Object

Representation ID: 6819

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Julie-anne Oakes

too many new houses have already been built in Rutland and the plan just seems to continue on this theme? There is no support infrastructure in terms of doctors and the situation is getting worse. For example the doctors surgery at Empingham has nearly 10k people registered because I understand the other surgeries are not good. 10k is far too many. Why can’t the other doctors surgeries be improved and patients moved to them?

I think that we are in danger of ruining Rutland with more houses etc and that does worry me.

Comments noted - These issues are considered under Policy H1.

Object

Representation ID: 6829

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Kate Parker

I note that the spatial strategy for new development requires “at least 123 dwellings per annum (2,460 over the 20-year period 2021-2041)” which is to be met by recent completions, existing commitments, allocated sites, windfall development and Opportunity Areas. I understand a 10% buffer is added to the assessed need for flexibility and market choice bringing the figure up to 2,706 but if one adds up completions, commitments, allocated sites, reserve sites, Opportunity Area and reasonable windfall development (as per withdrawn plan), one gets to 4,290 new dwellings (H1). There appears to be little justification for either that increase of some 175% of need or to support the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for this approach?

Comments noted - These issues are considered under Policy H1.

Object

Representation ID: 6935

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Norman Milne

I note that the spatial strategy for new development requires “at least 123 dwellings per annum (2,460 over the 20-year period 2021-2041)” which is to be met by recent completions, existing commitments, allocated sites, windfall development and Opportunity Areas. I understand a 10% buffer is added to the assessed need for flexibility and market choice bringing the figure up to 2,706 but if one adds up completions, commitments, allocated sites, reserve sites, Opportunity Area and reasonable windfall development (as per withdrawn plan), one gets to 4,290 new dwellings (H1). There appears to be little justification for either that increase of some 175% of need or to support the ‘exceptional circumstances’ for this approach?

Comments noted - These issues are considered under Policy H1.

Support

Representation ID: 6945

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Cristian Durant

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

Our client supports the hierarchical approach to growth and the allowance of some forms of development in smaller villages. However, limiting development in the smaller villages to “small scale redevelopment and infill opportunities only” could prevent sites that are practical,
sustainable, and could contribute to Rutland’s housing supply, from being permitted.

As such, the wording of this policy should be amended to “…development will be limited to small scale redevelopment, infill opportunities and rounding off development”. This would also tie in more closely with Policy SS4 which allows rounding off development.

Comment noted. Amend policy SS4 so that it applies to development on the edges of all defined settlements

Object

Representation ID: 6956

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Policy SS1 is plainly unsound for want of consistency with national planning policy. Sites outside of but adjoining built-up areas do not require anything approaching “exceptional circumstances” for release in circumstances of inadequate five year housing land supply or inadequate housing delivery. In fact, following the approach National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), a lack of a five year housing land supply or a deficiency of housing delivery to a particular level engages the presumption in favour of sustainable development which, as the term suggests, presumes that the site in question can come forward for development provided the adverse impacts do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and the NPPF itself does not indicate that development should be restricted. This limb of Policy SS1 should be reviewed accordingly and should adopt wording that conforms with national policy.

Agree. Remove the last paragraph of Policy SS1b) to remove reference to "exceptional circumstances"

Object

Representation ID: 6957

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Bowbridge Land Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

A 20-year period is supported. However we do not think this plan will provide this because of the time to adoption and the plan period start date. Our extensive experience of the local plan process suggests that the programme in Appendix 1 of the Local Development Scheme 2022-2025 (January 2023) is over ambiguous and allows for no unforeseen delays.
The plan on the date of adoption should make provision for a full 15 years of housing land.
This can be achieved either by extending the plan period to 23 years extending it to 2043; or by updating the start of the plan period to 2023 (for which data is available), with the same consequential effect that the plan runs to 2043 rather than 2041.

Comments noted however the LDS demonstrates that the plan should be adopted in 2026 and will have 15 years post adoption.

