Policy H7 - Affordable housing

Object

Representation ID: 4529

Received: 28/11/2023

Respondent: Mrs Christobel Price

My comment on this is that there is no provision in the plan for affordable housing in villages. Villages need a good mix of age groups if they are to thrive and survive, otherwise who is going to help keep the community flourishing and growing?
I feel there is a great lack with RCC in making this provision for local people to have sensible affordable housing, and I don't mean properties in excess of £300K.
I strongly feel we need to have a good mix of shared ownership homes so the young and not so young can have a home.
I sincerely hope this will be re-considered in the future planning, not just houses for the rich

Object

Representation ID: 4762

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Hannah Mitchell

Saying that at least two-thirds of affordable housing will be for rent and the remainder for ownership is wrong. Renting or buying in Rutland currently is absurd, nothing is affordable. In average mortgage repayments are the same value as rent each month, so why not make more housing accessible and affordable to buy? I’m a first time buyer and unfortunately having to look outside of Rutland as I simply can’t afford the prices here. Many were led to believe the new-builds on Leicester Road were “affordable” but are being sold at £1million+. You’re simply driving the young out of town!

Support

Representation ID: 4804

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Kevin Hawkes

I put a site up for affordable housing and two other categories. Stocken Hall road, Stretton.
IMO this site would be perfect for starter homes.
Affordable housing doesn’t need to be cheap looking. People who have good jobs from the local area still can’t get on the property ladder.
RCC should re look at sites that are right next to existing housing

Support

Representation ID: 4866

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Burley Parish Meeting

If the developer makes a commitment to build 30% of the properties to be "affordable", first time buyer properties. Then the council must make a contract commitment that any deviation from achieving this minimum is severely penalised in monetary terms.

Otherwise develops will switch the development to medium and larger homes to get higher property returns for each square meter of land.

The penalty for this needs to exceed the uplift in selling price. Developers must not be under any illusion that they can take RCC for fools.

Support

Representation ID: 4972

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scarrott

I strongly support the need for affordable housing in Rutland but am concerned developers will avoid following the policy as described. Stiff penalties for not complying need to be set. The 'cart seems to be pulling the horse' at the moment and far too many overlarge , expensive houses are being built in the county.

Support

Representation ID: 4995

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

WDH supports the delivery of affordable housing and, as set out in response to Policies SS1, SS3 and H1, consider that additional development should be facilitated to address the affordability issues arising in the County. In particular, suitable medium-sized sites within larger villages (including Land at Mill Lane, Cottesmore) should be brought forward for development within this plan period, which would deliver an increased quantum of affordable housing.

Support

Representation ID: 5174

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

The Local Plan needs wording to support bringing forward ('pump priming') provision of affordable housing. Those unable to afford housing currently cannot wait years to purchase / rent.

Support

Representation ID: 5290

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

If a developer deviates from 30% affordable homes and includes more larger homes to get greater returns per square metre, there must be a developer penalty that exceeds the uplift in selling price. It is essential that offsite provision of affordable housing or a commuted sum in lieu is avoided as we need affordable housing in our villages to revitalise ageing communities and provide accommodation for key workers essential in caring for an ageing population.

Object

Representation ID: 5308

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Bisbrooke Parish Meeting

Village Meeting Bisbrooke November 2023
We support affordable housing policies in principle but we object to the lack of a policy to require a small house in the mix on small sites of 6 to 9 houses. Off-site contributions are insufficient.
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: 5315

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Ann Lewis

The focus seems to have been on building executive-style housing rather than building the required affordable housing, and I mean ‘affordable’ housing. Oakham has not met its required targets for these. Why not? There are currently people on waiting lists for social housing which is unacceptable.

Support

Representation ID: 5341

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Mary Cate

We need to ensure housing is truly affordable

Affordable needs to be built on site in the villages and not commuted sums, as this does not provide housing for local families

Object

Representation ID: 5426

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Whilst applauding / supporting the aims of the policy, will this 30% - will this make development unaffordable, maybe push up the price of the market priced housing to cover shortfall in viability.

Object

Representation ID: 5486

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

The whole concept of ‘Affordable Housing’ is flawed. It merely means that some house are less expensive than others, and too often the developer can wriggle out of even this provision by demonstrating that it is not economically viable. For those on low incomes housing in Rutland is not affordable whether for purchase or rent.
We need the council to be proactive in developing sites for social rent, building to high standards and reflecting the needs of the local population. Other councils are doing this - Cardiff is building Passivhaus standard homes - why can’t Rutland?

Support

Representation ID: 5512

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Field

Cottesmore requires more affordable housing, however:
-Sites put forward provide max 3
-site Cott 03 off Rogues lane was fully supported by the village and can offer higher proportion of affordable housing, up to 14
-fills naturally the boundary edge of housing on that part of village
-well concealed by natural hedging
-on a quiet road leading only to barracks
-bounded by allotments and cemetery
-flat and currently used as agricultural land
-has none of the issues regarding the other sites
-no valid reasons given for not being put forward this time
-this site needs reconsideration!

Support

Representation ID: 5532

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Allen

The proposed policy appears both proportionate and appropriate, setting out clear guidance for the provision of affordable housing, but also the scope that exists for departures from policy to be considered where these are robustly justified.

Object

Representation ID: 5825

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Affordable housing in Rutland is simply not affordable, what is required is good quality social housing to replace local authority housing sold under the right to buy scheme and to meet the needs of young families on average and below average incomes, we need to hang on to our youngsters, only youngsters from affluent families or with above average incomes can afford to stay in Rutland, a sorry state of affairs.

