to Rutland. Local Plan making requires that national policies should be interpreted at the local level - in many situations Rutland has not done this. Additionally, several policies are unenforceable due to lack of background evidence/strategies/information. Similarly, several policies that use the 'where possible', or similar phraseology, can easily be undermined by developers.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Revisit policy SD1 to set the underpinning principles of sustainability so it is relevant to Rutland and promotes all aspects of sustainable development. Ensure SD1 is compliant with the other local plan policies – conduct an SA/SEA compatibility assessment. Take out aspects of SD1 that do not directly contribute to sustainable development.

Representation 3 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number 1.22: Habitats Regulation Assessment Policy Number Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes No x

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

HRA Screening document (2017) does not include St George’s Barracks or Woolfox (para

3.16) (whilst Wood 2020 provides a critical friend screening process, the previous 2017 report remains at the most recent official report). The HRA Screening Document was prepared prior to the judgment of the CJEU in People Over Wind, Peter Sweetman v Coillte Teoranta [2018] ECR I-244 and it would appear that the 2017 HRA Screening document relied on mitigation to negatively screen the proposals as they were at that point in time. The 2020 document does not address this legal error. The indicators of significance of likely effects (pages 34 -35) are not taken forward into the SA/SEA. Releases to water should be restricted and the protection of ground and surface water quality, with the requirements to deliver SUDS (para 3.26) Para 3.27 identifies no direct impacts as growth is not proposed for the Natura 2000 sites. Indirect impacts are avoided because the plan seeks to minimise and mitigate against impacts – this may not be the case where planning policy allows flexibility (the ‘where possible’ issue) Para 3.28 brings into effect the precautionary approach (<5km) (Tydesley 2006) but this is undermined in the 2020 LP through the wording ‘where possible’. Para 3.28.5 and 6 require that development policies should steer development away from a site or area where development might indirectly affect European sites, or where a quantum results in significant effects – this needs to be considered further within the site selection process. Assessment of Edith Weston (page 27) identifies increased recreational usage causing disturbance (identified as an important negative impact on Rutland Water) – St George’s will exacerbate this. Rutland Water lies 450m to the north of the site at its closest point (Derek Finnie Associates Ecological Appraisal p 18) (nominally just outside of the 400m buffer zone inferred by Wood 2020 para 4.2.11 – but this needs to be tested for local context). Entire airfield is a potential LWS and is of County Importance due to the grassland community (p 18). No protected species surveys were undertaken as part of the survey – therefore the ability to screen the site to avoid areas used by existing populations of species has not been undertaken as part of the masterplan/ site policy process. The airfield is an important resource for breeding and passage birds – of County value. The HRA 2017 screening report identifies impacts to the Natura site in relation to obstruction of flight paths – the same could be for St George’s Barracks. No flight path assessment has been undertaken either for Natura 2000 zone, nor St George’s.

The Derek Finnie Ecological Appraisal makes note of the bird ringing surveys conducted, however there is no associated plan identifying where these are – knowledge of a) species recorded and b) their locations should indicate whether St George’s can deliver the quantum of development proposed. It is unknown whether birds that are important species in the Natura 2000 site are also using St George’s barracks. An assessment should be undertaken to identify sensitive areas; impacts, and locations to avoid. The 2020 HRA identifies neutral grassland and broadleaved, mixed and yet woodland as being important to the SPA as they support waterbird assemblages – more information is needed on the St George’s Barracks to inform policies. The overriding issue is that policies should ensure that flight paths and sites for breeding birds and their species assemblages are not negatively impacted as a result of development – this should form part of any ecological appraisal of proposals in proximity of Rutland Water. Policies should also state that proposals should consider the direct/indirect and cumulative impacts upon the current SSSI’s favourable condition (outlining the threats as listed in Wood 2020 para 3.3.20).

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x

3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared x Justified

☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

Para 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019) provides that for a plan to be justified, it must provide “an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable

alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence (our emphasis)”.

It is considered the plan does not meet this test of soundness for the reasons set out above on matters of legal compliance.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Require a recreational study of St George’s Barracks to forecast numbers of additional visitors to the Natura 2000 area in order to determine likely future pressures (including the effects of urbanisation – littering). Water quality maintenance is a key factor for the Natura site. The Wood 2020 report states that WwTW (waste water treatment works) may not have enough headroom to support development (incl North Luffenham WwTW). Development at St George’s Barracks would increase this demand significantly. Surface water run off could also cause negative impacts; policy needs to address this at a site level (H3). The Wood 2020 HRA makes proposals for improvements to policy wording (Appendix A): H1: Assess/Amend- The policy identifies ‘the quantum of development and that evidence gathered and the results of consultation with NE do not suggest that significant effects are unavoidable as a result of development, and that ‘other ‘quantum of development’ in- combination effects may occur in respect of those aspects that operate regionally, notably water resources and water quality, , although the plan does include standard protective policies that would largely minimise the risk of these pathways being realised’. This potentially is taken into account through other policies, however this needs to be made explicit within H1. H2: Assess/amend – The policy has the potential to affect the site (Rutland Water) through a range of mechanisms to which the site is potentially vulnerable (e.g. waste water discharge, recreational pressure). Policy includes ‘mitigating’ elements (e.g (7) and (9) which will help to minimise effects on site and provide controls in this regard but examination through AA (Appropriate Assessment) is necessary’. Therefore, H2 should be amended to explicitly require an AA (as in the most recent amendment to HS2 on the requirement for a Heritage Impact Assessment).

H2 – the policy needs to take into account the application of  Biodiversity net gain  Usage of natural capital assessments  Compensation  Covenants which are included in the Environment Bill but have not been considered within the Local Plan.

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination X Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

This is a matter that will require presentation of substantive evidence.

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

Representation 4 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number Policy Number H1 and Delivering Housing Allocations Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes X No

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

X Yes ☐ No 3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared X Justified ☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

Para 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Feb 2019) provides that for a plan to be justified, it must provide “an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence (our emphasis)”.

While separate representations consider the appropriateness of the overall local plan strategy and whether all reasonable alternatives were considered, it is also necessary to take a more in- depth consideration of how housing supply figures were derived, how these have carried forward through the site selection process, and the robustness of the proposed allocations under policy H1. To consider each stage of the site selection process:

Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (Rutland CC 2019 (SHELA)).

Para 2.3, in summarising the role of the SHELA, states: “The SHELA does not determine if sites should be allocated for development or whether planning permission will be granted for development. This is because not all sites considered in the assessment will be suitable for development (e.g. because of policy constraints). The process of assessment does, however, provide the starting point and base information to enable the identification of sites and locations suitable for allocation in the Local Plan”.

