Object

Representation ID: 8074

Received: 14/11/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Promotion of land for 12 houses at the Exton Road site, Empingham. The allocation would enable the Dovecot to the north of the site, a listed building and Scheduled Monument.
A draft allocation policy is provided to cover site specific issues, including a buffer and the renovation and reuse of the Dovecot for community use. The Council has not satisfied the Duty to Cooperate. The submission included documentation previously submitted under the Call for Sites.

Object

Representation ID: 8093

Received: 26/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Tony Liddar

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Our garden has been excluded from the PLD, which is clearly wrong. It is within the curtilage of our residential buildings, and the land to the rear has been developed.

Object

Representation ID: 8120

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Graham Layne

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? No

There has been an increase in development in the south east area of the county as this is more accessible to the main transport links.

Object

Representation ID: 8126

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The number of houses proposed on the Officer's Mess does not comply with previous needs assessment and the Parish objects to the unexplained and unsubstantiated increase. There is no justification for finding site ED106(H1.b) suitable for development as it is similar in all key respects to site ED109, and Edith Weston will already meet more than its fair share of housing allocations compared to similar villages in the county.

Object

Representation ID: 8180

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Significant opposition to the proposed developments - excessive given Rutland's small size. RCC have consistently increased development targets while downplaying actual windfall site numbers, leading to mistrust in planning intentions. The proposed developments, including significant projects like the Mallard Pass solar farm, threaten Rutland’s rural identity and agricultural land. The scale of proposed developments contradicts the RCC's vision for development that respects the county’s rural character and community. The Local Plan should reflect community aspirations and local needs rather than accommodating external demands excessively.

Support

Representation ID: 8188

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Healthwatch Rutland

We note the number of new homes being planned, and that a substantial number of these will be built in and around the Empingham area. We, therefore, welcome the plan to construct a new surgery there and with facilities which have the potential to be used by all Rutland residents for procedures and consultations, including minor surgery. We urge that this building is sufficiently large to accommodate population growth in the future and easy, affordable and regular access to the surgery premises by disability-friendly, public transport for Rutland residents from all areas of the county.

Object

Representation ID: 8265

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: G S Developments (Leicester) Limited

Agent: Mr Lance Wiggins

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The housing land allocations are heavily reliant on development at Uppingham, which is much smaller and much less well served with services and facilities than Oakham - the latter has a train station and is more sustainable in relation to the use of non-car modes. A scheme of 100% affordable housing at Cold Overton Road is proposed.

Object

Representation ID: 8567

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land west of Ashwell Road, Oakham is proposed as a sustainable, distinctive and thriving neighbourhood that forms a logical extension to the town. The respondent is broadly supportive of the vision and objectives and the focus on Oakham for new housing. However, insufficient consideration has been given as to whether the housing requirement should be greater than the standard method housing need, taking into account previous assessments of need, affordability and past under delivery. That the housing number is significantly below previous levels of delivery is a compelling reason to increase the housing number. Also, the suppressed housing number will reduce the delivery of affordable housing to below past trends, which will not address the significant affordability issues. The Council's own housing market assessment highlights that the standard method housing need number is a minimum figure and that a range of projections (but not all) indicate the need for a higher figure. The Council has not considered if any upward adjustments are reasonable and possible.
The 10% buffer for flexibility is not justified or sufficient. There are several sites where delivery in uncertain,
Housing delivery of the residual requirement is heavily dependent on one site, with attendant risks. A wider range of sites, including at Oakham, should be considered. An outline plan is appended.

Object

Representation ID: 8571

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land East of Uppingham Road, Oakham is promoted as a housing allocation, as a logical extension to the town.
The respondent is broadly supportive of the vision and objectives and the focus on Oakham for new housing. However, insufficient consideration has been given as to whether the housing requirement should be greater than the standard method housing need, taking into account previous assessments of need, affordability and past under delivery. That the housing number is significantly below previous levels of delivery is a compelling reason to increase the housing number. Also, the suppressed housing number will reduce the delivery of affordable housing to below past trends, which will not address the significant affordability issues. The Council's own housing market assessment highlights that the standard method housing need number is a minimum figure and that a range of projections (but not all) indicate the need for a higher figure. The Council has not considered if any upward adjustments are reasonable and possible.
The 10% buffer for flexibility is not justified or sufficient. There are several sites where delivery in uncertain,
Housing delivery of the residual requirement is heavily dependent on one site, with attendant risks. A wider range of sites, including at Oakham, should be considered. An outline plan of the promoted site is appended. it is not clear the source of the agricultural land classification in the site assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 8573

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land at Seaton Road Glaston should be allocated for housing, being within the planned limit to development for the village and with part on the brownfield land register.
The housing requirement should be higher because of affordability, past under delivery, and the standard method should only be regarded as a starting point.
Delivery of new housing is over reliant on one site, at the expense of other locations.
A 20% buffer should be applied.

Object

Representation ID: 8577

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Davidsons Development Ltd

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Promoting land west of Ashwell Road, Whissendine as a great opportunity to create a sustainable, distinctive and thriving addition to Whissendine.
There is a lack of evidence to underpin the site assessment stage 2b screening out conclusions and a higher housing requirement overall is needed, and a 20% buffer, to tackle significant affordability issues, provide sufficient flexibility in deliverable sites.
A site location plan is appended.

Support

Representation ID: 8622

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

Make no specific comment on the allocations other than advising that prospective applicants should continue to seek advice from AWS Pre Development and Development Service teams on their water supply, waste recycling and drainage proposals.