Object

Representation ID: 6973

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Stancliffe Homes Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

A 20-year period is supported. However we do not think this plan will provide this because of the time to adoption and the plan period start date. Our extensive experience of the local plan process suggests that the programme in Appendix 1 of the Local Development Scheme 2022-2025 (January 2023) is over ambiguous and allows for no unforeseen delays.
The plan on the date of adoption should make provision for a full 15 years of housing land.
This can be achieved either by extending the plan period to 23 years extending it to 2043; or by updating the start of the plan period to 2023 (for which data is available), with the same consequential effect that the plan runs to 2043 rather than 2041.

Comments noted however the LDS demonstrates that the plan should be adopted in 2026 and will have 15 years post adoption.

Support

Representation ID: 6974

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

The plan goes for a minimum number of houses for Rutland
The Quarry Farm site numbers (650 houses) are now included in the Rutland count, further reducing the need to build as many as specified in the previous draft.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 6996

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Whilst the Plan seeks to deliver housing needs (in numerical terms), it seems to do this almost in isolation to wider considerations, as we do not believe it effectively “plans” for other infrastructure needs to support the prosperity of existing communities, including improvements to health, social and cultural well-being.
Whilst the Plan correctly identifies that Oakham is the most sustainable location for new development, however only a moderate amount of housing growth is directed to Oakham (16% of the total identified supply) and even then, it is “just housing” with no additional facilities or services to serve new or existing communities. This, in our view, lacks foresight and ambition for what should be a positively planned strategy for growth, for the most sustainable location in the County, over the next 18+ years.
The Plan should look to maximise opportunities for delivering truly sustainable development which meets more than just housing needs, with a focus on how Oakland (as the County Town) can positively grow over the forthcoming Plan period and beyond. We consider the approach currently proposed will not do this and an alternative strategy, including considering additional sites, should be more proactively and positively considered.

The plan makes provision for housing and employment development identified to meet the needs of the County to 2041. This includes appropriate provision of infrastructure to support this growth. A detailed Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be published alongside the Regulation 19 consultation plan which will set out the detailed infrastructure needed to support development

Object

Representation ID: 6997

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Cavendish Gospel Hall Trust

Agent: Andrew Beard Planning

It is noticeable that Policy SS1 spatial strategy refers only to housing and employment, so it should be made clear that new churches should not be expected solely to be within planning limits of development.

NPPF 2023 Paragraph 89. Should be clearly reflected in the policy wording or text.

Comments noted. Community facilities are adequately addressed in Policy SC6.

Object

Representation ID: 7007

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Exeter Court 1 Limited

Agent: Freeths LLP

There are a significant number of villages within the ‘larger’ category that are not sustainable for future growth. There is a significant disparity between the size of the larger villages with Cottesmore having a population of 3,100 (and the next five villages all in excess of 1000) and Lyddington, Manton, Belton, Morcott and Wing, all under 400 dwellings. The inclusion of an expanded larger village tier within the hierarchy will lead to unsustainable developments where housing will come forward in settlements that are unable to support their needs.
On this basis, the approach to the classification of settlements within the hierarchy is unjustified and will lead to unsustainable development.
Our client therefore objects to Policy SS1. The settlement hierarchy should be reviewed, along with the locations where new residential development is to be allocated. It is imperative that the Local Plan seeks to promote sustainable development in appropriate locations, and it is therefore recommended that additional development is allocated in the highly sustainable market town of Oakham.

Comments noted. The proposed approach to the settlement hierarchy is considered to be appropriate for Rutland. Proposed housing allocations have been selected to provide a range of site sizes and locations to ensure that there is a choice to the market whilst allowing for an appropriate scale development in both the towns and the villages.

Support

Representation ID: 7019

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

We support policy SS1 at point a) that directs the majority of new development be ‘within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) of Oakham (and Barleythorpe) and Uppingham, and on land adjacent to Stamford (which lies within South Kesteven District adjoining the County boundary)’ and that ‘This will be met by allocated sites and through windfall sites within the planned limits of Development’.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 7025

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Oakham South Action Group

To build on the field south of Brooke Road would be to fly in the face of this policy as there are no
exceptional circumstances. The opposite is true. The site was rejected in the last iteration of the
Draft Local as there is no capacity on the road for more vehicles as the highway issues have been
accepted as having a ‘severe’ impact (see further below).

