Policy H4 - Meeting all housing needs

Support

Representation ID: 4672

Received: 07/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Field

While supporting the ideal of providing for all needs and age groups, supporting and learning from one another, wouldn’t a policy to restrict the number of AirBnBs and holiday homes in villages in Rutland be a good idea. Our village has at least 8. They are well maintained and bring temporary revenue to the village, but in looking ahead we can provide affordable property for young people, encouraging them to stay in the village, using existing buildings aimed at holiday accommodation for strangers, to fulfil a more local need. Maybe follow other counties such as North Yorkshire, Cornwall and Wales.

Object

Representation ID: 4742

Received: 12/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Serena Solanki

I agree with meeting the housing needs , but the location of the new developments means that elderly people will be further away from vital services. Houses in Stamford North will be local to Lakeside GP practice- rated as 'needs improvement' consistently by the CQC for long waiting times and poor services. The nearest GP is then Oakham which is nowhere near the proposed developments.
What will the council do to address this? Will there also be restrictions on HMOs (house of multiple occupation)?
HMOs have been unrestricted in new developments - increase in population and demand on services

Object

Representation ID: 4836

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Miss helen gillies

Why can’t another site in Rutland be used - you are adding to an already busy Stamford

Object

Representation ID: 4992

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Whilst the importance of responding to the findings of the latest HMA is recognised, Policy H4 should be revised to provide additional flexibility for housing mixes to take account of evidence of market demand, site and settlement specific considerations, and viability.

Object

Representation ID: 5170

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

This policy needs to mandate social rented housing - the statement about private rented seems incompatible with policy H7 and Rutland’s ‘Affordable New Housing’ web page(s). RCC, in conjunction with parish councils need to set the mix requirement, not the developers. The policy should state that planning approvals will only be given if the mix objectives are met.

Support

Representation ID: 5263

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Bisbrooke Parish Meeting

Extraordinary Village Meeting Bisbrooke November 2023
Concern was expressed about the provision of affordable housing and whether it would really be affordable and remain as such. There seems to be little provision for elderly or disabled friendly housing. Many larger houses could be released for families if such provision were to be made. Speculative development appears to lead only to large expensive houses being built rather than for local need.

Object

Representation ID: 5285

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

RCC working with the Parish Council should set specific requirements for the types and mix of homes that should be provided on development sites in a particular area, to ensure that new housing more closely matches need. This would prevent developers arguing to provide what mix gives the biggest profits. This policy needs to mandate social rented housing, and put a cap on the number of Air BnBs and holiday homes in a particular parish.

Support

Representation ID: 5339

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Mary Cate

We need to ensure the mix of housing supports all Rutlanders especially the young to ensure a vibrant community

Object

Representation ID: 5423

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

How Often will the Housing Market Assessment be updated.
Agents and Developers views seem to be taking priority over the 67% of respondents to the Issues and Options survey.

Support

Representation ID: 5482

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

Generally support, but there must be provision for social rented housing. ‘Affordable’ in Rutland is just a dream if you are on minimum wage or benefits, and the provision of rented hosing should not be left to the whims and vagaries of the private sector.

Support

Representation ID: 5518

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Field

Many families in the forces have over the years chosen to settle permanently near to their placement and buy a property as an investment for their future.
Cott 12 fulfils that need for affordable housing close to place of work, ie Kendrew Barracks in Cottesmore, whilst giving independence and security.
The plots of land between existing homes on this small site are poorly maintained and vandalised and detract from the otherwise well kept properties.
They would be better served by having affordable homes built there whilst having the central grassy areas turned into a properly developed area for residents’ children.

Support

Representation ID: 6307

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Read

yes

Object

Representation ID: 6635

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

BRegs provide for accessibility standards; is it necessary to repeat here in planning policy?
Where a local authority or planning policy requires certain house types, sizes and tenures, it is accepted that this should be provided as long as genuine need in that particluar location can be evidenced, and viability allows the delivery of siuch homes in that location. It is unclear what constitutes up to date evidence of local housing need and how this should be approached at a local level.

