Policy SS1 - Spatial strategy for new development

Object

Representation ID: 4595

Received: 03/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Anne O'Grady

I do not believe it is right to concentrate development around Stamford when St George's Barracks are available. I also believe that you are choosing this location as it will be cheaper and more profitable for Rutland i.e. no need to set up community services.
It is a no from me

Object

Representation ID: 4772

Received: 11/12/2023

Respondent: Alistair Parker

1. The Plan fails to properly allow for windfall in calculating housing need for site allocations.
2. The proposed development site allocations in the countryside do not demonstrate how the plan meets local rather than regional needs.
3. The proposed allocations and reserve allocations at 2,784 units are excessive being 135% above the assessed need and potentially, with St George, 160% above that need with a surplus 1,228 dwellings above the 2,056 need (excluding Stamford North).

Support

Representation ID: 4839

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: ANCER SPA Ltd

We support the focus on development within the Planned Limits of Development of the identified principal towns. It is important to restrict speculative development on unallocated sites elsewhere in Rutland, to ensure that the delivery of allocated sites in the PLD’s is not compromised.
We also welcome the statement that the proposed housing delivery of 123 dwellings per annum is quoted as being the minimum requirement for the whole of Rutland. This will allow an element of flexibility to respond to changing circumstances over the Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 4921

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: William Davis Ltd

The overall direction of Policy SS1 is supported, by identifying Uppingham as one of the main areas for housing growth. However the overall number of dwellings required annually for Rutland, of at least 123 dwellings, would in reality result in a level of housing delivery which is lower than the current level, of 160 dwellings per annum.

It is suggested that the overall number of dwellings required during the plan period should be increased to the economic growth strategy level (210 homes per annum total 4200) as referred to in Paragraph 6.6 of the Sustainability Appraisal so that growth is shared amongst the most sustainable settlements and, that the wording of Policy SS1 is amended to ensure that greater levels of housing growth are accommodated in Uppingham, given that the Local Plan identifies it as one of the three most sustainable locations in the county for new housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 4931

Received: 29/12/2023

Respondent: Nick Townsend

The policy should be amended to require that the release of any greenfield sites for housing adjoining the Planned Limits to Development in Uppingham should be undertaken through a review of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4940

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Neal Ince

It seems outrageous that Rutland can propose building 650 homes adjacent to Stamford without providing any services to support them. Stamford already struggles for healthcare, dentists and education, particularly secondary schools. There aren't even any supermarkets at that end of town, so all the traffic from the new homes will add to the existing congestion in town.

Object

Representation ID: 4985

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

WDH's response to Policies SS1 and H1 highlight that the spatial strategy should be refined to strengthen the plan's robustness. Given the need to support the County’s rural communities and address the existing affordability issues, the overall housing requirement should be at least 3,905 dwellings. Therefore, additional allocation sites should be identified, particularly within the larger villages to support their ongoing vitality. WDH's site at Land North of Mill Lane, Cottesmore (Reserve Site H1.a) is a suitable development site in the most sustainable 'larger village' settlement, and should therefore be allocated for development in this plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 5130

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: National Highways

The cumulative traffic and transport impacts of local plan growth will need to be robustly assessed and presented in a Strategic Transport Assessment.
As highway authority for the A1 trunk road, we would expect that the Transport Assessment is shared with us for our review and comments. However, we would prefer to engage with you earlier in the process to help scope the necessary requirements for establishing a robust transport evidence base. We believe that this collaborative approach will help to ensure that the likely residual transport infrastructure needs, timescales and potential funding requirements are understood.

Support

Representation ID: 5155

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Agree with the approach

Support

Representation ID: 5226

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

I support the first 2 points and (b), but am concerned about (a) and the reliance on 650 homes at Quarry Farm as part of the proposed Stamford N development. If this development does not go ahead as proposed might Rutland be left with a shortfall in housing land supply again, resulting in 'presumption in favour of development' outside the Planned Limits of Development of the larger villages, and especially those villages, like Ketton, in the East where proximity to Stamford makes it a 'sustainable location'. Developments in East Rutland puts pressure on Stamford's infrastructure and removes business from Oakham.