Comments noted, site details considered under Policy H1

Support

Representation ID: 7054

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Severn Trent

Severn Trent have not completed any site-by-site assessments of the sewerage network at this stage.

It noted that Policy SS1 will permit development of sites within the Planned Limits of Development for the Larger Villages of Langham and Whissendine which also fall within the Severn Trent region. Please ensure that Severn Trent are consulted as growth plans evolve in these villages.

Water Resources
We are satisfied that the proposed housing growth included in the IDP has been accounted for in our draft WRMP. This allows us to forecast the additional water demand and meet the demand in the wider Water resource zone.

It is noted that the St George’s Barracks Opportunity area has been included within Policy SS5. This site has previously been included within our draft WRMP to ensure that we can meet the additional growth that such a large development would bring.

Support noted. We will continue to work with Severn Trent Water through the IDP and future development of the evidence base to ensure development can be supported by infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 7070

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr James Preston

The spatial strategy for new development requires “at least 123 dwellings per annum (2460 over the 20-year period 2021-2041)” which is to be met by allocated sites and windfall in Towns and Larger Villages. The evidence base notes “the need to continue to focus development in the larger, better served locations” for the forecast need of 2,460 but the actual allocation quantum provides for 3,934 dwellings (197 dpa). The calculations for the housing need are in the HMA, driven by in-migration and using the 2014-based household projections, the resultant household growth is 1,860 (93 dpa) which was increased by 32% to enhance affordability to give the 2,460 units (123 dpa). The evidence does not set out any convincing grounds to adjust the standard method to account for “exceptional circumstances”. The forthcoming revision to using 2021-based household projections is likely to reduce projected household growth. The 2014-based projections expected the population to grow by 8% to 2021 but it only grew by 6.6%. They also expected households to grow at a faster rate (by 10.5%) than the population than they actually did by 2021 (by 6.2%). Hence, I object to the forecast need as being unsound.

Comments noted - These issues are considered under Policy H1.

Support

Representation ID: 7084

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Peterborough Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Andrew Granger & Co

The direction of Policy SS 1 is supported in principle, identifying Uppingham as one of the main sites for new development.

However, we consider that the proposed housing delivery of at least 123 dwellings per annum would result in an under provision of housing compared with the current average annual level of new housing and the underlying level of demand.

The withdrawn Local Plan had proposed a new garden village at St Georges Barracks (Edith Weston) for up to 2,300 dwellings. Whilst this site has been withdrawn from consideration, the original version of the Plan had clearly identified a need for the additional 2,300 dwellings (in addition to other growth identified across the rest of the county).

The housing numbers proposed in Policy SS1 therefore should be uplifted to reflect the reality of the situation.

We submit that the capacity for windfall sites within the Planned Limits of Development at Uppingham is extremely limited and that additional allocated development sites outside the current PLD will be required.

Comments noted - the housing requirement of 123 per annum will be considered separately as part of Policy H1.

Object

Representation ID: 7099

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Policy SS1 – Spatial strategy for new development states “Proposals for housing development on greenfield sites adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of Oakham and Barleythorpe, Uppingham and the Larger Villages will only be released in exceptional circumstances where it is demonstrated that they are needed to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land.” This demonstrates that North Stamford has been singled out as being distinct in terms of the use of greenfield land when compared to the only two towns actually located in Rutland. Why is the green field land North of Stamford considered to be appropriate and needed to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land, where greenfield areas adjacent to Oakham and Uppingham are not?

The Local Plan includes both Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) and the inclusion of St George's Barracks as a Future Opportunity Area. It is not a choice of one or the other,. The timescales for delivery are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of St George's Barracks and therefore forms a fundamental plank of the Spatial Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 7142

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Policy SS1 would benefit from a cross reference to policy H1 which sets out which sites are proposed for residential development. Whilst not repeating the list, it would be helpful for the reader to understand where they can find further detail of the sites that will form part of the Spatial Strategy.

