Object

Representation ID: 6592

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Policy H1 includes a list of reserve sites which are all on greenfield land. The DIO does not support this approach and believe the Council should consider the available supply of brownfield sites in the area including St George's Barracks. This is particularly relevant considering Reserve Site H1.b – Land North of Pennine Drive, Edith Weston, which has been identified for 84 dwellings. This site is located to the immediate north of the St George’s Barracks main site. The DIO believe development of this land would be contrary to national policy and the strategic objectives of the draft Local Plan.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6694

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Abbey Developments

Agent: CMYK Planning Ltd

This policy misses the opportunity to allocate or allow for the development of the unused parcels at Harrier Close, Cottesmore to provide an additional 15 units.

This plan is leaving Harrier Close as an enclave of existing development adjacent to but not included within Kendrew Barracks (policy SS6) but benefitting from all the facilities on the barracks and also not part of the Cottesmore Planned Limits of Development. This means is it a large area of residential development within the open countryside which does not reflect its true situation.

The council should recognise this and allocate the unused parcels at Harrier Close to provide approximately 15 dwellings towards the council’s housing land supply. This would then follow the council’s strategic objective 9 of making efficient use of unused land.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 6766

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We support the allocation of residential developments as laid out in Policy H1 and in particular the sites proposed for Larger Villages with 184 dwellings allocated against the 153 required

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 6899

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Richard Camp

The Local Plan should require that Local Planning Authority decisions approving the development of multiple dwellings in Rutland should be accompanied by evidence justifying the number of dwellings by showing that adequate local employment is available, that the development will not lead to significantly increased commuting out of county by car, and that local essential services will be able effectively to accommodate the resulting local population increase.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6937

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Sheriff

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

The emerging local plan’s housing requirement has been based on Rutland’s LHN calculated using the Standard Method despite the PPG’s clear advice that the Standard Method does not produce a housing requirement figure. There is also a clear indication from the emerging local plan’s own evidence base (namely the 2023 SHMA) that there are several compelling reasons to plan for above the minimum figure. This is not, however, reflected in the emerging local plan’s housing requirement and it is suggested, consistent with the evidence base underpinning the Local Plan, that the LHN suggest that the current figure of 123 dwellings per annum should be increased to 190 dwellings per annum.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6958

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Draft Policy H1 identifies sites for residential development at Oakham, Uppingham, adjacent to Stamford and within the larger villages including a number as reserve sites. Whilst we agree that the larger villages should play a role in facilitating growth needs, there does not seem to be a discernible approach to the apportionment of growth in each village in that the sustainability credentials of the settlements bear little relation to the level of housing growth planned for. T

The pattern of rural growth envisaged by the emerging local plan will not be sustainable, as it is not being directed to the largest and most sustainable rural settlements as a priority, but rather smaller rural settlements which will generate car dependency. That approach is not in line with the NPPF or the achievement of sustainable development in general.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6959

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Silverwood Farms Ltd.

Number of people: 2

We would request that site MAR01 site ID 315 also be included as suitable development, as this site, in a robust assessment which was carried out for the now withdrawn Local Plan Review (Dec 2019) this site was considered suitable for development and we cannot see why this situation has changed.
As far as landscape sensitivity is concerned suitable design to dwellings could be introduced to keep them in line with the existing housing structures opposite the site(red brick terraced cottages).
The development would be an extension to a row of 1950's built council houses which do not have any great architectural merit, with natural cut off point at Ironstone Lane which is entrance to Market Overton Industrial Estate .

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 6969

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Marrons is promoting Land West of Ashwell Road, Whissendine (REF WHI 13) and fundamentally disagree with the statement that the site is poorly related to the settlement. The subject site adjoins a high-density pattern of residential development to the north which is visible in the site’s backdrop along Ashwell Road. It has well developed natural features including mature field boundaries and a wide agricultural access track containing the site to the south, which could be further bolstered through structural landscaping. Whilst the development immediately to the west extending south from The Nook is more sporadic, it contains a number of buildings and a mature tree-belt which contain the subject site to the west. Overall, development of the subject site for housing would be well contained by existing built and natural features and would be clearly read as a logical extension to the settlement. To suggest otherwise, is inaccurate and contradicts the Council’s own assessment of the site found elsewhere in the emerging local plan’s evidence base.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 6979

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

Support no allocation for houses for Greetham except on the reserve list.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7018

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Stephanie Palfreeman

Old Mill Ryhall.
1. A professional flood risk assessment was done of the Old Mill Site 12 years ago and no flood risk was identified. The recent high rain fall has caused floods around some of the other areas that have been proposed for housing but none of the Old Mill site has flooded and we have full evidence to prove this.
2. Lots of housing sites in Ryhall are on the old floodplain but again the old Mill is not a flood risk as the risk assessment shows this. The rest of Ryhall and the housing would flood before the Old Mill site.
3. We have owned the Old Mill site for 15 years and it has never flooded.
4. Flooding can’t be the reason for excluding this site for development less

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7040

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: B J Green

We write to strongly object to all future housing developments that exceed 25 houses per site. Rutland is the smallest County and renowned for its rural beauty.