To summarise the “Screening Stages” in the SHELA:

- Stage 1 Screening

• The site is not located adjacent to or within the built up area of Oakham, Uppingham, Stamford or a Local Service Centre, or is not capable of delivering a new stand-alone settlement;

• The site falls below the size thresholds for the proposed use (0.15 hectares for residential development and 0.25 hectares or 500 square metres for economic development);

• The site has planning permission in place but is not implemented yet and is monitored as a commitment through the Five Year Land Supply Report; • The site is promoted for a different use, other than residential (C3 uses), employment (B1, B2 or B8 uses) or retail (A1 uses);

• The site has been identified as no longer available for development;

• The site is wholly or predominantly within a SSSI or European Conservation Site (SPA/Ramsar) designated site;

• The site wholly or predominantly contains a Scheduled Monument;

- 2a Site Screening Process

Any sites that were considered to be detrimental to highway safety due to the access situation or had a poor relationship with the existing settlement are screened out at stage 2a of the process

- Stage 2b Site Screening Process

• “88 sites in stage 2b of the process have been assessed further on topography, national and local ecology designations, heritage, archaeology, landscape, flood risk, environmental health and contamination, access and impacts on the wider road network in line with the methodology”.

• Each site was assessed on the basis of its likely availability. Information was provided by promoters of individual sites to confirm availability or any impediments such as legal or ownership issues

• The achievability of each site has been identified based on an assessment against the Viability Update Report prepared in February 2018.

• Consideration was also given to the prospects of each site being realistically developed at a particular point in time.

• Each site has been assessed based on the information collated as to whether the site is classified as deliverable, developable or not deliverable at this point in time.

The results of the SHELA can be summarised as follows, although there appears to be an error in the summary total of 9 dwellings

Uppingham - 519 Oakham - 1203 Other Settlements - 1342

Total 3073 (3064?)

With St George’s Barracks 5288 (5279?)

It must be emphasised that the SHELA assesses each site in isolation. The NPPF and Practice Guidance to the Framework requires Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessments to consider “broad locations for growth”, hence the failure to consider whether combined sites could overcome identified constraints that screened them out through the SHELA process, and in combination deliver Sustainable Urban Extensions to the existing main towns and surrounding settlements is identified as a major flaw in how the SHELA was undertaken. In that there is no mapping of totality of SHELA supply by settlement, it is impossible to use the published SHELA to identify such opportunities.

Site Allocations Assessment (Rutland CC Dec 19):

This study is effectively a “Policy On” study, screening out sites to meet allocated housing requirement per settlement. Hence otherwise acceptable options for settlement growth are screened out at this stage, bearing in mind, one must remember, that a considerable number of sites had already been screened out at SHELA stage 1 due to impacts on designated assets, peripherality and isolation, etc.

Figures for housing supply options for Growth used in the SA do not accord with those derived from the Site Allocations Assessment, i.e, where are High (532) and Low (382) figures for Oakham derived from? Where is High figure for Uppingham (312) derived from? Where is High (775) figure for “Rest” derived from? It must be noted that it is clear that these High figures could meet the housing requirement without any need to consider a new settlement at either the Woolfox or SGB sites.

Local Plan.

The Supply table (Table 2) again uses a different figure total supply figure to the SA for Uppingham (319), Oakham (890) and “Rest”, (433). Again the total supply indicated demonstrably meets the housing requirement of 1529 without apparent need to concentrate the majority of growth at a new settlement.

It must also be noted that the allocation for Uppingham is capped at 200 dwellings, and delegated to the Neighbourhood Plan to allocate (is this 200 dwellings on top of the 183 allocated in the NP or only an additional 17 dwellings from 2026 to 2036!). The adopted Neighbourhood Plan was never the vehicle to have considered strategic matters such as appraising SUE options etc, so simply carrying forward the NP is not robust, and has not been agreed with the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Group. Neither has the 200 dwelling cap.

Summary.

There are many flaws in the site selection process, all of which would appear to have been skewed in terms of supporting the allocation of St George’s Barracks while commensurately suppressing sites coming forward elsewhere.

In conclusion, it is considered the plan does not meet the ‘justified’ test of soundness as the above outlined issues relating to the how the housing site selection process has been undertaken does not in our opinion provide either a sound methodological or evidential basis to progress the Local Plan strategy.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

It is recommended that the council take independent advice to review the work undertaken to date, particularly to ensure a less subjective review of potential housing sites, particularly in light of the Council’s political commitments to the St. George’s Barracks site development. This work should include the identification and appraisal of all realistic opportunities to combine sites to overcome identified constraints and to consider opportunities for delivery of SUE’s to the existing main towns. Where there has been insufficient up to date evidence to appraise sites, for example an independent assessment of the landscape and visual impact of the St. George’s Barracks proposal, the necessary studies and evidence gathering should be undertaken prior to all the above taking place.

Representation 5 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number 1.9 Local Development Scheme and Statement of Community Involvement Policy Number Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes ☐ No x

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

With regard to the role of the Local Development Scheme (LDS), Planning Practice Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, “The Framework”) provides that (“Plan- making”, para 03):

“A Local Development Scheme is required under section 15 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (as amended). This must specify (among other matters) the development plan documents (i.e. local plans) which, when prepared, will comprise part of the development plan for the area. Local planning authorities are encouraged to include details of other documents which form (or will form) part of the development plan for the area, such as Neighbourhood Plans. The Local Development Scheme must be made available publicly and kept up-to-date. It is important that local communities and interested parties can keep track of progress. Local planning authorities should publish their Local Development Scheme on their website.”

S 19 (1) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires the Rutland Local Plan to be prepared in accordance with the LDS.

Timeline:

- Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) adopted - January 2014 - LDS Published (which did not include a “Focused Changes Consultation”.) - April 2018 - Public consultation on focused changes and additional sites July – August 2018 - Publication of revised LDS - December 2019 • Second Review of SCI - 18th August 2020.

Discussion.

On 31st July 2018 a report “Rutland Local Plan - Additional Consultation” went to Rutland County Council’s Cabinet meeting seeking (with my emphasis) “approval from Cabinet for further specific consultation to be undertaken with respect to the formulation of the new Rutland Local Plan. This consultation is being undertaken in order to fully consider the implications of incorporating the potential development of St. George’s Barracks into the Local Plan. This constitutes an additional round of non-statutory public consultation, which is focussed on considering the implications of any potential development at St.George’s, in order to help inform and shape the form and content of the new Local Plan for Rutland….”.

The fact that the decision would result in a fundamental shift in strategy were clearly stated, (para 2.14): “Therefore if the redevelopment of St George’s is accommodated within the spatial strategy, as proposed in this consultation paper, significant reductions will need to be made to proposed allocations in Oakham, Uppingham and Local Service Centres.’, yet members were not advised on the implications of this decision on the future planning of Uppingham, Oakham or the Local Service Centres.

The July 2018 Cabinet Report included already redrafted sections of the Local Plan, which have essentially carried forward to the current Reg. 19 Consultation Draft Plan, this being just prior to the commencement of the “Focused Changes Consultation” in August 2018, which could be inferred to suggest the decision to allocate the St George’s Barracks site was already a foregone conclusion.