The housing requirement generated by the Standard method will need to be kept under review prior to the publication of the next iteration of the Local Plan and progress will need to be made in a timely manner to ensure the Local Plan will have a 15-year life span from adoption.

Comments noted. Agree to include a cross reference to policy H1 and to policy E1 in policy SS1 part a) and b).
Agree housing requirement will need to reflect publication of changes to the requirement using the standard methodology.

Support

Representation ID: 7157

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr D Young

Agent: Mair Land & Planning Consultants Ltd

On behalf of our landowner client, we support the proposed strategy as set out in Policy SS1. The
Smaller Villages and Hamlets have a role to play in delivering new homes, which will support local
services and ensure a mix and variety of new homes are delivered throughout the County.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 7163

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes (Greetham) Limited

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

We recommend either a) Change the start of the plan period to 2023, maintain a 20 year plan period so the end
date of the plan is 2043; or b) Extend the plan period to 23 years so the end date of plan is 2043.

In full accordance with the PPG it is recommended that the housing requirement is increased to the average rate of 185 dpa. This is at the top of the range of demographically led projections in the HMA but falls significantly short of the level of housing needed to support the economic policy of the Regulation 18 Plan and as such the proposed housing provision should be adjusted upwards.

Therefore:
a) Policy SS1 should be amended to reflect the level of employment land being proposed
in Policy E1
b) As above, the level of housing should be increased to that which will support the level of employment growth that is being pursued. At a minimum this should be at least 185 dwellings per annum (dpa).

Reword Policy to: “Proposals for housing development on greenfield sites adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of Oakham and Barleythorpe, Uppingham and the Larger Villages will only be released where it is demonstrated that they are needed to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land.”.

Comments noted. The matter of housing need and requirement is considered in detail under Policy H1

Object

Representation ID: 7176

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

The Rutland Housing Market Assessment (HMA) trend-based projections conclude that household growth will be expected to deliver between 124 and 167 units per annum. The key message concluded in the overall housing need section of the HMA that the Standard Method housing need should be considered by the (Rutland) Council as very much a minimum figure, with the majority of the rigorously assessed projections pointing to a higher figure. This has not been sufficiently demonstrated in both the overall housing need (and affordable housing need) assessment, and consequently, in the finalised requirement figure in Policy SS1.

As stated above, it is our view that the affordable housing requirement that has been taken into account to formulate the overall annual need figure in Policy SS1, is too low.

Encourage RCC to reconsider the rationale behind the statement regarding those already in housing, not adding to a net need of affordable housing.

The annual average completions figure for Rutland over the period of 2011-2022 was 184 units per annum, with the past five year average only just falling slightly below this, at 172 units per annum. The supply has almost consistently exceeded the standard method figure given in Policy SS1. One option for this is to increase the provision of affordable housing, as per the identified need.

Comments noted. The matter of housing need and requirement is considered in detail under Policy H1

Object

Representation ID: 7190

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

The annual housing requirement of 123 dwellings, would result in a level of housing delivery which is lower than the current 160 dwellings per annum. There is considered to be an existing and pressing local need for housing in many areas of Rutland. It is therefore suggested that the proposed housing delivery of 123 dwellings per annum should be expressed as a minimum requirement.

It’s also considered that the PLDs should be amended to accurately reflect the sites proposed for allocation in ongoing Neighbourhood Plan Reviews i.e. Uppingham.

Comments regarding the housing requirement are considered separately under policy H1

Any necessary changes to PLDs arising from the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan (and other Neighbourhood Plans currently going through the statutory process ) will be changed once those plans have been "made"

Object

Representation ID: 7206

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Silverley Properties Ltd

Agent: Turley

The proposed development strategy for Rutland directs only a small level of growth in comparison is directed to the Larger Villages and smaller villages and hamlets. Some villages are in close proximity to the main settlements of the District and have a range of services themselves while benefiting from close proximity to employment and other facilities offered by the larger settlements. Ryhall is one such settlement.

