Chapter 6 - Housing

Object

Representation ID: 4523

Received: 27/11/2023

Respondent: Mr Tony Liddar

Our garden has been excluded from the PLD, which is clearly wrong. It should be included in the PLD as the land is within the curtilage of our residential buildings. With the development of the land to the rear of our garden, the regularisation of the boundary to the rear of our house makes further sense.

Object

Representation ID: 4880

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Margot Walford

I live opposite the proposed quarry farm development. Stamfirddoesnot have a sufficiently good infrastructure for the current town size, let alone further development over a nature site. Quarry far is the nearest natural space to my house for me to walk in & it will be covered with houses & increased traffic as I leave for work. If Rutland wish to extent their housing it should be done where Rutland provides the amenities & infrastructure, not the adjacent county council.
I object to this development.

Object

Representation ID: 4948

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Patrick Terrey

Living just across from the Quarry Farm site, we fail to understand why there is a need for all these houses as, where will the people come from to live in them, where will they work, where will their children go to school both primary and secondary, where will they receive medical attention either doctor or dentist, where will all the existing dog walkers take their dogs for exercise (not in the proposed country park). Infrastructure costs for facilities to the site including major road improvements, sewage. mains water etc would be prohibitive and impact on existing housing/residents.

Object

Representation ID: 5225

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr John Meara

With regard to residential development in Cottesmore - calculation that the Plan should logically allocate to the village a target for construction of around 25 new houses during the Plan period. Comment on the sites which have been proposed for residential development, only one of which is seen as unequivocally suitable. Proposal of other sites which might be considered, which would enable Cottesmore to meet the targets which should logically be imposed.

Object

Representation ID: 5746

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Ball

AGAINST SITE H1.3
Policy EN8 (c) is contravened by any measure of reasonable assessment. The 'settlement' in this case is numbers 2 to 11 Catmose Park Road which has important vistas and views toward the east which would be destroyed by development on this site. At a stroke, you will destroy the character of Catmose Park Road.

Object

Representation ID: 5774

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Julie Wilson

The damage to this local amenity by development massively outweighs the benefits to Stamford residents who already suffer lack of decent secondary/6thform schools and medical services. More people on the doorstep to our town who won't pay taxes in Stamford but use its services is unacceptable. The loss of green spaces within the town to development has already happened to residents detriment. The quarry is a local amenity with a special habitat for wildlife and residents. We don't wish to lose it or see it 'disneyfied' by developers. I object to policies H1 & H2 in the Housing chapter especially.

Object

Representation ID: 6033

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

Housing supply calculations need to be revisited in the light of the updated NPPF (December 2023). Housing supply must reflect the true need in Rutland and not developers' aspirations. RCC needs to demonstrate a 4 year housing supply (currently 7.4 years - nearly double).

The NPPF places emphasis on planning judgement. Parish Councils and Town Councils need to be engaged proactively by RCC when planning applications are submitted for large developments (over 10 houses). The LPA needs to make use of local knowledge to inform decision making in the best interests of the local community and not developers

Object

Representation ID: 6365

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Bill Deayton

No further development in south Oakham without acoustic fencing to railway line. Increasing levels of heavy rail traffic blight all of south Oakham. 2 proposed sites plus Oakham Pastures abut the line. The resulting noise, 24 hours per day will be intolerable. Sleep and disruption to day time activity is already disturbed in housing close to the line and negative impact on mental health, that RCC would be responsible for, should be avoided. Negotiation with rail authorities for speed reduction through Oakham should be negotiated prior to installation of acoustic fencing.
Focus on large sites, own infrastructure.
Adequate social housing.

Object

Representation ID: 6527

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Bonser

90 houses is 50% of the allocation of 20 villages which seems wholly unfair. Edith Weston has evidence of need for 23 houses so no more than 35 houses should be built on the officers mess site.

Object

Representation ID: 6561

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Alexandra Bayliss

There is not enough infrastructure within Stamford to cope with 650 new houses!

Support

Representation ID: 6588

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Comments made on behalf of the DIO as part of a full written response to Rutland Council. Representations should be read in context and not in isolation.

