Rutland County Council introduce their Neighbourhood Planning Activity, as presented at a Planning Advisory Service (PAS) event.

1. Brett Culpin, Senior Planning Officer, Rutland CC
Rutland
• “Small County – Big Pond”
• Smallest English Unitary Council (pop circa 37,000)
• Rutland Water at its heart – SSSI/RAMSAR
• Rural, 2 fine market towns of Oakham and Uppingham plus many
pretty stone built villages and hamlets
• Its wealthy, with a prized historic environment, traditional rural
farming and country pursuits and a good local tourism offer for
nearby urban centres of Peterborough, Leicester, Nottingham etc

2. Planning Context
Rutland LDF Core Strategy
Adopted July 2011
Covers period to 2026
Site Allocations & Policies DPD (SAP DPD)
To manage delivery of Core Strategy
Modifications recently published following public examination
Threat of JR regarding handling of NP activity within local plan area
More later!
Local Plan Review to 2031 or 2026 – work started

3. Neighbourhood Planning Activity
Uppingham
Awarded front-runner status in 2011 as a town centre area,
business-led NP project – now Town Council led project covering
whole town and beyond. Now at Examination stage
Edith Weston
Local Service Centre NP going to Referendum 3rd April
Langham
NP area designation in December 2013
2 more NP area designation applications submitted, a further 2 NP
proposals emerging.

4. Uppingham
• Initially business led to cover Town Centre and adjacent industrial area
• Emerging NP regulations established NP would have to be Town Council
led
• All parties agreed whole town NP would better serve community
• Community has amazing and active structure of interest groups (e.g, 2
Business Forums, 3 Residents Associations, a Neighbourhood Forum)
• Community leaders keen to exploit opportunities for self determination!
• CLG engaged at early stage

5. Uppingham
• Council made critical decision to allow NP to take lead in delivering
housing and employment land allocations between Preferred Option and
submission draft stage of its SAP DPD
• Sought PINS and CLG views on this
• Effect was that site allocations in PO stage of SAP DPD were removed in
Submission Draft plan
• This was challenged at SAP DPD Examination
• Inspector’s report keenly awaited!

6. The Uppingham Challenge
• The Core Strategy states that the proposed SAP DPD will deliver
the land use allocations, it does not make provision for a NP to do
this
• Judgements about the soundness of the SAP to deliver the Core
Strategy cannot be made when allocations for Uppingham are not
included
• The Council has not applied the SA/SEA Directive as it fails to
address the cumulative impact of the development being
delivered across two separate planning policy documents
• The plan cannot therefore be judged sound – if it is there will be a
JR served on the Council to stop adoption.
• Proposed SAP Minor Modifications offered to Inspector merely
update situation on emerging NP content

7. Uppingham
• We have appointed Nigel McGurk as the Uppingham Examiner
• We conclude consultation on the Submission Draft UNP 10 March
• An Examination is hoped for in early April
• Any decisions on legal challenges keenly awaited in the
meantime!

8. Edith Weston
• A plan designed to constrain development
• Two communities – rooted community in the conservation area
village and transient population in the peripheral MoD estates
• A large area of agricultural land under option for housing
development on the east side
• Successful but constrained commercial activities for tourism and
recreation on the Rutland Water shoreline
• Area Designation – RCC, the Parish, The Commanding Officer at
the Barracks and the MoD asset management interest.
• NP Area designation excluded the Barracks ‘within the wire’
• Examiner supported area designation - but recommended
Referendum Area take in property within the wire as some
military personal are accommodated there.

9. Edith Weston (cont’d)
Examiner recommended changes to;
• Ensure the plan narrative was supporting growth in accordance
with NPPF principles;
• Made a clear distinction between land use policies in the plan and
non-land use policies;
• Improve on NP policy wording to leave no doubt that NP policies
matched adopted CS policies and emerging SAP policies
• Removed references in NP policies to specific SAP polices that
might change on adoption of the SAP
Overall, the examiner ‘toughened up’ on the plans subservience to
the local plan policy framework – providing a good precedence for
future neighbourhood plan making that is trying to pull up the
drawbridge.

10. NP’s The Way Forward for Delivering Planning Policy
The Pro’s
• The effect on community capacity building can be very
rewarding and enduring
• CLG grant is generous - £25k per NP to the LPA and good
grants to the PCs/Neighbourhood Forums (up to end March
2015 – what then?)
• The lighter test means they get through examination
quicker/easier
• It’s a good vehicle for growth related infrastructure
planning at the local level and
• The Parish/NPA gets a higher percentage of CIL if in place
• Once in place a NP can be reviewed to re-align with new
strategic policy

11. NP’s The Way Forward for Delivering Planning Policy
The Con’s
• CLG grant may taper out at the point momentum has built
up and commitments to deliver have been made
• There is a lot for PC’s/Neighbourhood Forums to take on –
especially on SA/SEA screening and other tests (eg
Habitats Directive)
• The more change the plan takes on, the more uncertain
becomes the need to get through referendum

12. NP’s The Way Forward for Delivering Planning Policy
The Con’s
• The need for NP’s to be reviewed in tandem with Local
Plan review – onerous obligation on local plan makers.
• There are challenges for Development Management taking
on board emerging policies – does the increasing weight
immediately drop off if they fail at referendum?
• Developers judicial challenges undermining confidence – a
lot at stake!

13. Streamlining Resources
• Make sure planning policy gets the NP grant to preserve staffing
resources!
• Have an overall planning policy work programme that deals with
pressure points in relation to delivering several NPs at different
times
• Ensure PC’s/Neighbourhod Forums understand respective roles
• A good Council approved ‘generic’ SLA to be entered into with
PCs/NFs is worth drawing up.
• Make sure NP Ward Members understand their role – encourage
one of them onto NP Steering Group. He/she may be useful at
Scrutiny if fully briefed
• The more you do, the quicker it gets – templates for everything!