Silverley are therefore of the view that the Council should look to deliver a greater number of smaller allocations to ensure that there is a supply of housing that can be built out sooner within the plan period while ensuring that by bringing forward smaller sites, the character of the village is retained. The site in Ryhall is one such site which would deliver a small number of dwellings, and could be built out relatively quickly, particularly as there are no undue physical constraints on development.

Comments noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7236

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Phil Skipper

The plan should actively prioritise the change of use of commercial properties on the Oakham high street. Creating a market town that reverts to being a place where people live, as well as work and shop has been proven to create a more vibrant sustainable living environment. To preserve our town we need to create a regional loyalty and convenience that can challenge on line buying that generates no local value.

If I look back 10 years Oakham was bustling and unique and I understand the effects of on line shopping, Covid etc have changed the game and this is about the future, but Rutland has a real opportunity to lead the way in the re-invention of the market town high street to drive employment, reduce the need for speculative green field development and create the culture and sense of community that is being eroded as Oakham bleeds out through the plethora of distributed and generic housing estates.

The plan includes policies which would support proposals for the change of use of commercial properties in the town centre to alternative uses which support the vitality and viability of our town centres, Policy E10, however it is not the role of the Local Plan to specify the change of use of individual premises.

Object

Representation ID: 7279

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Hugh C Palmer

The NPPF expressly removes the requirement for’ extra housing need’ and ‘reserve sites’ in calculating the housing requirements for Rutland.
As per NPPF 19/12/23 - Local plans at Examination, Reg 18 or Reg 19 stage ….and proposed allocations towards meeting housing need, only have to demonstrate a 4 year housing supply (as opposed to 5 years) for a period of 2 years for decision making purposes”
The housing needs for the County have been artificially boosted to unrealistic levels.
The Housing Proposals and Policies are unjustified and unacceptable

Comments noted, it is recognized that Rutland currently falls under the provisions of paragraph 226 of the 2023 NPPF and that only a 4 year housing land supply is currently required, however the Local Plan covers a 20 year period during which it will be expected to ensure that a rolling supply of housing land is available to meet 5 years across the whole plan period. The housing requirement will be considered separately under policy H1

Object

Representation ID: 7340

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The figure of 123 dpa is Rutland’s Local Housing Need (LHN) figure calculated using the Standard Method. The PPG advises that upward adjustment to the LHN may also be considered in situations where previous levels of delivery in an area, or previous assessments of need (such as recently produced Strategic Housing Market Assessments) are significantly greater than the outcome from the standard method. Relatedly, local planning authorities should also consider through their evidence base whether the overall housing requirement will deliver sufficient new homes to meet identified needs for affordable housing arising over the plan period. Previous assessments of need and housing delivery have been significantly greater than suggested by the LHN and this provides a compelling reason for an upward adjustment to the housing trajectory.
Any consideration of an upward adjustment to the LHN is absent from the local plan itself. If this is not rectified then the local plan as adopted will be unsound for want of justification given that its housing requirement is out of step with the evidence base.

Comments noted. The matter of housing need and requirement is considered in detail under Policy H1

Object

Representation ID: 7348

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The proposed housing requirement is based on the standard method of LHN. The draft Local Plan is clear that this is a ‘minimum figure’ and it should be considered ‘if it is reasonable and possible to exceed the Standard Method’. Indeed the NPPF is clear the standard method should determine the ‘minimum’ number of homes needed.

The Housing Market Assessment established ‘household growth of around 124-167 per annum’, therefore concludes that ‘the Standard Method housing need should be considered by the Council as very much a minimum figure with a range of different projections typically pointing to a higher figure’.

Figure 3 of the HMA highlights that there is a net estimated need for 78 affordable housing units per annum across the Plan period.

Policy H7 of the draft Local Plan proposes a 30% affordable housing threshold for developments of 10 or more dwellings. This would equate to the delivery of only 37 affordable housing units per annum across the Plan period based on the LHN. To deliver the required level of affordable housing provision per annum across the Plan period there would need to be the delivery of 260 residential units per annum.

Location of growth

As per our representation response to Q13 of the Issues and Options consultation, this approach to growth is broadly supported as it seeks to assign the majority
of growth to the market towns of Oakham and Uppingham.