Object

Representation ID: 6767

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

The policy should be more robust on housing mix to require smaller homes, especially in Larger Villages where the existing housing stock is opposite to the requirement with mostly large houses. We would ask that a condition be added to this policy requiring developers to deliver houses generally in line with the distribution of a mix of bedrooms identified in the SHMA, 80% to be 4 or fewer bedrooms or provide a robust justification as to why this is either not possible or not required.

Object

Representation ID: 7156

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Carol Coombs

I would like to see provision of Residential Homes with Independant living and importantly Retirement Homes with Extra Care. Not in the Private sector but for Rent in social housing of which there is precious little. Rutland does not have a single Residential Home with Extra Care to my knowledge. With the older population now reaching 25% of the county's population it is or should be a priority.

Object

Representation ID: 7180

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

The affordable mix of dwellings should be informed by the Housing Market Assessment. Persimmon Homes are of the view that the mix of market housing should be dictated by the market where choice is a more fundamental factor as is documented in the Housing Market Assessment at page 172 of the report. Allowing for this flexibility will also allow for residential developments to respond to local circumstances as it is clearly evident in the Housing Market Assessment that there are vast differences between the different sub areas, also it is more likely that smaller units of accommodation, such as apartments, will come forward in the main towns within the county.

Criteria A Queston whether this policy is required. Persimmon Homes are of the view that enabling older people to sustain their independence in their own homes is interlinked with policy H5 which sets out enhanced accessibility standards.

Given the above and the Older People’s Accommodation Market Position Statement 2021 sets out there is sufficient provision for care homes until 2043, Persimmon Homes are of the view that criteria a) should be replaced by a policy which encourages specialist housing.

Object

Representation ID: 7195

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

AH recognises the importance of the latest HMA, but believe more flexibility should be added to the wording of this policy to take account of alternative forms of evidence of market demand, site specific considerations (i.e. Design) and viability.

Object

Representation ID: 7241

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Within the policy there is currently no recognition that different types of development site, in different locations, will be more appropriate for some types of development than others. We suggest it would be appropriate to note in the policy that the mix of housing proposed on any development site should be appropriate to its context.

The policy also needs to be flexible and adaptable to allow departure from the latest evidence, where appropriate and justified. This will ensure that sites remain deliverable and can adapt to changes in the economy – both locally and nationally.

Support

Representation ID: 7303

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The requirement for development proposals for sites of 10 or more dwellings to provide a range of house types, sizes, and tenures to meet the general and specialist needs for housing in Rutland as identified in the latest Housing Market Assessment or other up-to-date evidence of local housing need is supported over a more prescriptive approach, and emphasises the need for an up-to-date Housing Market Assessment.

Support

Representation ID: 7319

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

Avant support the requirement for the Plan to deliver a mix of house types/sizes. Avant would be unsupportive of the introduction of more prescriptive policies and welcome the flexibility provided for in the current drafting i.e to enable local needs at any specific time period to be provided for.

Support

Representation ID: 7360

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Policy H4 proposes that ‘Development proposals for sites of 10 or more dwellings should provide a range
of house types, sizes, and tenures. The supporting text for this policy references the HMA and sets out
a suggested housing mix for the County at Table 5 this seems to be appropriately evidenced. It will be important however that the housing mix required across the County is subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure it reflects up to date information.

The suggested housing mix focuses on a range on tenures and the suggested mix is not skewed
towards the smaller or larger house types. It will however be important that this policy is not overly prescriptive in setting mix requirements and instead the policy should act as a guide for any residential planning application. Indeed, this policy should take account of the provisions of Policy SS1 to enable sufficient flexibility in house types and to help facilitate housing delivery beyond the LHN requirements

It is however welcomed that the supporting text for this policy references the role of Neighbourhood Plans
in producing up-to-date evidence to identify local housing need. It should also be supported at the application stage, if Developers choose to produce their own evidence to identify and meet a clear shortfall in house types.

Object

Representation ID: 7446

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Policy H4 focuses on ‘Meeting All Needs’. Under Table 5 (also labelled as Figure 4) there is text referring to the specific requirements for dwelling mix on sites proposed for allocation, will be determined at the next stage of the Local Plan. When is this? Our interpretation of your programme is that the next public consultation is Reg.19, when the document in your terms is ready for the Examination in Public, subject to the tests of its soundness. This should not be used to introduce new policies and information that should have been included in the Reg. 18 Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7516

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Wing Parish Council

Like Rutland as whole, Wing needs affordable as well as market housing of different sizes and types. Rutland has an excess of under-occupied houses with 4+ bedrooms (Rutland (and Wing!) is a national outlier) and it is disappointing that there is nothing that seeks to redress the balance.