The assertion as to the decision to allocate St George’s Barracks having been pre-determined, is supported by the timing of the publication of a “Memorandum of Understanding” between Rutland County Council and the Ministry of Defence to jointly progress the St George’s Barracks site which was signed in August 2017). A part exempt report to a 20 March 2018 Cabinet Meeting had sought endorsement for the Council to (paras 1.1 & 1.2) “agree an option for the Officers Mess Site (part of St Georges Barracks)” and “to release capital receipts of up to £850k that will test the financial viability, undertake risk mitigation surveys and develop the design to a point where it is practicable to issue tenders to potential contractors who will build the units.”

The 31st July 2018 report advised Members (at para 6.2) that “In addition, the Council must comply with any commitments it has made in the adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). The Council must also publicise its intended timetable for producing the Local Plan. This information is contained in the proposed Local Development Scheme (LDS) which authorities should publish on their web site and must keep up to date.”, yet there was no discussion as to the implications of departing from both the LDS and SCI by authorising “an additional round of non-statutory public consultation” out-with the currently adopted SCI and LDS at that time.

The issue for the Local Plan Examination to consider are therefore:

Would consultees and interested parties have been aware of the implications and gravity of the changes proposed at the “Public consultation on focused changes”, particularly anyone relying on the then published LDS (and SCI), as by the Council’s own admission this was a “non statutory stage” out-with the then published LDS and SCI.

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes Y No ☐

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

It is considered that the duty to publish and adhere to an adopted Local Development Scheme is a procedural matter rather than one that would inherently make the Local Plan unsound.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Consideration should be given to whether a revised Issues and Options stage should now be undertaken to ensure the community of Rutland have a full and fair understanding of all the spatial options open to them, the pro’s and con’s of each option, and opportunities to make representations when better informed.

Part C – Future Notifications and Privacy Notice

Future Notifications Please let us know if you would like us to use your details to notify you of any future stages of the Local Plan by ticking the relevant box(es):

 Submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination under Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

 Publication of the recommendations of the Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent examination

 Adoption of the Local Plan by the Council  Future revisions to the Local Plan, new planning policies and guidance

6 Nov 20 Signature: MG Touchin Date:

Please return to Rutland County Council no later than 4.15pm on Friday 6th November 2020.

PRE-SUBMISSION LOCAL PLAN REGULATION 19 REPRESENTATION RESPONSE BOOKLET Guidance Note

 Please do not include any personal information within Part B of this booklet. All comments submitted as part of this consultation will be made publically available in reports and online.

Paragraph Number Policy Number H2 and H3 - Policy H2 – St George’s garden community development and delivery principles and Policy H3 – St George’s garden community development requirements.

Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes Y No ☐

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

pg. 2

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x

3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared X Justified

☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

Separate representations consider the appropriateness of inclusion of the St George’s Barracks

(SGB) site as a new settlement in terms of the overall local plan strategy, whether all reasonable alternatives were considered, and how the SGB site allocation has been considered as part of the wider housing site selection process. This representation considers the delivery of the SGB proposal through policies H2 & H3 should it be carried forward as a site allocation.

Many of the requirements that are deferred to the application stage are considered to be fundamental to whether the allocation is appropriate or not, and in our opinion are of too great a weight to resolve at the application stage, and it still might be the case that on further investigation these could prove to be ‘show stoppers”. For this reason the approach in policies in H2 and H3 is not justified in that this would undermine the delivery of the Local Plan spatial strategy.

In particular Assessment of impact on heritage assets under Policy H2 criteria 6, and impacts on landscape and natural assets and designations under Policy H2 criteria 8 need resolving forthwith to justify the principle of development. Similarly, Policy H3, criteria m) requiring a future application “Demonstrates that Rutland Water would not be adversely affected by development” is a strategic issue at the very heart of the decision to allocate the SGB site, and should be resolved forthwith.

The term “Garden Community” is meaningless without defined performance indicators and targets. To this end, formal accreditation under regimes like BREEAM communities should be a requirement to ensure that the SGB development genuinely achieves the garden community principles to which it claims to aspire.

To comment on the current levels of provision under policy H3;

Criteria a) - • Levels of social and intermediate affordable housing should be specified including proportions of shared equity and low cost market housing. • Levels and size of older peoples’ housing provision should be required rather than relying on meeting minimum requirements under Building Regs. • 2% of provision for small and medium local builders is surely under ambitious and contrary to strategic aims of supporting local employment. • 2% of provision for self and custom build is surely under ambitious.

Criteria b) - there is the very real potential for employment land to come under pressure from the warehouse and distribution sector, which would likely give rise to very different traffic and movement impacts than assumed, and hence the policy should be more precise and prescriptive on the types of employment uses that would be acceptable.

Criteria c) - Changes to the use classes order in Sept 2020 makes criteria c) out of date. Uses should be restricted to the new class F2 “Local Community”, to prevent the establishment of significant retail users that might negatively impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording. If the SGB proposal is carried forward, rather than deferring all the above to a developer-led masterplan, it would be advisable to embed all the criteria and requirements under H2 & H3 in a masterplan that is formally adopted as a separate Development Plan Document, an Area Action Plan or such, to avoid the dilution or loss of key elements, to ensure performance against targets etc., with a future applicant required to make a robust case for varying these. These elements would include under the current policy H2 criteria:

Criteria 1 - Housing mix and tenure, as well as affordable housing requirement by category should be specified.

Criteria 2 - Employment mix and floor space.

Criteria 3 - Community infrastructure requirements, location and minimum floorspace.

Criteria 4 -Strategic route provision for movement for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. Minimum service requirements and frequencies for public transport provision.

Criteria 5 & 9 - Design codes (including inclusive design principles, local vernacular, sustainable buildings, use of low impact materials)

Criteria 6 - Requirements for conservation and protection of heritage assets and their interpretation.

Criteria 7 - Location and extent of strategic provision for the public realm, green infrastructure, green networks and corridors. Location and extent of strategic open space, sports facilities, and play areas. All underpinned by a Landscape design and management plan, supported by an Ecological design and management plan.

Criteria 10 - A phasing plan.

Other considerations that would need to be embedded in an adopted Area Action Plan:

• Sustainability Strategy and Implementation Plan, including key performance indicators, and actions and monitoring of waste, water, transport, biodiversity, energy, land use, risk and resilience, climate change, and resource efficiency. • Demographic needs and priorities, and how the proposal meets these. • FRA and Flood Risk Plan – including use of sustainable methods (SUDs, etc). • Noise Pollution. • Light and lighting strategy. • Microclimate. • Energy and renewables strategy. • Water Strategy. • Resource efficiency. • Utilities and services. • Climate change plan (route to zero carbon). • Training, skills and employment.

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

☐ No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination X Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

This is a matter that will require presentation of substantive evidence.

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

Representation 2 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number Policy Number Policy E5 - Local Visitor Economy Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes X No ☐

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x

3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared X Justified ☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

Supporting evidence to this policy, Rutland Tourism Vision 2016 -2019 is out of date, clearly a major issue given the extreme pressure the tourism and hospitality sector are experiencing as a result of the Covid 19 epidemic, and an update, including advice on post-Covid recovery and resilience, is required forthwith. Also, the Rutland Tourism Vision is very much an organisational strategy rather than a spatial strategy, hence key issues such as quantitative and qualitative need and land requirements for accommodation such as hotels, etc. is wholly lacking, as is data on pressures on local services, roads, the environment, the impact on the housing market as a result of second homes etc, all of this potentially having knock on implications for other site allocations, transport strategy, employment strategy etc.