The Council have used the emerging Local Plan to highlight the importance of identifying sufficient land to deliver housing and for that land to be capable of delivery without delay following the grant of permission. The DIO supports this statement and advocates the need to plan positively for the delivery of housing within Rutland that provides opportunities for all residents and levels of affordability.

Object

Representation ID: 6980

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Chris Munton

Far too complex, too much to read and digest.
Whole process needs simplifying so we can all understand it.Some of us work you know,how much time do you think we have to wade through this lot.
Dont agree with the housing mix at all. Akin to the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, Rich landowners preferred route again, no route for us lesser mortals to have a development.You don’t mention NOT FOR PROFIT.
Why aren’t you letting the small holders develop, apart from gypsy sites which aren’t needed, why aren’t we getting a chance?
Your suggesting green belt development for the rich not the normal Rutland born and bred folk!.
Rich get richer philosophy stinks, the sooner planning reform is sorted the better.

Possibly a change of government this year will provide the reforms needed.

Dont like it, just not enough time to wade through this lot, yet alone understand it.

Object

Representation ID: 7143

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Jacqueline Towl

All of the new houses in Oakham, where do people work? Are you creating commuters to large employers elsewhere?

Object

Representation ID: 7235

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Phil Skipper

Priority should be on brownfield redevelopments especially repurposing of the Oakham high street including change of use of commercial properties on the Oakham high street. Creating a market town that reverts to being a place where people live, as well as work and shop has been proven to create a more vibrant sustainable living environment. To preserve our town we need to create a regional loyalty and convenience that can challenge on line buying that generates no local value.

The plan should actively prioritise the repurposing of brown field sites that would both create a higher barrier to much of the generic development that we now see around Oakham and re-invigorate the local community.

Object

Representation ID: 7514

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

It is disappointing that there is no mention of holiday/second homes in this chapter. We believe this to be an issue of increasing relevance to Rutland (it is already an issue in Wing), which requires specific policies to control future use of residential properties.

Object

Representation ID: 7864

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

The number of houses planned to be built during the plan period is 123 per annum, against a requirement for 130 per annum in the previous plan. Given that the population is now predicted to grow by a much greater proportion than in the previous plan (see comment above at Chapter 2), it is difficult to reconcile these figures. The Government's Standard Method for calculating housing need is currently based on the 2014 population figures, but it is understood that revised calculations using the 2021 Census results are likely to be released soon; the housing needs for Rutland will then need to be reviewed.

The evident disparity between housing numbers and population growth needs to be explained and the figures fully justified.

Object

Representation ID: 7908

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

There seems to be a confusing divergence in the numbers of new houses required in the Plan and greater accuracy of what is being proposed is required before this chapter can be accepted … therefore Ryhall Parish Council object to it in toto.

The Plans states that the total number of houses needed in Rutland is equivalent to an addition of 123 per year …this equates to a total of 2460.

But a 10% ‘Buffer’ is stated as being included taking the total to 2706 [actually the plan says 2705 and this variation is not explained] which equates to 135.3 per year.

However, earlier commitments since 2018 are taken into account meaning additional sites for 1358 new houses been identified.

Quarry Farm/Monarch Park, if it goes ahead, will contribute 650 to this total reducing the new sites needed to 708

However more detailed numbers about where these houses are to be located are provided in Table 4 and on pages 80/81 which neither match this calculation or even agree with each other!

It is stated in these two references as being:-
Table 4 Pages 80/81
Oakham 183 225
Uppingham 316 316
Larger Villages* 153 184
Small Villages/Hamlets
with no PLD 45 Nil

Sub-totals 697 725

The numbers don’t add up … either 11 houses short or 17 too many when compared with the 708 new houses apparently illustrated in previous enumeration statements!

Clarity and exactitude are needed before this chapter can be accepted.

Object

Representation ID: 8024

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Messrs J, P & P Turner; Scott & Scott (Ayston) Limited; Peterborough Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

In our view, it is essential 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 entirely absent from the Local Plan itself. If this is not rectified then the Local Plan, if adopted in the current basis, will be unsound for want of justification given that its housing requirement is completely adrift from the evidence base.
The evidence base is unequivocal: a higher figure than the LHN should be adopted as the housing requirement in the Local Plan, based on data across a range of factors and from a range of sources.