Support

Representation ID: 7546

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF support the requirement for the Plan to deliver a mix of house types and sizes and are pleased that the Council has taken on board feedback from developers and
agents was to support Option A- to maintain the current flexibility on the different house types/sizes that should be provided by developers and encourage the mix to
reflect local needs; rather than introducing more perspective policies whilst taking account of up-to-date evidence

Object

Representation ID: 7705

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Policy H4 needs to allow the decision maker to have regard to range of factors alongside the up to date evidence of local housing needs. This should include housing market evidence, economic conditions, viability and site-specific circumstances, all of which may affect the most appropriate mix for a site.
A more flexible approach would support the deliverability of development and uses the evidence in relation to housing mix to guide development over the course of the plan period. There are also site specific circumstances where a mix of homes based on the County wide or local need would not be appropriate from a design point of view, for example in a street where one size of property dominates.
The requirement for all major sites of over 10 dwellings to make provision for specialist housing across all tenures including extra care and other forms of supported housing is unrealistic and impractical. This type of provision will only be viable to run by providers at a certain scale, this part of the policy needs to be revisited.

Object

Representation ID: 7764

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

We are concerned that the wording of the policy will not deliver the specialist housing needed to meet the needs of older people and therefore not be consistent with national policy.

The Local Plan should recognise that housing for older people has its own requirements and cannot be successfully considered against criteria for adaptable and accessible general family housing or smaller homes.

We note however that the plan period is proposed to be to 2041 so these figures would be substantially higher if projected to 2041 instead of 2033. Page 92 of the Preferred Options then confirms that ‘Given that the number of older people is expected to increase in the future and that the number of older single person households is expected to increase this would suggest (if occupancy patterns remain the same) that there will be a notable demand for smaller housing from the ageing population.’

It is therefore clear there will be a significant increase in older people and the provision of suitable housing and
care to meet the needs of this demographic should be more of a priority rather than simply to ‘enable older people to promote, secure and sustain their independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances’. The Council should therefore change their approach and this would ensure consistency with the new NPPF.

While we appreciate that no one planning approach will be appropriate for all areas, an example policy is
provided that, we hope, will provide a useful reference for the Council:

“The Council will encourage the provision of specialist housing for older people across all tenures in sustainable locations.

The Council aims to ensure that older people are able to secure and sustain independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances by providing appropriate housing choice, particularly retirement housing and Extra Care Housing/Housing with Care. The Council will, through the identification of sites, allowing for windfall developments, and / or granting of planning consents in sustainable locations, provide for the development of retirement accommodation, residential care homes, close care, Extra Care and assisted care housing and Continuing Care Retirement Communities.”

Object

Representation ID: 7867

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

c) – do all the opportunities have to be within the county?

Do the figures for housing mix add up to the requisite numbers to meet the anticipated population growth and profile going forward? - this needs to be clarified.

Is Table 5 also Figure 4?

The text implies significant changes/additions for the next version of the plan – these would need to be consulted
upon prior to Regulation 19.

Object

Representation ID: 7913

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

H4 Meeting all Housing Needs - Support
We note the Housing Market Assessment Report 2023 concluding that there is an annual need for an additional 78 traditional affordable housing units per year.
How would this be achieved given that we would require well over 50% of planned housing to be affordable within our stated Housing need.

Secondly given the ageing population demographic, it would also seem logical to provide more detail on over 60’s housing needs.

Given that affordable housing is not considered viable on small scale development, how does RCC intend to manage this strategy?

Object

Representation ID: 7914

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

H4 Meeting all Housing Needs - Support
We note the Housing Market Assessment Report 2023 concluding that there is an annual need for an additional 78 traditional affordable housing units per year.
How would this be achieved given that we would require well over 50% of planned housing to be affordable within our stated Housing need.

Secondly given the ageing population demographic, it would also seem logical to provide more detail on over 60’s housing needs.

Given that affordable housing is not considered viable on small scale development, how does RCC intend to manage this strategy?