Also the Discover Rutland Tourism Strategy 2020 – 2025 (not put forward within the Rutland Local Plan Evidence Base) does not explore the spatial delivery of the primary objectives of this strategy, particularly as policies on Rutland Water and the Eyebrook Reservoir are clearly outlined as being for tourism development.

For this reason the approach in policy in E5 is not justified in that this would undermine the delivery of the Local Plan spatial strategy.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Undertake an up to date Tourism Study for the Council area assessing locational and floor space needs for all sectors of the visitor economy. This study should also advise on post Covid recovery and resilience. Review and redraft applicable policies based on this study.

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

X No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination ☐ Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

Representation 3 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number Policy Number E10 Town Centres and Retailing

Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes X No ☐

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No x

3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared X Justified

☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

Supporting evidence to this topic, Rutland Retail Capacity Assessment (2016 Update - “the Retail Study”) is out of date, clearly a major issue given that the masterplan for the Oakham Heights SUE has been amended to provide substantially more commercial and industrial sites than originally intended (to replace intended local community provision – primary school, for example).

Equally as critical and timely is the extreme pressure the retail and town centre leisure and hospitality sectors are experiencing as a result of the Covid-19 epidemic. Also the impacts of the continued increase in retail market share of online retailing requires a review of how future retail provision will be segmented.

The Retail Study also predates the proposal to allocate a new settlement at the St George’s Barracks (SGB) site, and hence no assessment has been carried out on the impacts of the SGB proposal on existing centres.

It should also be noted that the Retail Study highlights the considerable trade draw of the surrounding conurbations, especially Leicester, and there is no evidence that any engagement has taken place with surrounding authorities on retail and town centre issues.

The 2016 Retail Study recommends at para 9.45 that: “…comparison goods capacity requirements (a quantitative requirement of 4,700 sq.m net by 2036) which this study has identified should be directed towards Oakham town centre in the first instance, however applications for development in Uppingham town centre should be considered on the merits of the application, providing the development is of an appropriate scale. To this end the study recommends two actions for the Local Plan to address;

• Allocation of Esso Petrol Filling Station site at the junction of High Street / Dean’s Street, Oakham,

• “A strategy for the improvement of the environmental quality and overall vitality and viability of the Gaol Street area. This area appears to be suffering from a decline in pedestrian footfall and has a number of vacant units, but plays an important role in linking the High Street with the Tesco store on South Street. As one of the few pedestrianised areas in the town centre there is scope for the development of a ‘café culture’ with pavement seating in this area, particularly in the under-used Knights Yard, and the Council should support applications for the development of Class A3 / A4 uses along Gaol Street / Knight’s Yard”.

Neither of the above recommendations is carried forward in the Local Plan, although a site at Burley Rd., Oakham is allocated, which does not appear to derive from advice in the Retail Study. Therefore, how is the 4.700 sq.m net requirement for comparison goods retail floorspace to be met?

Policy E10 is now out of date due to the Sept 2020 changes to the Use Classes Order. The new Class E subsumes and abolishes A1-A3 use classes, and moves Takeaways and Pubs and Clubs to Sui Generis Class. Furthermore, the General Permitted Development Order also allows permitted changes of small ground floor shops to residential. Policy E10 needs revising if the intention is to control loss of retail in primary frontages, the only likely solution being to specify frontages where it is intended to bring Article 4 directions into place to remove permitted development rights.

For all these reasons the approach in policy in E10 is not justified in that this would undermine the delivery of the Local Plan spatial strategy.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Undertake an up to date Retail study, which assesses the impact of the St George’s Barracks proposal on the existing towns and settlements in Rutland, and advises on post Covid recovery and reliance. Review and redraft applicable policies based on this study.

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

X No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination ☐ Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

Representation 4 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number Policy Number Not applicable – suggestion for additional Policy: Supported and Retirement Living Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes X☐ No ☐

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

Yes ☐ No X 3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? (See Guidance on Page 1) ☐ Positively prepared X Justified ☐ Effective ☐ Consistent with national policy

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

While the Framework does not specifically include supported living and retirement living within

the definition of affordable housing, the impacts of changes to social care in England and Wales and changing demographics need addressing over the plan period. To this end the Council might wish to consider including an additional Policy to address supported living and retirement living provision, the former which is now included within the new F2 use class as of September 2020. Any proposal to serve Article 4 directions to remove permitted development rights for first and ground floor flat conversions might want to make an exception for supported living schemes with a policy worded accordingly.

For these reasons the approach in the Local Plan may not be justified as this omission might be considered to undermine the delivery of the Local Plan spatial strategy.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Include consideration of a policy to address supported living and retirement living.

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

X No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

☐ Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

Representation 5 1. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph Number Policy Number Not applicable – suggestion for additional Policy: Eco-clusters Table Number Figure Number Appendix Policies Map Reference

2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant?

Yes X No ☐

2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below (See Guidance on Page 1)

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound?

3c. Please provide an explanation below.

While policies H10 and E4 address exceptions Affordable Housing and rural business

diversification, the plan could actually be innovative in terms of securing small autonomous eco housing clusters. The Council might wish to consider an additional policy to this effect , perhaps based on the approach the Welsh Assembly have adopted in Welsh Tech Advice Note 6 “One Planet Developments”.

For these reasons the approach in the Local Plan may not be justified as this omission might be considered to undermine the delivery of the Local Plan spatial strategy.

4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording.

Include consideration of a policy to address eco-clusters.

5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination?

X No, I do not wish to participate at the oral examination

☐ Yes, I wish to participate at the oral examination

6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

Please note: It is the Inspector that will determine the most appropriate way to hear those who have indicated that they wish to participate at the oral examination.

Part C – Future Notifications and Privacy Notice

Future Notifications Please let us know if you would like us to use your details to notify you of any future stages of the Local Plan by ticking the relevant box(es):

 Submission of the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for independent examination under Section 20 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

 Publication of the recommendations of the Planning Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to carry out the independent examination

 Adoption of the Local Plan by the Council  Future revisions to the Local Plan, new planning policies and guidance

6 Nov 20 Signature: MG Touchin Date:

Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11707010

Status Complete

Title Mrs

First Name Nick

Last Name Davenport

Organisation non

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 8. Sustainable Communities Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph or policy in Policy SC2 - Securing sustainable transport Chapter 8 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you have any comments on the Legal Although legally compliant, as there is a Compliance of the Plan? transport assessment as legally required for a development such as St Georges Barracks (SGB). This was dated April 2018, admitted to be high level, and it is inadequate in content for a development of this nature. The later and more detailed transport assessment of November 2018 is after the last of the Regulation 18 consultations. Stakeholders have therefore been denied adequate traffic assessment impact at the most relevant consultation stage.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local Consistent with national policy Plan is not sound please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to: Please provide an explanation for your answer Is the pre submission Local Plan sound: No below: (not consistent with national policy). “Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan making and development proposals.