Ensuring an adequate supply of housing sites in and around Oakham and Uppingham, including medium
sites (particularly in single ownership such as ‘Land south of Stamford Road’ (ref. H1.3) and ‘Land at
Uppingham Road’ that can be delivered quickly), will be important to meet and respond to local housing
needs.

Comments noted. The matter of housing need and requirement is considered in detail under Policy H1

Object

Representation ID: 7388

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Morcott Parish Council

We strongly object to the re-classification of the spatial strategy utilising just two categories, i.e. Large Village and Small Village, which we think inadequately reflects the real-life grouping of Rutland’s villages and contains unanticipated consequences for those villages such as Morcott which are of “Medium” size rather than “Smaller” or “Larger”. We request that more thought is put into the spatial strategy so that it actively aids preservation of the character of Rutland.
The inappropriate wording in Policy SS4 strengthens the need for a “Medium” size of village in the spatial strategy so that the implications and consequences of Policy SS4 can be thought through and defined with more clarity and better reflecting the range of different sizes of Village currently found within Rutland.

The proposed approach is considered to be an appropriate for the scale of villages in Rutland. Under the current adopted plan there is little difference in policy terms between what is acceptable development in Local Service Centres and Smaller Service Centres, other than where sites are allocated. Combining the two categories in policy SS1 reflects the existing similarities in terms of policy. Therefore although the classification of Morcott has changed from a Small Service Centre to a Larger Village the policy for development within the PLD has not changed.

The removal of PLDs from smaller villages actually provides them with greater protection from development as they become classed as countryside. Clarification of this

Policy SS4 will be considered separately

Object

Representation ID: 7420

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

The policy wording in relation to Reserve Sites needs to be changed, because the current wording defeats the purpose of including Reserve Sites in the plan. The whole purpose of Reserve Sites is to build flexibility into the plan. They are sites that can be released through planning application if the adopted strategy is not delivering the number of homes planned for. However, the current policy wording only allows for these sites to be released through the review of the Local Plan, which defeats the purpose of identifying these sites in the first place and provides no flexibility to respond positively to a shortfall in housing delivery due to the time it takes to review the plan.

It is our view that Policy SS1 needs to be redrafted. Our preference is that the Reserve Sites such as the Site at Glebe Road are included as allocation in the plan in order that sufficient flexibility is built into the plan from day one. However, if the Council chose to proceed with Reserve Sites, then the policy wording should be changed to allow for the sites to be released through planning applications should the delivery of homes fall short of what is planned/predicted.

We support the identification of Uppingham as a Market Town, which is reflective of its scale and the services and facilities it has to offer. Housing here will help sustain these facilities and provide new homes for local people who wish to stay in the town.


The wording of Policy SS1 is not consistent with the allocations currently proposed in the draft document. Policy SS1 states that “most new development will be focused within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) of Oakham and Uppingham”. Notwithstanding the
fact that we consider the PLD for Uppingham should be altered through the local plan review to deliver the final number of homes it is identified to deliver, at the current time the draft plan does not alter the PLD of Uppingham and leaves this for the Neighbourhood Plan. If this is to
remain the case, then the wording of Policy SS1 should be updated to reflect this.

Reserve sites will not be included in the Regulation 19 plan they were included in the draft plan to ensure that the plan had flexibility to account for some sites falling out following consultation and to ensure that the final plan had sufficient sites to meet the final housing requirement which will be established by the Reg 19 plan.

Scale of housing development included in Uppingham reflects the proposals of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan (UNP) which will make the allocations for the town. Should the UNP be made before the Local Plan is adopted, the Policies Map will be updated to reflect allocations within the UNP and the PLD will be amended accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 7527

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Bowbridge Land Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

In full accordance with the PPG it is recommended that the housing requirement is increased to the average rate of 185 dpa. This is at the top of the range of demographically led projections in the HMA but falls significantly short of the level of housing needed to support the economic policy of the Reg18 plan and as such is likely to be required to be adjusted upwards.

Comments noted. The matter of housing need and requirement is considered in detail under Policy H1