There is no need or justification for the large disproportionate urban expansion of Rutland. There are not the Job vacancies, amenities, infrastructure, public transport or Health facilities to service the current residents.

Yes, Rutland will need more housing as the future unfolds but it should be kept to an even spread across the county in a manner which is an enhancement to Rutland.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7092

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mark Ferguson Limited

Agent: RDC Limited

Our site at 'Land of Pinfold Lane, South Luffenham' should be included as one of the allocated sites within this Policy.

It is suitable for 28 dwellings, has appropriate access and is available now. It is outside the PLD.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7093

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Wilkin

Edith Weston is a classic rural village community with many stone-built houses and is adjacent to the very special Rutland Water. Its uniqueness needs to be preserved and indeed enhanced.
The future housing needs of Rutland are acknowledged to be low (123 houses per year) and as noted should be largely concentrated mainly in the towns of Oakham and Uppingham.
Any additional houses in Edith Weston, on the Officers Mess site, should be appropriately low, maximum of 53, and absolutely none on land north of Pennine Drive. This last area being used to enhance the special nature of Rutland Water and used to improve the environment and be eco beneficial.
Any additional housing in Edith Weston, needs to be required to be of a high standard, and stone built to complement the village.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7137

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Oakham Action Group

I write to you to correct several errors and oversights with respect to site BAE01 in the "Site Allocation Assessment Appendix B Main Towns (October 2023)" [Site Allocations Assessment] document in respect of the following areas:

A. National Ecology Designations / Environmental Impact
B. BAP Priority Habitat
C. Best and Most versatile Land
D. Accessibility RAG status and distances to bus stops / rail station / cycle route

The recent planning inquiry relating to site BAE01 created a number of expert documents and statutory evidence that provides the latest up to date information from which to score and grade the suitability of BAE01 for future development.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7154

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Silverley Properties Ltd

Agent: Turley

SHLAA RYH10: Land to the rear of Hilltop Cottage, Essendine Road, Ryhall.

The site has been scored 'red’ as Logical Extension to Settlement. However, the logical extension assessment states that if the site is edged on 1 or 2 sides then it is assessed as being ‘amber’. Furthermore, development has taken place to the south of the Site which has incrementally resulted in the village extending northwards.
Moreover, the presence of the existing commercial premises, which is flanked by two residential properties, to the north, whilst separated from the Site by a wedged shaped field does mean there is a not inconsiderable built up area beyond the Site. The proposal Site would neatly ‘fill in’ the next logical northern extension of the village.
It is therefore considered that the issues identified by the Council in their assessment as being ‘amber’ would not prohibit the allocation and eventual development of the site. Indeed, as set out above it is considered that the scoring needs to be adjusted to take into account factors which the Council have overlooked, and factual errors. All of these issues can be dealt with through the provision of additional information to a planning application

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7162

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Ms S Morris

Agent: Mair Land & Planning Consultants Ltd

We propose that the subject site detailed in the accompanying map, off Knossington Road, is allocated within the Local Plan under Policy H1, as a residential development site for two dwellings. The site benefits from direct access from Knossington Road, where a safe and suitable access can be delivered and there are no further technical constraints precluding development of the site. We consider that the site represents an appropriate, available, achievable and deliverable development opportunity.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7165

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes (Greetham) Limited

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

The overall level of allocations is almost amatch to the minimum level housing provision advised by the Standard Method 2706 (123 x 20 plus 10%). In light of the past rates of completions and the impact of the Council’s economic strategy the level of housing to be planned for should be substantially above the minimum requirement.

The total level of housing to be planned for should be amended as follows taking into account the recommended extended time period suggested:
a) 185 dpa x 23 (to take the plan to 2043) plus 10%.
The consequentially results in:
b) a total to be allocated of 4,680 dwellings (203dpa)

The Regulation 18 Plan does not contain a trajectory to demonstrate that the allocations will be delivered in a timely manner to meet the level of housing required to support the Council’s economic strategy.

