Object

Representation ID: 8101

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Matt Parkinson

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Nationally we are facing a wave of people with autism / PMLD diagnoses working their way into adulthood that we haven't experienced before who will need infrastructure and supported living accommodation. Other counties are planning for this now. Rutland does not have a sound plan and state we are unaffected by this national trend, which is implausible.

Object

Representation ID: 8189

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Healthwatch Rutland

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We note that the Plan considers the needs of different age groups and, particularly, the forecast increase in an aged population. The older generations often do not downsize to smaller, suitable accommodation due to the costs and upheaval involved. A more ambitious plan would recognise this and plan to provide more support and/or incentive in this matter, thus freeing up larger properties for younger families hoping to upsize. In this respect, we would draw attention to the Government’s publication on 26/11/2024: ‘Our future homes: housing that promotes wellbeing and community for an ageing population’ for further detail and recommendations to be considered for inclusion in the Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8221

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone (MS) and Churchill Living (CL)

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The current policy lacks specificity to effectively deliver necessary housing for older people in line with the NPPF. The ageing population in Rutland is projected to increase significantly, necessitating more specialised housing. There are significant economic, social, and environmental advantages of providing housing for older people.

We urge the Council to revise its approach to better meet the identified needs for older persons’ housing. Longer-term projections of need should be used and sites allocated specifically for older people's housing.

Object

Representation ID: 8246

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The first part of this objection is that the policy is in general over prescriptive as it states that:
“Development proposals for sites of 10 or more dwellings should provide a range of house types, sizes, and tenures to meet the general and specialist needs for housing in Rutland in line with Table 4 below, as identified in the latest Housing Market Assessment or other up-to-date evidence of local housing need.”
This is different to the wording above table 4 in the written explanation of the policy which is sourced from the HMA and which states:
“Housing provision in Rutland should be monitored against the following broad mix of market and affordable housing provision:”
It is considered that the later wording is more appropriate as not all sites are suitable for delivering a complete mix of housing types.
The second part of our objection is linked to our objection to Policy SS1 which highlights that the strategy will not provide a range of house types, sizes, and tenures to meet the general needs as it over concentrates development to just a few locations leaving the majority of the area with few or no new allocations which can deliver any housing at all.
The third part of our objection is that the needs for older persons Specialist Housing has been significantly under estimated. Sites can be allocated for older people's housing.

Support

Representation ID: 8289

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Stancliffe Homes Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

We support the wording of Policy H4 as currently drafted.

Object

Representation ID: 8295

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The scope of Policy H4 is generally sound in requiring housing mixes to respond to evidence of need, but the policy should also make reference to how they should also respond to “evidence of demand, site and settlement-specific factors / constraints, feasibility, and site viability.”

Object

Representation ID: 8324

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Paragraph 1 of this policy requires that development should provide a range of house types and sizes and
tenures to meet the general and specialist housing needs set out in the JG Consulting Housing Assessment
2023. Persimmon Homes are of the view that the affordable mix of dwellings should be informed by the
Housing Market Assessment. With respect to market housing, Persimmon Homes recognise that a range of
house types need to be provided for within a development, however, are of the view that the mix of housing
should be dictated by the market where choice is a more fundamental factor as documented in the Housing
Market Assessment at page 172. Allowing for this flexibility will also allow for residential developments to
respond to local circumstances as it is clearly evident in the HMA 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.

Object

Representation ID: 8356

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Bowbridge Land Ltd

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy should consider factors which affect the most appropriate housing mix including, housing market evidence, economic conditions, viability and site-specific circumstances like character.
The requirement for all new housing sites to make provision for specialist housing across all tenures including extra care and other forms of supported housing is not viable.
It is also not clear whether the implications criteria a-d within this policy have been tested by the viability appraisal supporting the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 8443

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H4 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified and not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

This policy states that development proposals for sites of 10 or more dwellings should provide for a range of house types, sizes and tenures to meet the general and specialist needs for housing in Rutland. Table 4 sets out the proposed housing mix.

The HBF understands the need for a mix of house types, sizes and tenures and is generally supportive of providing a range and choice of homes to meet the needs of the local area. It is, however, important that any policy is workable and ensures that housing delivery will not be compromised or stalled due to overly prescriptive requirements, requiring a mix that does not consider the scale of the site or the need to provide significant amounts of additional evidence. The HBF would expect the Council to ensure that the policy is applied flexibly, and makes allowance for home builders to provide alternative housing mixes as is required by the market.

Object

Representation ID: 8497

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Allison Homes acknowledge the flexibility of Policy H4 allows for up-to-date evidence and site-specific circumstances to be considered over the plan period. However, it’s considered the final sentence of limb
(a) needs refining to acknowledge extra-care, and supported housing will not be required on developments of 10+ dwellings. This is unrealistic / impractical unless site-specific allocations require otherwise.

Object

Representation ID: 8528

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The overall requirement for major development to provide a range of housing types, sizes and tenures to meet local needs reflects the provisions of the NPPF (2023). It will be important that the housing mix required across the County is subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure it reflects up to date information and evidence of local needs.

Object

Representation ID: 8737

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst the need to provide a mix of housing types is understood the proposed 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.