Object

Representation ID: 8057

Received: 29/10/2024

Respondent: Abbey Developments Ltd

Agent: CMYK Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This policy misses the opportunity to allocate land at Harrier Close, Cottesmore to provide an additional 15 units.

Object

Representation ID: 8060

Received: 30/10/2024

Respondent: ANCER SPA Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The flexibility included in policy H1 in relation to housing numbers in Uppingham is welcomed. However, object to the Uppingham Gate site being allocated for employment and not as a mixed-use allocation. The site is allocated in the refreshed Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan, which is at an advanced stage, having been the subject of Independent Examination, for mixed-use purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 8073

Received: 14/11/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Additional housing should be provided at Empingham, as this is the most sustainable of the Larger Villages (all community facilities are available, unlike in some of the other villages where more housing has been allocated and it lies on the strategic A606 east-west corridor, with its regular bus services). The Dovecote site at Exton Road would provide a deliverable site in a very short timescale.

Object

Representation ID: 8124

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Promoting the Dovecote site, Empingham as enabling development to allow the renovation of the SAM and listed dovecote for a suitable community or commercial use. RCC hasn’t taken account of information provided in the call for sites, or our response that addressed the reason for discounting it. The plan is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 8127

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Table 3 – Housing Requirement. The housing numbers envisaged from the 21 Larger Villages are solely allocated to three villages. What is the justification for this?

Object

Representation ID: 8162

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Option or options should be tested through the Sustainability Appraisal which a include combination of sites or location within the settlement hierarchy which amount to 5,280 homes, otherwise the plan is not justified and has not tested reasonable alternatives.
Site KET13 has been unfairly screened out of further assessment which means the selection of housing sites is not justified.
The SA has not assessed the highest dwelling number options.

Object

Representation ID: 8176

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

These representations are submitted by Pegasus Group on behalf of Vistry Group on the Rutland Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation, in relation to our client’s interests at Luffenham Road, Ketton.

Object

Representation ID: 8183

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The backland site and COT15 have been excluded from the residential development plan, which is welcomed by the Parish Council. There are concerns about the implications of reserving sites like Mill Lane, which may still be perceived as suitable for development despite community objections. The plan predominantly focuses on large sites, such as Stamford North, which raises questions about their deliverability and the potential for complications. The reliance on large sites could jeopardise the five-year land supply for Rutland, leading to uncertainties in effective delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 8195

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Armstrong Rigg Planning

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Not enough is being done to sustain the housing needs of the County at its own hierarchy of settlements, and there is an imbalance in the distribution of rural growth. Concerns about the spatial strategy. Also the site selection is flawed, overlooked evidence provided that shows that constraints identified could be overcome on the three sites submitted at Ketton (KET11 and KET09) and at Ryhall(RYH06), including information provided in planning applications. Inaccuracies have not been rectified.
Land at Stamford North is part of South Kesteven's adopted trajectory so should not be included, and land allocated elsewhere.
Reserve sites from reg 18 should be allocated.
A significant uplift of housing is required.

Object

Representation ID: 8220

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The amount of new housing proposed is too low to meet latest evidence of needs – from the latest standard method. As such, the policies are too restrictive and not positively prepared. The plan will restrict access to all tenures of housing and doesn't allow communities to grow and thrive.
The delivery is over reliant on two areas, Oakham and Uppingham, denying other communities the opportunity to thrive.
The reserve sites from Reg 18 should be reinstated to provide flexibility and choice.

Object

Representation ID: 8244

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As set out in our objection to Policy SS1 the distribution of development is too heavily biased towards the two largest settlements and (if included) the allocation at Stamford North, leaving the needs of most of the population unmet if they have housing requirements outside of these locations.

Object

Representation ID: 8264

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: G S Developments (Leicester) Limited

Agent: Mr Lance Wiggins

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Seeking the allocation for affordable housing of land at Cold Overton Road/Hilltop Drive/Redland Road in Oakham, for which a planning application has been refused for largely technical reasons, which are currently being resolved with the Council. It is in the most sustainable location in Rutland, would help with 5 year housing land supply and affordable housing needs. A feasibility plan is provided.