Policy SC2 fails to comply with Policy 9 para 108 of the National Policy Planning Framework (NPPF): Appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be taken up given the type of development and its location. Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users, Any significant impacts from the development of the transport network in terms of (capacity and congestion), or on highway safety can be cost effectively mitigated.

Policy SC2 states: Policy SC2 – Securing sustainable transport New development will have an impact upon the County’s transport network. The St. George’s Evolving Masterplan details many aspirations as to improvements in road infrastructure, public transport and encouragement of cycling and walking but these are just that, aspirations. A representation can only be made on the details of this published Local Plan and its supporting documents. It is inevitable that the proposed development at St. George’s Barracks (SGB), a total of 2215 dwellings within the extended period, plus 14 Hectares of employment land, will lead to an increase in traffic flow. It is obviously important that an accurate assessment as possible, in line with the NPPF guidelines, is made on the impact on the surrounding area. Policy SC2 relies on the CampbellReith Traffic Assessment Report of November 2018 that informed Rutland's Local Plan Transport Policy . This is deficient in the following areas:

The Transport Assessment presents details of the local ward census data highlighting that “37% of people” travel to work via car and that “62% of people travel by sustainable modes of transport”. This was taken from the 2011 census and is clearly out of date, not to mention the low percentage claimed to travel to work by car. Analysis of the Nomis 2011 Census data demonstrates that by removing people that work from home or are not in employment results in the ‘Rural Village’ category a total of 70% of people driving to work in a car or van. This accords with the North Luffenham Village Survey Village Survey of 2017 and Neighborhood Plan questionnaire 2020 that established over 90% of people rely on a car for transportation. (Nomis Official labour Market Statistics 2011 Ward Labour Market Profile E36000350 : Normanton)

Further analysis of the Nomis 2011 Census data 53% of people work within 10 kilometres of their home, which includes Uppingham, Oakham, and Stamford. In addition 47% of people commuting to work have a journey longer than 10 kilometres, with 30% commuting further than 20 kilometres and 19% travelling distances above 30 kilometres. (Nomis Official labour Market Statistics 2011 Ward Labour Market Profile E36000350 : Normanton)

Unless the redevelopment of St George’s Barracks provides a comprehensive and diverse range of employment and leisure opportunities, supported by a range of infrastructure improvements that address demand for walking and cycling, as well as public transport choices, it is likely in this rural area, given the lack of infrastructure such as street lighting, the car will be the main means of transport as evidenced on the travel patterns within the 2011 Census data.

The quoted traffic survey in October 2017, which is not sufficiently up to date, is inadequate as it does not take into account the markedly increased traffic flow, generated by Rutland Water, in the Summer months. This has led to gridlock in the village of Edith Weston. (CampbellReith Hill St George's Barracks Traffic Assessment [CRH TA] para 5.9.8)

The data presented to give an understanding of the possible increase in traffic (trip data) is complex, largely incomprehensible to the layperson, and adds to the feeling that consultation on this important aspect of the Local Plan, as with others, is less than informative.

Advice from transport consultants who have analysed the data were concerned that trip rates have been significantly underestimated and concluded the following; ‘concerns regarding the trip rate are severe and fundamental to the overall conclusions of the Transport Assessment as it is fundamental to any compliance with all three of the requirements set out within Paragraph 108 of the NPPF’.

This conclusion is of great concern to parishes that will be impacted by the SGB proposal.

RCC 2018 Transport Strategy: Section 4: “site has adequate accessibility for walking and cycling within the vicinity, with a number of local villages and amenities that can be accessed within the maximum distances provided”: There is little evidence presented evidence to confirm how potential trips could be accommodated by appropriate levels of provision for footways and street lighting, along with safe crossing points.

The details of junctioning modelling are inadequate and no information has been provided relating to the detailed layout of each proposed site access junction. This is of importance for ‘safe and suitable access’ for all traffic but particularly for construction and quarry vehicles. Alternative to modes of transport other than by car are aspirational and little information given as to how this will be achieved. Appropriate levels of infrastructure for pedestrian and cycling trips are not identified and accommodated to fully address this requirement for ‘safe and suitable access’.

No thought has been given to increased traffic using a ‘ratrun’ through North Luffenham via Lyndon Road and Glebe Road heading south to the A47. North Luffenham Parish Council has made recent representations to Rutland County County Council concerning traffic flow through Lyndon Rd that has resulted in damage to vehicles to and property.

This could also be aggravated by the proposal that the recycling centre between North Luffenham and Morcott, on the Glebe Rd, becomes the only recycling centre in Rutland. In addition it could be aggravated by the increase in rail traffic, predicted to close the level crossing on Station Rd. for 20 minutes in the hour, so that traffic heading south for the A47 down Edith Weston Rd. and Station Rd. use either Moor Lane, and on through South Luffenham, or Lyndon and Glebe Rd.. Both these alternative routes are narrow rural roads frequented by walkers and cyclists.

No consideration has been given to what would be substantial changes in traffic flow using the surrounding roads, which without wholescale improvements to the local infrastructure, are clearly going to be unsafe for the predicted conditions. In particular there is no consideration to how construction traffic would impact the area during the 15 year (minimum) build out plan. Existing users of what are currently lightly trafficked rural roads will be subjected to a constant supply of large goods vehicles, thereby further exacerbating any environmental impacts on roads where many of which are generally only suitable for cars to use.These concerns are based on the predicted movements presented within the transport assessment and will obviously markedly worsen following any assessment using the more appropriate peak hour trip rates. Not only does this present serious highway safety and capacity issues, not only locally but the junctions of the A1. The necessary mitigating improvements and proposed traffic flows will have major environmental impacts in the area, fundamentally changing its character.

The Transport Assessment does not demonstrate a clear and comprehensive strategy for delivering adequate levels of bus services and other supporting infrastructure to ensure car travel is not the ‘go-to’ mode for any journey to or from the site.

Rutland County Council has £15 million of the Housing Infrastructure Fund to spend on infrastructure and this includes public transport (estimated at £4 million). and The costs in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) do not have the evidence in the Viability Assessment, and there does not appear to be any contingency in the IDP if they are estimated incorrectly.

The allowance of £4 million as a public transport subsidy has no indication of the level of service that would be aimed for, no time period where the subsidy would be in place, and no indication as to the numbers of housing units that would need to be in place before the subsidy was implemented to enable public transport. (The SGB website has a recommendation to undertake more transport assessments in response to the consultation. (The Local Plan policies have been written ahead of the findings being undertaken and published).

Rutland County Council’s own estimate of the funding required to build 2215 houses is £107 million of which £30 million will come from the Housing Infrastructure Fund awarded to RCC. This means that £70 million will have to be provided by developers. There are serious doubts from analysis of the viability documentation supporting Rutland County Council (RCC’s) Local Plan, provided by ‘HDH Planning and Development Limited ‘HDH’, there will be sufficient funds for the infrastructure that will be required. In particular funds will be insufficient for the transport infrastructure as required in Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] that sets out the following guidance in respect of sustainable development: “Plans and decisions should apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development”.

