Policy H5 – Accessibility standards

Object

Representation ID: 4568

Received: 01/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Kim Conlon

Stamford cannot cope with the number of people living in it as it is. Schools are oversubscibed, Dr Surgeries are failing and congestion is bad. Not to mention parking! The last thing Stamford needs is another housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 4837

Received: 20/12/2023

Respondent: Miss helen gillies

It will make Stamford overcrowded and put pressure on already full public services like GPs

Object

Representation ID: 4993

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Further evidence is required to justify the requirement of standards that go over and above national guidance. That should be carefully considered within an update to the Whole Plan Viability Assessment, which should be underpinned by up-to-date evidence regarding building and labour costs.

With that said, WDH welcome that Policy H5 allows for flexibility in the delivery of Part M4(2) Category 2 housing to take account of feasibility-related issues, but consider that it should also allow for additional flexibility to take account of site and settlement specific considerations and viability in light of the above considerations.

Support

Representation ID: 5171

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Supported

Support

Representation ID: 5286

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

Agreed.

Object

Representation ID: 5386

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Neil Johannessen

That Doc M4 (2) Category 2 will become "required" is welcome, but it needs needs to be more clear just how difficult it will be to get exempted. "Topography" can be flagged as a problem by anyone that not wanting to be bothered.

More worryingly, the suggestion for M3(3) builds verges on pointless. The only identified sites for over 100+ dwellings are H1.2 (140) and Quarry Farm (650) - with H1.g (286) as reserve. Given rounding down, that suggests as few as 7 might get built over the course of the Plan. Rutland's physically disabled deserve better of RCC.

Object

Representation ID: 5424

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

There seems to be a very weak reason not to enforce the standard (Impact on lower end of the housing market : P91)
1% seems a low figure for wheelchair accessible dwellings (will only be 6 at Stamford North development for example

Object

Representation ID: 7181

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Persimmon Homes are in support of this policy, however, this interlinks with criteria a) of policy H4. Furthermore, the policy should set out if the policy requires M4(3)b or M4(3)b standards – these different standards have very different cost implications and these need to be reflected in the Council’s Viability Report.

Object

Representation ID: 7242

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

We note that there is a need to clarify the position with regard to the application of the M4(3) standard, which 1% of dwellings on sites over 100 units will be expected to meet. There are two elements to M4(3) – M4(3)a and M4(3)b, with the former being readily adaptable rather than fully wheelchair accessible. The policy current doesn’t distinguish between the two standards.

From Taylor Wimpey’s perspective, it would be appropriate to require 1% of dwellings to be readily adaptable to wheelchair accessibility rather than requiring dwellings to be fully complaint as this would add an element of flexibility to ensure dwellings didn’t remain unsold should a suitable buyer not be found for a fully wheelchair accessible home.

Support

Representation ID: 7304

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The approach to require all new dwellings to be adaptable and accessible as defined in part M4(2) Category 2 Accessible and adaptable dwellings of the Building Regulations is supported, along with the requirement for larger sites of 100 or more dwellings to provide a minimum of 1% of all dwellings to meet part M4(3) of the Building Regulations.

Support

Representation ID: 7361

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The overall requirement for all new dwellings to be adaptable and accessible and to reflect the overall needs
of the community aligns with Building Regulations and the provisions of the NPPF (2023) and is supported.

To ensure the soundness of the Plan, it will be important to ensure that the specific requirement set for
dwellings to meet M4(3) standards is based on an up to date evidence of local housing needs.

Object

Representation ID: 7547

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to
mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. There is therefore no need for a policy on this issue within the Rutland Local Plan.

There is also a need to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M4(3)a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where
M4(3)b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any policy, if it remained, would need to recognise this distinction. This issue should also be factored into the whole plan viability assessment as both M4(3)a and M4(3)b impact on viability, with M4(3)b being considerably more expensive.

Object

Representation ID: 7706

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group c/o Pegasus Group

Agent: Pegasus group

The accessibility standard of buildings is a Building Regulation matter and should not be addressed through Local Plan planning policies. The government is reviewing the Building Regulations and this is the appropriate route for introducing new standards.

Object

Representation ID: 7742

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

With reference to Policy H5 and water use standards, as the Local Plan will inform future development to 2041, we would support a more ambitious approach similar to that proposed by the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan which has proposed 80 l/p/d in recognition of future water supply issues as a result of abstraction reductions to protect the environment. The policy tests would need to be robust to require monitoring of the proposed efficiency standard and remediation where the level of usage is exceeded. Policies should also require integrated water management solutions including rainwater/storm water harvesting and greywater recycling for non-potable uses – such schemes should be mandatory in larger developments that can provide economies of scale to achieve robust water efficiency standards. Anglian Water is working to prepare a Joint Protocol and supporting evidence with Natural England and the Environment Agency to underpin more ambitious water efficiency standards. See attachment

Object

Representation ID: 7813

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

We note that the policy refers to specific building regulations. We would suggest removing these references, as change to the building regulations in question will date the policies. Reference to the relevant building regulations could instead be made in supporting text.

Support

Representation ID: 7915

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

H5 Accessibility Standards - Support