Object

Representation ID: 8284

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Land at Greetham Quarry (GRE11) has been wrongly assessed to include an area of priority woodland, and that was a the main factor in its screening out in the site assessment process. If could be developed as an extension to an adjacent site with planning permission for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 8288

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Stancliffe Homes Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Promoting land for 41 dwellings on 2.61ha at College Close, Great Casterton (GRT04), a site on the edge of a larger village. It is subject to a current planning application (2024/1311/MAF).
Serious concerns about the level of unmet housing need in Rutland. A higher housing number of 183 dpa is needed to address past shortfalls in meeting needs and to support the Council's economic strategy.
The capacity assumptions of current allocations do not take account of the Biodiversity Net Gain requirement, which is likely to reduce the density and viability of sites. Additional sites will be needed to deliver the housing requirement in full.
There is not a housing trajectory which shows that the allocations will deliver the housing to support the Council’s economic strategy.
The site promoted is for less dwellings than the site was assessed for so the site assessment conclusion that the site size is too large for the settlement size is not valid. Also the SHLAA’s conclusion on landscape impact does not align with the findings of the landscape assessment - the latter concluded development could be suitably accommodated on
this site within certain parameters.

Object

Representation ID: 8299

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Promoting 6.37ha land north of Mill Lane, Cottesmore, in one of the more sustainable larger villages.
The plan does not plan for the increased housing need of the county, nor support the long term sustainability of the rural areas. The lack of residential development in the larger villages will not respond appropriately to the housing needs of the authority or specific localities, and does not take full account of the reasonable alternatives available.
The SHMA highlights that delivering 123 dpa across the plan period would be significantly less than the 10-year average delivery rate of 184 net completions pa 2011 - 2021, and concludes that these factors ‘arguably point to a higher need in excess of the standard method’. Also, the SHMA identifies an affordable housing need of 114 dpa, equivalent to 92% of the overall need.
The plan does not direct development to the most sustainable locations, and the SA has not taken account of the practical implications of all the spatial options - it should have found option 3 as the preferred option.
The housing land supply does not allow for a proportion of non delivery.
The 650 dwellings at Stamford North are meeting South Kesteven's needs, not Rutland's.

Object

Representation ID: 8316

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Bowbridge Land Ltd

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Promoting land at Main Street, Barleythorpe, which is suitable and sustainable and without flood risk, and preferable to H1.1 because it does not include any FZ3 land. The site would have been allocated had it been rightly included in the site assessment process. An appeal decision confirms there are no technical constraints that cannot be mitigated.
The housing trajectory is not sufficiently detailed.
A 20% contingency housing buffer is needed, due to the high reliance on Stamford North to meet housing needs.
No level 2 strategic flood risk assessment has been carried out to sequentially assess the sites in the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8319

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Philip Davies

Agent: Class Q Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan is not sound by virtue of not being positively prepared or justified due to a failure to reflect imminent changes to the NPPF, a reliance on a large scale allocation at Stamford and failure to provide sufficient homes for people wishing to live throughout Rutland, including Edith Weston.
Land at Normanton Road, Edith Weston, a larger village, has been overlooked as an allocation, despite there being no site specific constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 8320

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Burghley House Preservation Trust

Agent: Class Q Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan is not sound by virtue of not being positively prepared or justified due to a failure to reflect imminent changes to the NPPF, a reliance on a large scale allocation at Stamford and failure to provide sufficient homes for people wishing to live throughout Rutland, including Great Casterton.
Land at Old Great North Road, Great Casterton, a larger village, has been screened out, despite there being no site specific constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 8321

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Land at Cold Overton Road, Langham has been wrongly excluded from the site assessment process, in confusion with adjacent land that has planning permission.
Object to 10% uplift of the housing requirement. A 20% uplift would be more appropriate, given the impending implementation of the NPPF’s housing need increase to 264dpa, and for flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 8323