For plan-making this means that: a) plans should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area, and be sufficiently flexible to adapt to rapid change; b) strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless: i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”

My response is: ‘Concerns regarding the trip rate are severe and fundamental to the overall conclusions of the Transport Assessment as it is fundamental to any compliance with all three of the requirements set out within Paragraph 108 of the NPPF’ ‘RCC’s Transport Assessment does not demonstrate a clear and comprehensive strategy for delivering adequate levels of bus services and other supporting infrastructure to ensure car travel is not the ‘go-to’ mode for any journey to and from the site. Therefore RCC should review the initial assessment and viability of the policy and reassess the implications for SGB’. Please set out the modification(s) you consider Policy SC2 Securing sustainable transport is necessary to make the Pre-submission Local therefore considered to be unsound and does Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including not demonstrate through a Transport any revised wording: Assessment or Transport Statement, how the proposal addresses the following:

1. meet the requirements of Rutland’s latest Local Transport Plan and its supporting documents; 2. promote a range of transport choices for the movement of people and goods; 3. minimise the distance people need to travel to shops, services and employment opportunities; 4. reduce the need to travel by car and encourages the use of alternatives such as walking, cycling and public transport; 5. include a range of appropriate mitigating transport measures, including travel plans, aimed at improving transport choice and encouraging travel to work and school safely by public transport, cycling and walking; 6. provide safe and well-designed transport infrastructure (in accordance with any council policies) – including improved and new cycleway and footway provisions; 7. will support the delivery of an integrated walking and cycling network and associated provisions, connecting new developments to essential services and neighbouring communities. Developers should refer the County Council’s Local Cycling and Walking Infrastructure Plan, once developed (anticipated to be published in late 2019); 8. make adequate provision (where appropriate) to put in place or improve bus routes, services and passenger facilities serving the County, and to put in place or improve rail facilities in Oakham including bus, pedestrian and cycle links to the rail station. Developers should refer to the County Council’s Passenger Transport Strategy (in draft) when considering such provisions.

Start Time 2020-11-05 16:54:04

Finish Time 2020-11-05 17:03:09 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11707065

Status Complete

Title Mr

First Name Nick

Last Name Davenport

Organisation non

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 4. Spatial Strategy and Location of Local Plan that this representation relates to Development here:

Please select which paragraph, figure or policy Policy SD2 - The Spatial Strategy for in Chapter 4 that this representation relates to: Development

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant? Please provide an explanation below: The 2017 Local Plan had, at its heart, a spatial strategy and settlement pattern that emerged and evolved from the long followed strategy in Rutland, as reflected in previously adopted Local Plans. It directed new development primarily to the existing towns of Oakham and Uppingham and the 10 Local Service Centres. These are the larger villages, which already had many services, albeit villages had different facilities. These locations were considered to be the most suitable in planning terms to direct future development, thereby following closely the principles of sustainable development that underpin successive Governments national planning guidance. Furthermore this 2017 Plan was supported by and underpinned by a Sustainability Appraisal that was prepared alongside the Local Plan. In July 2018, a new Rutland Development Plan document was published for consultation and this changed the long followed strategic approach fundamentally. The detail relating to St. George’s Barracks (SGB) proposal will be covered elsewhere in response to policies SD2 and H2. Importantly, however, this can in no way be considered to be a Regulation-18 Plan which has replaced the 2017 Local Plan. Despite so radically altering the whole spatial strategy of the 2017 Local Plan, no attempt was made to provide a fully integrated new Reg.18 document. Instead, what was produced was one that introduced the idea of a new community at SGB and a significant change to where new development up to 2036 would be promoted. It identified, but only in the most broad and unspecified terms, how this may affect the 2017 Reg. 18 distribution. It was, for example, silent on the matter of any details of the implications of this proposal on previously identified sites elsewhere. There was nothing that could be judged to be a sound planning argument preferred either for deciding to move towards the creation of a new settlement to concentrate future development, let alone a comparison of possible locations other than the SGB site. The only explanation for this significant redirection was that a site was made available by the MoD and serious pressure placed on the Local Planning Authority to achieve as much new development, particularly housing, on the site as possible. There was also no sound planning explanation offered at July 2018 as to why sites, several of which are local, promoted by RCC in the 2017 Plan, should suddenly be rendered as not suitable for development. Or are we to assume that they are still viable sites and of course could come forward in due course as windfalls, with RCC faced with the difficult dilemma of finding viable reasons for refusing development on sites they themselves have promoted as recently as July 2017. The lack of a fully integrated Reg.18 Document giving the residents and stakeholders the opportunity to comment on a proper co-ordinated plan is clearly contrary to Government guidance on proper plan-making procedures and as such shows the process has not been legally compliant. Moreover, the July 2018 consultation generated a relatively large level of response, compared say to that at the 2017 stage. These responses were generally hostile and against the thrust of this totally new spatial strategy. They were largely ignored and had not been properly weighed off before RCC arrived at the Reg. 19 document. The process flaws also extend to the lack of a full Sustainability Appraisal prepared alongside the Reg.19 - 2020 Local Plan, as government guidance dictates. Rather, it is an add-on trying to retrofit a sustainable justification to a new pattern of development in Rutland that is anything but sustainable. Many other background documents produced at the behest of RCC, and we understand the MoD, and funded accordingly have also sought to retrofit a justification to a plan, rather than be the up front research and information upon which a Local Plan should be prepared. The original timetable for consultation on this Local Plan was to be in the early months of 2020. Then the Covid-19 pandemic caused an inevitable and totally justifiable halt to this process. It was clear that, with the country in lockdown, consulting on such an important new Reg.19 Plan would be impossible and iniquitous. Gaining access to the Plan at all would disenfranchise everybody without access to the net. Also any opportunity to have direct contact with Rutland members and officers, through events like road shows (which would normally accompany a local plan consultation and were held in 2017) also could not happen. RCC was therefore to be commended for doing this. What, however, is less clear is why it considered that holding the consultation as soon as August-October 2020 (since extended to November, due to errors in the consultation document) was acceptable. The virus is still very much with us, gaining access to paper copies of the Plan is difficult for example, and there is still no opportunity for direct, face-to-face discussion with those promoting the Local Plan. Further and almost uniquely an issue for development planning, the impacts of this particular pandemic have changed the way people have lived, worked and interacted with each other. Some of these changes could have lasting impacts well beyond the life of the pandemic. It is therefore likely that a lot of the information and assumptions that would underpin a new development plan are now being questioned. It is of course impossible to assess how this will actually change things. We can say with some certainty that they will and that therefore setting in stone a development plan for the next 15 years, and beyond in some cases, is not what RCC should now be doing. This must be a direct challenge to both the legality and soundness of the process and timing of the consultation.