Object

Representation ID: 5284

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

Wording is ambiguous and could be interpreted as a minority of developments outside PLD's will be considered? Your later paragraph encourages this by suggesting "land adjoining greenfield sites will only be released.....". The policy needs locking down, rejecting development outside PLD's, or for limited applications, the criteria outside PLD's should have much stronger definitions.
St George's Barracks (SGB) site is rurally remote and not totally brownfield . The golf course and agricultural use of many site areas prove this. Secondly, it is more prone to environmental/wildlife damage with less infrastructure than other sites with existing town facilities. Also, consider Woolfox.

Support

Representation ID: 5346

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: South Kesteven District Council

South Kesteven District Council is particularly interested in any proposed growth in Rutland towards South Kesteven District. The Council notes that the Spatial Strategy specifically includes land adjacent to Stamford as a focus for development, in addition to Rutland’s towns and larger villages. It should be made clear, however, that this specifically relates to the Monarch Park (also known as Quarry Farm) development which is acceptable only as part of a comprehensive cross boundary development at Stamford North.

Object

Representation ID: 5365

Received: 30/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Deag

It is hard not to feel cynical when reading the start of this
chapter which states the "Future Rutland Vision", and sets out aspirations for Rutland's towns and villages ... while Policy SS1 proposes a major housing development adjacent to Stamford (Quarry Farm) which many feel will have exactly the opposite effect on Stamford. It appears that your vison for Ruland will be 'paid for' in part by the negative effect of the large development Rutland imposes on Stamford!
Page 61 states "Evidence has shown that the most appropriate location for the future growth of the town of Stamford is to the north of the town." I disagree with this and like many others feel that the inclusion of the (South Kesteven) land to the north of Stamford in the South Kesteven District Council's Local Plan was a serious error; it did not adequately consider the impact of such a large development on Stamford which is constrained by its narrow ancient streets and the single bridge over the river. Page 61 continues "This development needs some land located in Rutland in order to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable development." There are reasons to believe the development will not be "sustainable"

Object

Representation ID: 5526

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Allen

There is a concern that the Local Plan as proposed reflects the available pockets of land that have been put forward in each of the larger villages, rather than the level of amenity, and hence sustainability, that can be achieved. For example, Empingham is exceptionally well provided for in terms of amenity, having a suite of facilities that is not available, in total, in other larger villages. The allocation of sites should, therefore, reflect the relative sustainability of each village and not simply respond to land that may be conveniently apportioned for development.

Object

Representation ID: 5545

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Whilst the level of housing growth is framed as "at least", the baseline figure for the number of dwellings to be built per year is still very low at 123. This is substantially lower than the current Local Plan minimum figure, and is remarkable in the context of the economic development objectives of the plan and Economic Strategy (economic growth means jobs, and jobs need people, who need houses) and during a national housing crisis. Throttling back the housing figure will only constrain the housing market (keeping prices high and access to housing difficult) and undermining economic objective.

Object

Representation ID: 5608

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

The housing numbers are misleading - the local plan does not propose 123 dpa - this does not include the buffer, reserve sites, windfall site, Quarry, farm, or St Georges - this leaves the county open to ;large scale over development - there needs to be great transparency and clarity.
The addition of the paragraph "proposal for development on Greenfield sites adjacent to PDL" the exceptional circumstances should be clearly defined - so there is no room for doubt and thus avoid a review of the LP.

Object

Representation ID: 5784

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Rutland is a small rural county and 2460 houses over the plan period seems high and unsustainable, we must not to exceed these figures, Rutland needs to remain a nice place to live for the current residents. The village hierarchy threshold for larger villages, many with very few facilities seems low, other local authorities have greater numbers for villages to become larger villages . The removal of the planned limits of development for small villages is most unsatisfactory and we object strongly as this will encourage development in unsustainable locations, the planned limits of development ensure protection to the countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 5790

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Amy Hall

Stamford does not need anymore houses! We struggle to park around town as it is. The Quarry holds so many memories for us all. People of Stamford love to walk around the Quarry, it is a very popular walking destination. The wildlife living in the woods, the two ponds which have fish in. People of Stamford enjoy looking and watching them on their walk! I OBJECT to any housing and buildings wanting to be built at the Quarry! No one in Stamford wants them!

