Object

Representation ID: 8190

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Healthwatch Rutland

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The requirement to meet the accessibility standards for M4(2) is laudable as an ambition but is not yet mandatory. It is further weakened by the statement ‘unless by exception only, where M4(2) is impractical or unachievable’, which would seem to present a potential loophole for developers. Achieving M4(2) standards would allow people with disabilities to remain in their own homes and live more independently for longer. We would like to see the requirement to meet M4(2) standards strengthened to remove the opportunity for evasion by property developers.
M4(3) stipulates that homes should be of wheelchair-accessible standard. The national average for wheelchair-dependent occupants is 3.4%. With the current high average age in Rutland and the projected increase in older people, we do not understand the target of 2% of dwellings meeting this standard and only on sites of more than 50 dwellings. This would seem to be overlooking the potential growth in the number of people who will need such accommodation in order to live as independently as possible for as long as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 8326

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Paragraph 4 of this policy relates to the provision of M4(3) dwellings. Given that the Whole Plan Viability
Assessment (2023) was undertaken on the basis of M4(3)a dwellings, Persimmon Homes are of the view this is specified in the policy. The cost of providing M4(3)b dwellings is significantly greater and the viability
implications of this have not been considered as part of the Whole Plan Viability Assessment 2023 or the
Regulation 19 Viability Note – September 2024.

Object

Representation ID: 8360

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Bowbridge Land Ltd

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Requirements in respects of M4 (2) should be deleted as it is not justified by evidence and duplicates Building Regulations.

The policy needs to provide caveats in respect of M4(3) to take account of site-specific factors such as vulnerability to flooding, site topography and any other circumstances that would prevent step free access.

Object

Representation ID: 8418

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Grangers Land and New Homes

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy H5 mandates that all new dwellings must be adaptable and accessible per Building Regulations M4(2), with exceptions only if impractical. For sites with 50+ dwellings, at least 2% must meet M4(3). Viability is not an excuse for non-compliance with M4(2), though it affects site delivery. The Regulation 19 Viability Note (Sept 2024) states that the increased M4(3) requirement adds modest costs but may cause viability issues due to unforeseen expenses.

Object

Representation ID: 8444

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The requirement to meet M4(2) is not necessary as the Government is altering Building Regulations to make this a national requirement. The policy outlines the requirement for all new homes to be adaptable and accessible, unless the M4(2) standard is impractical. It also suggests providing convenient external access, parking, and storage facilities for mobility scooters. A minimum of 2% of dwellings on site of 50 or more dwellings must meet the M4(3) standard. The government plans to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. The HBF supports providing homes suitable for older and disabled people, but recommends applying the criteria set out in the PPG. The Council must provide a local assessment justifying the inclusion of the M4(3) standards in its Plan policy. The HBF does not supports the inclusion of the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) in Rutland at this time (clear from para. 45 of attachment). Distinction should be made between the viability of M4(3)(a) and the more expensive M4(3)(b) standard.

Object

Representation ID: 8529

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 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 requirements set for dwellings to meet M4(3) standards is based on an up to date evidence of local housing needs. The Housing Market Assessment states in para. 42 that there may be some offsetting with regards to M4(3) need and care homes and possible conversion of existing stock.

Object

Representation ID: 8566

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H5, as worded, acts to restrict otherwise sustainable development where viability impacts occur in conflict with NPPF paragraph 16a and should be revised.

Object

Representation ID: 8570

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H5, as worded, acts to restrict otherwise sustainable development where viability impacts occur in conflict with NPPF paragraph 16a and should be revised.

Object

Representation ID: 8576

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Davidsons Development Ltd

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H5, as worded, acts to restrict otherwise sustainable development where viability impacts occur in conflict with NPPF paragraph 16a and should be revised

Object

Representation ID: 8702

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst the DIO are supportive of the delivery of accessible
new homes, we do not support the inclusion of the Policy within the Local Plan, as it remains an optional requirement under the current Building Regulations. Where evidence cannot be provided to justify the requirement for all new dwellings to be M4(2) compliant then this policy should be deleted. This approach is not justified and should be removed to ensure that the plan is found sound.

Object

Representation ID: 8738

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy H5 duplicates Building Regulations and should be deleted. The government is reviewing the Building Regulations and this is the appropriate route for introducing new standards.