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound? As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Effective of soundness this relates to: • Justified • Consistent with national policy Please provide an explanation for your answer The Viability Assessment by HDH Planning below: and Development Limited (HDH) for Rutland County Council (RCC) in all probability seriously underestimates the funding required for the infrastructure over the Local Plan (LP) period. (See presentation on viability). The Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) of £29.4 million, of which it is estimated £15 million will be required for clean up costs, will be totally inadequate for all the proposed infrastructure that RCC has stated will be in place before construction. Presumably the rest will be from the developers. The amount of housing proposed will be dependent on the infrastructure and RCC’s viability assessment [HDH Planning and Development Limited (HDH) para 9.5] modelled the viability of SGB as a greenfield site. RCC have repeatedly stated that the entire site is a brownfield site, for which the Existing Use Value Land Prices £/ha are £600,000 as opposed to £20,000 for greenfield. If brownfield charges for the built up areas are used then the scale of proposed housing is non viable. (See representation on Viability). The infrastructure is required for the aspirational targets for public transport, cycling, walking and the necessary improvements to the surrounding road network, without which the site will be car dependent. There is little consideration of the effect of HGV traffic that will be required for construction of housing. Little mentioned is the proposed quarry and effective measures that will be in place to mitigate the effect of noise, dust and and HGVs that will result. Predicted employment on the site (14 hectares) is again largely aspirational and there is no firm evidence and is largely based on speculative assessments by developers. RCC has predicted that many of the future residents of the site will work from home but there is no firm evidence presented that this will be the case. Without employment and significant homeworking on the site this development will simply be a large housing estate in a rural location dependent on the car. (A recent CPPRE report on the experience of nine garden villages to date and the almost total reliance on cars). RCC’s assessed housing needs at 160 houses per year includes a 25% uplift which is unnecessarily larger than the Government’s assessed needs for the county. At the rate of construction given as 100 dwellings per year, we will have a twenty year building site, and a long time before critical mass is reached to support a community with retail outlets, community centres and places of worship.

Please set out the modification(s) you consider Modifications to make the Local Plan sound: necessary to make the Pre-submission Local Retain the focus on the spatial strategy largely Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including agreed in July 2017. Reduce the scale of any revised wording: development to around 350 dwelling which the existing infrastructure will support.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 17:10:03

Start Time 2020-11-05 17:05:43

Finish Time 2020-11-05 17:10:03 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11707134

Status Complete

Title Mr

First Name Nick

Last Name Davenport

Organisation non

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 4. Spatial Strategy and Location of Local Plan that this representation relates to Development here:

Please select which paragraph, figure or policy Paragraph 4.1 in Chapter 4 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be legally compliant? Please provide an explanation below: The Spatial Strategy proposed is not consistent with national policy as it does not achieve the aims of sustainable development. This chosen strategy is reliant upon the delivery of a significant level of growth at a single location – namely SGB. This is removed from where the vast majority of housing and employment needs of the County are derived. Other Local Centres, is likely to be significantly disadvantaged as a direct result of this approach, which will have the effect of re- prioritising essential investment and funding, particularly strategic infrastructure funding, away from existing towns and larger villages where most people continue to live and work. It is also going to concentrate affordable housing in one location some distance away from the existing settlements where people in housing need currently live. Indeed, National Planning Policy places great importance not only on ensuring there is a sufficient amount of land to meet housing needs, but that it should be located where it is needed. (NPPF para.59). SGB is likely to be inaccessible by sustainable modes of transport for the services and facilities that residents of the County rely upon. The NPPF is clear that significant development should be focused only in locations which are or can be made sustainable, by limiting the requirements for travel and offering opportunities for a genuine choice of alternative modes of transport to the private car. (NPPF para 103). With over half the total allocations up to 2036 (and, of course, more to follow post 2036), this would create a more unsustainable spatial pattern of development in Rutland for many years to come than exists today. The Local Plan places emphasis on the SGB site being developed as a garden community so as to demonstrate that this spatial strategy is appropriate. However, given the total amount of development proposed at SGB, it is unlikely to have any realistic chance of the kind of self-containment that is a key priority and aspiration for garden settlements. The Local Plan proposes 14 hectares of employment land at SGB, whilst also acknowledging that there may be a long lead time for its delivery. It is unclear, therefore, whether the location of a significant level of employment development will be viewed as viable and attractive to the market and therefore be delivered, or whether specific locational requirements have been taken into account. (NPPF para 82). This would further undermine the level of self-containment expected on the site. It could well lead to two flows of commuter traffic of people travelling to and from work at SGB living elsewhere and residents travelling from SGB to and from work elsewhere. It is also worth noting that Rutland already has an employment location that is away from the traditional centres of population, namely the Oakham Enterprise Park (Policy E3), and this has proved to be a challenging place in which to attract development and where there are still numbers of vacant units. In identifying SGB for development, too great an emphasis has been placed on the reference to NPPF to the use of previously developed land, without giving sufficient weight to other criteria which must also be considered for development to be deemed sustainable. The NPPF does state (para 117) that policies should maximise the use of brownfield land in meeting development needs. Crucially, however, this is caveated by footnote 44 to clearly state that this should not override or be in conflict with other national policies in NPPF. Thus, national planning policy does not give carte blanche to the allocation of previously developed land, important factors such as limiting the need to travel, providing genuine alternatives to the car and meeting housing needs sustainably and supporting the vitality of existing centres to be properly considered. (NPPF para 85). These other factors are not met by the decision to locate significant development at SGB. Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Justified of soundness this relates to: • Consistent with national policy Please provide an explanation for your answer National Planning Policy places sustainability below: at the heart of the planning system. So a sound Spatial Strategy requires the location of new development to achieve sustainability principles. This means that where a new settlement is to be considered it requires, amongst other things, to be of sufficient size to have a measure of self-containment. On this yardstick, the SGB would count as a small garden community and as such, it clearly does not achieve anything like the level of self- containment to be deemed as sustainable – it is therefore an unsound proposal at the heart of Rutland’s proposed Spatial Strategy. The Town and Country Planning Authority (TCPA) indicated the importance of the challenge of sustainability facing such small garden communities by noting that ‘The inclusion of support for smaller ‘garden villages’ raises an important issue of scale – particularly the need to ensure that, like the original ‘garden villages’ New Earswick and Bournville, similar communities have the right facilities and jobs provision and genuinely affordable homes and so will not be merely ‘bolt-on’ housing estates using the garden tag.’ So, at the SGB there is no secondary school proposed and the development is not of sufficient scale to cater for one. There is also continuing uncertainty about whether a GP surgery would be provided at this location and, furthermore, if it were to be, would it just displace one from elsewhere in this part of the county. Many residents north of Rutland Water, for example, travel to Empingham for their surgery and would be even further disadvantaged if this were to be replaced by a facility at the SGB location. The infrastructure Delivery Plan for the SGB location does not include a clear view on health service provision, acknowledging that there would still be discussion required with the local Clinical Commissioning Group. A further example of how numbers of initial promises have gradually been eroded, reflecting both the uncertainty around delivery and the unsustainable location. Please set out the modification(s) you consider The spatial strategy, as set out in Policy SD2, necessary to make the Pre-submission Local needs to be revisited completely in the light of Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including the changed circumstances we are now in. any revised wording: The 2017 allocation is itself now some years out of date and there are significant challenges around the 2020 proposals, not least the viability and practicality of the SGB and the principle of establishing a new settlement as a focus for development in Rutland – a decision and commitment with implications well beyond 2036. Furthermore the impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on how we live in the future and what long term changes this could bring to our lifestyles are, if nothing else, far from certain. Accordingly, the only sensible modification would be a pause to allow some of these uncertainties to be clarified and better understood and for a new dialogue to open up between the LPA and residents/stakeholders about what is best for the future of Rutland to 2036 and beyond.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 17:25:47

