Chapter 5 – Spatial Strategy

Support

Representation ID: 5780

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Amanda Wheeler

St Georges barracks is the perfect site for a future development so should be included as a full allocation in the Local Plan. A Memorandum of Understanding has been created already between RCC and the MOD for the use of this site, post-closure, for residential development and was proposed for the Local Plan that was rejected recently. With a potential 2200 homes, based on the evolving Masterplan, which would still leave an area of 160 hectares after residential development for other uses.

Support

Representation ID: 5785

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Susan Watson

I would support the use of St George’s Barracks site to provide Rutland with its housing quota as it is a brown field site and its development would not have the adverse environmental impact which building on Quarry Farm would have.
Quarry Farm should be protected in line with Rutland CC own stated environmental aims

Object

Representation ID: 6218

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Battey

Quarry Farm/Stamford North: proposal is not truly sustainable nor environmentally optimum, compared to - St Georges Barracks, Luffenham & Martin's Park , Stamford., No evidence is given regarding assured local employment opportunities - and matched affordable housing. The site is a Local Candidate Wildlife site and supports Rutland's environmental strategy (commitment) - especially its Nature Recovery Strategy (EN2), Biodiversity Action Plan and previous CS4 policy commitment to not build in open countryside. The proposal is totally reliant on service and infrastructure of Stamford (within SKDC). The proposal lack any sort of integrated Environmental consideration at a time of Climate/Ecological Emergency.

Support

Representation ID: 6521

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

The Spatial Strategy is reasonable but the proposed housing allocation of 650 for Stamford in no way is ' linked to the roles of the towns and villages in Rutland'.

Object

Representation ID: 6697

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

The 650 homes allocated for North Stamford represents 47% of RCC’s housing allocation (excluding reserve sites)
The SCS recognises the need for a spatial strategy and that this will require the level of housing proposed in the draft Local Plan for Rutland. The Society believes that this size of allocation on the county boundary is placing too much reliance on the SKDC Local Plan which is not in a sufficiently advanced stage to ensure that all of the necessary infrastructure and facilities can be provided in North Stamford to meet the requirements of the NPPF in relation to sustainability and delivery. We consider that such an allocation could only be delivered after considerable delay.

Object

Representation ID: 6955

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The evidence base is very clear that a higher figure than the LHN should be adopted as the housing requirement, based on data across a range of factors and from a range of sources. In our view, it is perfectly reasonable and possible for the Council to adopt a figure in excess of the Standard Method/LHN on the basis that it has historically delivered materially in excess of it, yet any consideration of an upward adjustment to the LHN is absent from the local plan itself. If this is not rectified then the local plan as adopted will be unsound for want of justification given that its housing requirement is out of step with the evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 7432

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

This chapter would greatly benefit from an introduction that clearly sets out what the Spatial Strategy of Rutland is.
This should include how it looks in reality and how the component parts work together. It should paint a clearer picture, a Vision of Rutland, over the next 15 years or so within which the key policies should be set and importantly against which they can be measured and tested.

Object

Representation ID: 7507

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Much of this chapter appears contradictory (and confusing) especially on planned limits of development and the assessed need for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 7697

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

It will be important to review the local housing need figure in March 2024 when the affordability ratios are updated again, to ensure the local plan reflects the most up to date position. The potential for further changes should be factored into the final preparations of the plan before submission.
An updated Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was published in August 2023, and this acknowledges the need to test the standard method and consider whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify a higher housing requirement figure in the Local Plan.
The assessment is very clear that the housing requirement for the County should exceed the standard methodology if it is reasonable and possible to do so, in order to meet the local housing needs which, the assessment finds is underestimated by the standard methodology.
There is no evidence, however, that this has been taken into account or considered in preparing the Preferred Options consultation document. This is a fundamental flaw in the process which needs to be addressed before the plan is finalised for submission. The updated SHMA is not mentioned as supporting evidence to either SS1 or H1

Object

Representation ID: 7829

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

It would not seem unreasonable to expect this chapter to state clearly what the Spatial Strategy actually is. As written, it is simply a collection of policies, although some of the material in those policies might be better forming part of the strategy. The strategy should, in principle, set out the intentions regarding all possible uses of the land and the corresponding implications for transport and other infrastructure, and the policies should then derive from this. This point was made in comments on the earlier consultation on the Issues and Options Paper.

Object

Representation ID: 7982

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

(a) It appears that in the plan there is an over allocation of houses being built cf Rutland’s requirements. Despite this, it seems one developer is encouraging RCC to increase even further the numbers of houses to be built; (William Davis Representation ID 4921 received by RCC on 28/12/23).
I object to Rutland planning for more houses than are legally required.