Policy H3- Housing density

Support

Representation ID: 4671

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Field

This policy on housing density would be well served by a site put forward at The Spinney, off Rogues Lane on the outskirts of Cottesmore. For some reason it has not been put forward but could be an ideal contender:
*only for a relatively small number of houses
*on a quiet road only leading up to Kendrew Barracks
*in a quiet and secluded position, surrounded by trees, shrubbery and on one side village cemetery
This site was well supported when first put forward in Neighbourhood Plan. Surely it deserves looking at again. It fulfils many criteria for our village’s future.

Object

Representation ID: 4741

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Serena Solanki

The housing density impacts the development plan and should be reassessed. The housing density leads to sprawling development sites rather than concentrating population in already developed areas with local public transport and employment opportunities. The housing plans also do not lend themselves well to young people who mainly live alone and would prefer to live in flats. The local plan doesn't lend itself well to promoting the local character of the county through building new through roads to service these new dwelling sites and would damage the local environment

Object

Representation ID: 4835

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Miss helen gillies

The facilities in Stamford eg GP surgeries and dentists are too full to offer a satisfactory service now without adding 650 households - also they are all across town so this will add to the traffic travelling through roads that are already not suitable for a lot of traffic

Object

Representation ID: 4916

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

This does not give sufficient attention to the need for more affordable housing in the county. The calculation of "affordable" is skewed upwards since it is based upon a percentage discount to the existing housing stock's high average values, but this doesn't mean it is affordable as starter homes for young people. A different formula must be devised linked to average incomes in the 21-35 are bracket and the cost of mortgage borrowing to arrive a more realistic measure of affordability.

Support

Representation ID: 5169

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

From an environmental point of view I have to agree that most effective use of land is preferred.

Object

Representation ID: 5272

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

Housing density should be very much determined by location, and the housing mix proposed. It is important that homes are not crammed together leaving little space for gardens and communal green areas which could be opportunities for Biodiversity Net Gain and Green/Blue Corridors etc

Support

Representation ID: 5338

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Mary Cate

We need to ensure best use of land available

Object

Representation ID: 5644

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ashwell Parish Council

A blanket minimum of 25 properties per hectare is unrealistic if you are true to other environmental, health and traffic aims: Each property will require parking for 1 or 2 vehicles and access roads will need to be wider if they are to be lined by trees and useable pedestrian pavements. Space will also be at a premium as a result of the orientation of individual properties with regard to the effective positioning of solar panels and appropriate storage for bins.

Object

Representation ID: 6409

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Little Casterton Parish Council

There is much in this Local Plan that needs complete rethinking as it appears the only objective is to meet a housing quota by dumping the proposal on a local community area that cannot support it, as such we cannot support this aspect of the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6464

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

We are concerned that adopting a minimum of 25 dph as a rule will cause inappropriate numbers of dwellings in some rural areas.

Object

Representation ID: 6501

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The nature of housing most needed in the county is small, affordable starter homes. This requires a greater density. There is already a preponderance of large, detached homes proposed and the plan needs to ensure over 50% of all future developments contain small, affordable starter homes. 'Affordability' must not be calculated as a quotient of the county's existing housing stock's price averages which are much higher relative to the national average. It should be linked to average wages in this area and the cost of mortgages in order to be truly and justifiably 'affordable'.

Object

Representation ID: 6593

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 DIO wish to highlight that there is currently a difference between the minimum density specified in draft Policy H3 of 25 dwellings per hectare, and the density used for the site capacity exercise at emerging Policy H1 – which uses 30 dwellings per hectare. The Council should ensure that there is a robust and consistent approach within the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7179

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

The number of dwellings per hectare (dph) should be increased to generally no less than 30 dph. The 30 dph figure is used in this Draft Local Plan to calculate likely numbers of dwellings for housing allocations in this draft plan.

Wording within the policy still allows for flexibility in its application, however the 30 dwellings per hectare provides a useful starting point in ensuring land is developed in an effective manner as possible whilst ensuring the character of settlements is maintained.

Conversely if this figure is not increased to 30 dwellings per hectare, allocations would need to be calculated on the basis of 25 dph and this would have a knock on impact for the number of sites which need to be allocated.

Object

Representation ID: 7240

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Draft policy H3 indicates a minimum density of 25 dph on all sites, recognising the need to consider local character and distinctiveness.

Whilst Taylor Wimpey have no fundamental issue with setting a minimum density, we suggest it may be beneficial to link the policy back to the indicative site capacities set out in policy H1 to avoid the perception by some readers that 25 dwellings per hectare would be an appropriate density for all sites.

Support

Representation ID: 7302

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The approach responding to local character, context, and distinctiveness and indicating a general minimum of 25 dph is supported over a more prescriptive approach.

Support

Representation ID: 7359

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Policy H3 broadly aligns with the NPPF in the requirement to achieve appropriate densities by making ‘efficient use of land’. The policy confirms that ‘Residential densities will vary dependent upon the local area context and character and the sustainability of the location, but generally should be no less than 25 dph (dwellings per hectare).

Indeed, it will be important that residential development densities are established through detailed design
and the planning application process, rather than be prescribed through policy, in order to enable densities
to be considered on a site-by-site basis. The fact that this policy sets out a minimum density figure and does not include a maximum density figure is broadly supported and aligns with the provisions of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 7794

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We note the content of Policy H3. However, it appears not to have been considered by policy SS5 and H1.4

In general, we support policies relating to housing mix, accessibility, and self-build. However, we feel that more emphasis is needed on the regeneration of existing housing – for example, the space above shops in Oakham and Uppingham and regeneration and investment into town centres in general, as we are concerned about the perceived decline of our High Street in Oakham with many shops/ facilities closing.

Support

Representation ID: 7912

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

H3 Housing Density - Support