Start Time 2020-11-05 17:20:50

Finish Time 2020-11-05 17:25:47 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11707196

Status Complete

Title Mr

First Name Nick

Last Name Davenport

Organisation non

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 5. Delivering Quality New Homes Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph, policy or table Paragraph 5.1 in Chapter 5 that this representation relates to:

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Effective of soundness this relates to: • Justified • Consistent with national policy Please provide an explanation for your answer The Viability Assessment by HDH Planning below: and Development Limited (HDH) for Rutland County Council (RCC) in all probability seriously underestimates the funding required for the infrastructure over the Local Plan (LP) period. (See presentation on viability). The Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) of £29.4 million, of which it is estimated £15 million will be required for clean up costs, will be totally inadequate for all the proposed infrastructure that RCC has stated will be in place before construction. Presumably the rest will be from the developers. The amount of housing proposed will be dependent on the infrastructure and RCC’s viability assessment [HDH Planning and Development Limited (HDH) para 9.5] modelled the viability of SGB as a greenfield site. RCC have repeatedly stated that the entire site is a brownfield site, for which the Existing Use Value Land Prices £/ha are £600,000 as opposed to £20,000 for greenfield. If brownfield charges for the built up areas are used then the scale of proposed housing is non viable. (See representation on Viability). The infrastructure is required for the aspirational targets for public transport, cycling, walking and the necessary improvements to the surrounding road network, without which the site will be car dependent. There is little consideration of the effect of HGV traffic that will be required for construction of housing. Little mentioned is the proposed quarry and effective measures that will be in place to mitigate the effect of noise, dust and and HGVs that will result. Predicted employment on the site (14 hectares) is again largely aspirational and there is no firm evidence and is largely based on speculative assessments by developers. RCC has predicted that many of the future residents of the site will work from home but there is no firm evidence presented that this will be the case. Without employment and significant homeworking on the site this development will simply be a large housing estate in a rural location dependent on the car. (A recent CPPRE report on the experience of nine garden villages to date and the almost total reliance on cars). RCC’s assessed housing needs at 160 houses per year includes a 25% uplift which is unnecessarily larger than the Government’s assessed needs for the county. At the rate of construction given as 100 dwellings per year, we will have a twenty year building site, and a long time before critical mass is reached to support a community with retail outlets, community centres and places of worship.

Please set out the modification(s) you consider Retain the focus on the spatial strategy largely necessary to make the Pre-submission Local agreed in July 2017. Reduce the scale of Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including development to around 350 dwelling which the any revised wording: existing infrastructure will support.

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 17:44:14

Start Time 2020-11-05 17:40:38

Finish Time 2020-11-05 17:44:14 Presubmission Consultation

Reference # 11707227

Status Complete

Title Mr

First Name Nick

Last Name Davenport

Organisation non

Are you? Responding as an individual

Please tick which part of the Pre-submission Chapter 5. Delivering Quality New Homes Local Plan that this representation relates to here:

Please select which paragraph, policy or table Policy H4 - Cross Boundary Development in Chapter 5 that this representation relates to: Opportunity - Stamford North

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local Yes Plan to be legally compliant?

Do you consider the Pre-submission Local No Plan to be sound?

As you consider that the Pre-submission Local • Positively prepared Plan is not sound please select which test(s) • Justified of soundness this relates to: • Consistent with national policy Please provide an explanation for your answer Our Parish Council response to the 2017 Plan below: drew attention to what looked at that stage a strange anomaly of land in Rutland (at Quarry Farm, North Stamford) not counting to housing numbers in Rutland, but counting towards those of neighbouring South Kesteven DC. They referred to it again, and more strongly, in their response to Table 1 of the 2018 Development Plan document. This has been given considerably more emphasis in the current plan where there is a detailed policy relating to the Stamford North development. There is what looks like a deliberate attempt to confuse that which is currently enshrined in national planning guidance for the preparation of local plans, namely the duty to co-operate, with the ‘gifting’ of residential units to a neighbouring authority, which whilst not contrary to national policy guidelines is far from a requirement. The duty to co-operate around developments close to local authority borders is well founded and happens anyway in practice, with or without national guidance. So RCC and SKDC working closely together on a development north of Stamford is good planning practice. It should also be born in mind that, contrary to some views that have been expressed, the Rutland element is something of an add on – this is clearly not the position. The existing infrastructure, particularly roads, cannot adequately support the Stamford part of the development. A new relief road is required. However, to generate sufficient development potential to make the infrastructure viable requires the 650 units proposed in Rutland also. Hence the Rutland element of the scheme provides the critical mass that makes it viable and means the Rutland element is integral to the implementation of the whole development. Gifting of housing numbers in this case is based on a flawed set of premises. SKDC is physically 2.5 times larger in area than Rutland and already has, as evidenced through its EiP, sufficient housing land to meet its needs, including an 18% buffer and without requiring of 650 units gifted to it. Furthermore, the duty to co-operate, set out in para. 27 of the NPPF, requires policy making bodies to prepare and maintain one or more Statements of Common Ground (SoCG) documenting the cross boundary matters being addressed. These should be made publicly available throughout the plan- making process to provide transparency. This hasn’t happened in this case. SKDC considered a draft which has never been put to RCC. Thus by gifting these numbers to a neighbouring authority that doesn’t require them, RCC is going well beyond national policy as set out in the NPPF. It is unnecessary and therefore unsound. Moreover, it raises the question of what made RCC decide to do this? Certainly there are minuted meetings from SKDC that indicate their councillors were very surprised that it has happened. Disguising housing built in Rutland in this way is of no help to Rutland residents. If anything, it does the opposite. It also contributes to the overwhelming evidence that RCC, through this Plan, is seeking to dampen the numbers generally available in Rutland to make, in particular, the SGB proposal look both more necessary and viable than in reality it is.

Please set out the modification(s) you consider The 650 units gifted to SKDC should be necessary to make the Pre-submission Local rescinded and a corresponding reduction in Plan legally compliant and/ or sound, including numbers elsewhere identified. any revised wording:

If your representation is seeking a No, I do not wish to participate at the oral modification, do you consider it necessary to examination participate at the oral part of the examination?

Last Update 2020-11-05 17:58:35

Start Time 2020-11-05 17:53:33

Finish Time 2020-11-05 17:58:35