Object

Representation ID: 5828

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Jennifer Kemp

Impact on current infrastructure is concerning. State of GP availability in Stamford is already dire and this will increase demand and lower services further. Traffic already heavy through town.

Support

Representation ID: 5936

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Victoria Young

I would like to see St George's Barracks' development take precedence over Quarry Farm site. This site should be developed sooner:instead of Quarry Farm. The biodiversity value is worth less than Quarry Farm. In addition the impact on stamford's infrastructure will be lessened.

Object

Representation ID: 6250

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Tom Upson

When it comes to spatial strategy, Rutland should not be focusing half of their targeted housing allocation at Quarry Farm / Monarch Park, located right on the county boundary of Lincolnshire and directly impacting Stamford. Given that this is also a local wildlife site, building here would conflict with a number of Rutland's own environmental policies. Rutland should be looking again at the St George's Barracks brownfield site in the middle of the county, which would better serve Rutland's housing needs, being equidistant to the urban centres of Oakham and Uppingham and supporting more sustainable employment growth in the region.

Support

Representation ID: 6348

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support this in principle.

Object

Representation ID: 6528

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

Draft Policy SS1 advises that:
The majority of new development will be focussed within.... .and on land adjacent to Stamford (which lies within South Kesteven District adjoining the County boundary).

The land adjacent to Stamford which forms Monarch Park is within the RCC boundary, there is of course the adjacent land within SKDC boundary but that does not count towards RCC housing delivery.

We would suggest that the sentence in brackets is not required and is also confusing.

Object

Representation ID: 6539

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

We cannot support this policy as we cannot support the Council’s decision to base the plan on an unjustifiably low housing target.

Object

Representation ID: 6566

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

It is important for the Council to recognise all of the available brownfield development opportunities that are available, achievable and deliverable for housing within emerging Policy SS1 and to include the St George’s Barracks Growth Area. Not doing so, means that Policy SS1 is inconsistent with the other policies of the plan as well as the NPPF’s emphasis of taking a brownfield first approach to delivering development that boosts significantly the supply of housing.

This amendment is a necessity if the next version of the plan is to be considered Sound.

Support

Representation ID: 6568

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICS

There will be requirements from the ICB for CIL to ensure that all local healthcare services are fit for the future growth that is anticipated.

Support

Representation ID: 6572

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICS

Can RCC help the ICB understand the Strategic Opportunity mentioned earlier in respect of anticipated growth in Corby and which has its closest border to Uppingham?

Object

Representation ID: 6612

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

Proposed housing delivery over the Plan period is less than the current Development Plan provides for, and yet we have a growing population. Why is Rutland relying on South Kesteven to deliver a significant element of its housing requirement? Although the policy will permit windfall development in the villages, this is unluikely to make a significant contribution to housing delivery because few sites for development remain within the PLDs. The Plan should acknowldge that people wish to live in villages; in turn this creates more sustainable communities, enhancing the vitality and helping their services, facilities and shops etc to thrive.

Object

Representation ID: 6691

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Abbey Developments

Agent: CMYK Planning Ltd

This policy misses the opportunity to allocate or allow for the development of the unused parcels at Harrier Close, Cottesmore to provide an additional 15 units. In previous draft plans Harrier Close was shown as part of a Planned Limits of Development of a “North Cottesmore”. This is no longer being promoted by the council leaving Harrier Close an enclave of existing development adjacent to but not included within Kendrew Barracks (policy SS6) but benefitting from all the facilities on the barracks and also not part of the Cottesmore Planned Limits of Development. This means is it a large area of residential development within the open countryside which does not reflect its true situation.

Harrier Close should have a Planned Limits of Development designation so the unused parcels of land could provide approximately 15 dwellings towards the housing land supply and would then follow the council’s strategic objection 9 of making efficient use of unused land.

Object

Representation ID: 6759

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We note the inclusion of Barrowden within the Larger Village Group. Is the condition for the release of land sufficiently strong in relation to the work being undertaken “normally” through the Local Plan review?

Is the only other occasion when such development would be approved would be due to lack of supply in the County?