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr and Mrs W Brand

Agent: Class Q Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan is not sound by virtue of not being positively prepared or justified due to a failure to reflect imminent changes to the NPPF, a reliance on a large scale allocation at Stamford and failure to provide sufficient homes for people wishing to live throughout Rutland, including Braunston. Land at Brooke Road, Braunston has been overlooked as an allocation, despite it being in a larger village and without constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 8325

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Mel Evans

Agent: Class Q Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan is not sound by virtue of not being positively prepared or justified due to a failure to reflect imminent changes to the NPPF, a reliance on a large scale allocation at Stamford and failure to provide sufficient homes for people wishing to live throughout Rutland, including Cottesmore. A site at Main Street, Cottesmore - a larger village- has been overlooked for inclusion in the plan, and is available

Object

Representation ID: 8329

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mrs Margaret White

Agent: Class Q Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan is not sound by virtue of not being positively prepared or justified due to a failure to reflect imminent changes to the NPPF, a reliance on a large scale allocation at Stamford and failure to provide sufficient homes for people wishing to live throughout Rutland, including Market Overton.
Land at Main Street, Market Overton - a larger village - has been overlooked despite having no site specific constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 8330

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Fred Hutton

Agent: Class Q Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan is not sound by virtue of not being positively prepared or justified due to a failure to reflect imminent changes to the NPPF, a reliance on a large scale allocation at Stamford and failure to provide sufficient homes for people wishing to live throughout Rutland, including Market Overton.
Land at Main Street, Market Overton - a larger village - has been overlooked as a site allocation, despite it being free from site specific constraints.

Object

Representation ID: 8352

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Ms Emily Gardiner

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

these developments would negatively impact the landscape character, remaining earthworks, and overall appearance of the medieval deer park at Lyddington Great Park.

Object

Representation ID: 8359

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Promoting land at Brooke Road, Oakham. The justification for the spatial distribution of growth in Policy H1 has not been properly tested, especially the changes to the Plan from Regulation 18 stage.
The site selection process lacks judication, and Quarry Farm has not been considered on the same basis as other alternatives. The capacity of South of Stamford Road, Oakham is unrealistically high, there is no justification for selecting allocations from all the suitable sites (e.g. Whitwell Road South, in lower order Empingham), and TWs site at Brooke Road, Oakham has been rejected for reasons of volume of objections.

Support

Representation ID: 8378

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: South Kesteven District Council

South Kesteven District Council welcomes the inclusion of Quarry Farm/Monarch Park within Policy H1 as a site proposed for 650 dwellings to be provided as part of a comprehensive Sustainable Urban Extension to Stamford. The Council notes that the 650 homes is shown within Table 3 as counting towards Rutland’s housing needs, reducing the requirement for new housing elsewhere in Rutland.

Object

Representation ID: 8381

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Agent: Cerda Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Two sites in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan have access constraints and are long term options. The local plan relies on them, though the neighbourhood plan, to meet its housing needs. More allocations, such as to the north and north east of Uppingham, are needed to cover for the possibility that there are delays in bringing these 2 sites forward. The 314 dwellings assigned to Uppingham should be increased.

Object

Representation ID: 8386

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Bowbridge Land Ltd

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Duplicate of 8316, Land off Main Street, Barleythorpe

Object

Representation ID: 8397

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mulberry Homes

Agent: Class Q Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Promoting land at Burley Road, Oakham, which has outline planning permission. Commitments such as these should be secured by an allocation in the plan, as unforseen circumstances may make current permissions undeliverable. Commitments are a fundamental contribution towards meeting the housing requirement of the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8440

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council should consider if there are factors, such as affordable housing needs, that individually and/or cumulatively result in the need for a higher housing requirement for Rutland, and a subsequent need for additional allocations.
The HBF wish to see the 10% small sites allowance delivered through allocations, not windfalls.
The Council should make sure that the Local Plan fully considers the new Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) requirements in relation to site allocations, as BNG is a non negotiable that impacts on viability and also affects overall housing density.
Action to address any under delivery of housing should be taken quickly, and the plan should provide a wide range of deliverable sites, with an additional buffer.
The Council should consider if an extension to the plan period is needed.