Support

Representation ID: 5979

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

The housing needs of the people of Rutland need to be at the forefront of RCC's sustainable housing development strategy

Currently, developers appear to be building expensive commuter and leisure homes and do not deliver the affordable properties needed locally. It appears planning conditions are breeched. Planning enforcement is key and the updated NPPF should provide more teeth for RCC to insist affordable housing is built. If it is not, sanctions should be put in place, with developers' past performance being taken into account if future planning applications are made

Support

Representation ID: 6413

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

affordable housing has long been an issue which developers “get round” This policy needs to be water tight

Object

Representation ID: 6505

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: 6595

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 supports Policy H7 which identifies the requirement for 30% affordable housing, with a mix of unit sizes and affordable tenures, subject to appropriate assessment of viability. The DIO note that not all development proposals will be viable due to a number of factors such as abnormal costs related to demolition and site remediation. The Council should amend the wording of the Policy to reflect this.

Object

Representation ID: 6650

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

The use of VBCs is set down in national planning policy and it gives developers certainty when buying previously developed land where viability is often an issue. This part of the policy should be deleted as it is covered by national policy.
What will proposals be measured against to determine whether they “meet the proven local and affordability housing need”?

Object

Representation ID: 6725

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Amanda Bloomfiled

We need more affordable housing - and I mean low and mid range. Morcott has had 4 , 1million pound houses built recently...more very privileged people moving in, which doesn't increase social mobility, cohesion or affect the social gradient in a positive way in terms of opportunity.

Object

Representation ID: 6768

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

Many authorities require 33% affordable – During the Whole Plan Viability Assessment we would ask that an option of 33% Affordable Homes be considered.
There should be a mandatory requirement to provide either on-site or physically offsite. The current calculation for commuted sums does not provide sufficient finance for the Council to delivery the off-site accommodation . This needs to be reviewed.

Affordable rents should be in line with Local Rent levels and not 80% of market rents
Unfortunately this Policy is similar to the existing Local Plan Policy which has failed to deliver affordable homes and this Policy will not improve that situation.

Object

Representation ID: 6900

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Richard Camp

the Local Plan should indicate that the Authority must, when approving significant housing development, require description in detail of the affordable housing to be built. I recommend that the Local Plan should state the aim to encourage the development in Rutland of small-size accommodation (eg one/two-bedroom flats) for first-time buyers and those renting, bearing in mind that the average salary in Rutland in 2023 was £36,856 per annum, with the average salary for women being £23,879 per annum.

Object

Representation ID: 6971

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The evidence base clearly suggests that the local planning authority should be considering an uplift to the housing requirement in order to bring forward sufficient affordable housing over the plan period to meet needs. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in the emerging local plan or in its housing requirement.
13. An upward adjustment should be made to the housing requirement to maximise opportunities for affordable housing delivery, against the clear backdrop of Rutland’s affordability issues.

Object

Representation ID: 6993

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

All parish’s wish to see the next generation remaining in Rutland if at all possible. Affordable housing is the key and ensuring that affordable continues in perpetuity.
This plan does not make any statement as to whether Rutland Council would be prepared to
Invest in a small “Council’” estate with RCC as Landlords.
Even if not pursued there should be an explanation as to why this is not possible.
Currently affordable housing is a piecemeal approach to 100% ownership of a property over time. Why doesn’t the council adopt a policy which would ensure that affordable remains affordable in perpetuity rather than the 1st time buyer provided with a long term opportunity to purchase the full value of the house thereby removing it from affordability for future generations.
Affordable housing does not work. Rutland needs a bank of houses available to rent, so that when one tenant moves on it is available for another.
In the past we had a system in which councils nationwide could co-operate thus enabling a much more mobile workforce.
This is an issue of national importance to employers who are finding it difficult to recruit.

Object

Representation ID: 7182

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

No objections in principle to the requirements of this condition, its wording seemed unduly complicated and could be set out in a much clearer manner.

Criteria d) sets out developments need to ‘achieve a minimum of 25 % of all affordable homes secured through developer contributions as First Homes’.

Persimmon Homes are of the view the words ‘through developer contributions’ should be removed from this wording.

Object

Representation ID: 7257

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

A blanket 30% allocation of affordable houses without taking into consideration the location, employment opportunities and public transport availability is too prescriptive. A more flexible approach should be used.

Object

Representation ID: 7307

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The requirement that in the Designated Rural Areas (all parishes outside Oakham and Uppingham parishes) developments of between 6 and 9 dwellings inclusive will also be required to make affordable housing provision for 30% of the scheme's total capacity needs to be evidenced as deliverable if to be required.

Object

Representation ID: 7337

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The more recent 2023 SHMA suggests a need for 78 affordable homes per annum. Even if 78 dpa was an over-estimation of affordable needs within Rutland, it is more than twice the level of gross average annual affordable housing delivery over the last 10 years and almost twice the target of the adopted 2011 Core Strategy of 40 affordable homes per annum. Adopting a housing requirement analogous to the LHN (123 dpa) which is significantly less than historic average delivery will likely not meet even the Core Strategy’s modest and now very dated affordable housing target. The evidence base clearly suggests that the local planning authority should be considering an uplift to the housing requirement in order to bring forward sufficient affordable housing over the plan period to meet needs. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in the emerging local plan or in its housing requirement.