Land at Greetham Quarry should be an allocation. Part of this site has been granted permission for 30 dwellings. This site was included in the “Site Allocations Assessment Larger Villages Appendix C” as site GRE11 Greetham Quarry. This Report simply dismissed the site on the following grounds:
“Site is not adjacent to a village with PLD, not passed stage 2 screening.”
This assessment predates the issue of planning permission and therefore cannot take into account the fact that the land between the PLD and this part of the Quarry is now to be developed as Phase 1 of Greetham Quarry.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7169

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Kate Wood

I have previously submitted the above site through your Call for Sites process. ID 2644. The site was not assessed through the SHLAA assessment process, presumably because it was screened out at stage 2 by not being in a larger village.

If the council is to acknowledge that some small scale development should take place in smaller villages through policy SS4, then it should be assessing the sites that have been put forward through the Call For Sites process, not least to get an idea of the level of availability of suitable
sites.
In terms of Proposed Policy SS4, the proposed
development would appear to comply with all of the criteria, depending on the definitions of character and form.

It is therefore disappointing that the site has not been subject to the SHLAA Assessment process as a genuine option for consideration, despite complying with emerging Policy SS4. We would request that full assessment takes place for all submitted sites, not just those within larger
villages.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7178

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

It is the view that Langham is one of the most sustainable Large Villages in the region. Langham has the capabilities to accommodate some of this identified affordable housing need.

Langham has one of the highest sustainability credentials out of the Large Villages, which, in line with our comments to both increase the minimum requirement figure to 3,340 (167 per annum), and to fill the identified affordable need in the region, proves to be a logical location to direct growth. PHEM wish to take the opportunity as part of this Regulation 18 consultation response, to initially present a site in Langham to assist in our comments regarding this policy, and Policy SS1, regarding increasing delivery in both the minimum figure in the local plan.

The site in Langham is located on the northern side of Cold Overton Road and could form an extension to the already approved outline consent for up to 50 dwellings (2021/1423/MAO). It was concluded as part of the consideration of 2021/1423/MAO that the site is located in a sustainable location within the village and the same vehicular access could be shared with the site put forward. Furthermore, with existing vegetation in place, the proposed site would be well screened from Cold Overton Road.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7191

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

Policy H1 states that 316 dwellings are to be allocated through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan. AH supports the overall allocation of dwellings to Uppingham, however believes the Local Plan should also identify these supported allocations rather than relying on the adoption of the neighbourhood plan review.

AH control land off Ayston Road, Uppingham. This benefits from a draft allocation in the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan Review (ref. U-HA2) for the development of up to 40 dwellings plus a commercial / food store (equating to 13 dph). AH believe circa 70 no. new dwellings plus a commercial / food store is deliverable on the site – resulting in a more efficient use of land in accordance with the NPPF.
Currently, Policy U-HA2 and Policy H1 are contradictory, with the proposed allocation suggesting a considerably lower density than the target stated in adopted and emerging Policy H1 (25 dph).

Furthermore, AH believe the overall requirement of 316 dwellings delegated to Uppingham should be increased given the uncertainty surrounding the two proposed “longer-term” Neighbourhood Plan allocations. Sites U-HA4 and U-HA5 are reliant on primary vehicular access over third party land and are potentially undeliverable in the plan period due to delivery and ransom constraints.

As such, the proposed indicative housing supply for Uppingham should be either increased or specified as a minimum figure.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7200

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Lawson

I don't understand why Edith Weston also gets additional
sites for future housing way in excess of the needs of the county as a whole. How does the rest of the county support this and the slightly wider area close to Rutland.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7239

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Policy H1 would benefit form clarity as to how the total housing requirement will be delivered, linking to Table 4.

The overall distribution of development is generally supported, but any future amendments should not reduce the quantum of development directed to Oakham as this would undermine the sustainability of the Local Plan.

We note that the 650 dwellings at Quarry Farm, on the edge of Stamford, were originally identified in the South Kesteven Local Plan as delivering part of the need of South Kesteven (South Kesteven Local Plan, Paragraph 2.16). We therefore have some concern that there is an element of double counting in the land supply positions that the Council will need to cover off in moving the Local Plan forward to examination.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7272

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Clayton

Table 4 mentions 1347 houses allocated but 123 dwellings p.a. is excessive and more than this total until 2041.
The style and plans are vital involving adequate parking. Can Rutland support the number of houses allocated? There does not appear to be sufficient infrastructure at present.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7291

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The Local Plan sets out a minimum housing need of 2,460 new houses over the plan period, but does not set out the housing requirement as required by the NPPF and PPG. As part of this, and given the small identified need of 123 homes / year and the relatively small number of sites to be allocated, a much higher buffer than 5% is required to ensure choice and to ensure that sufficient housing will actually be delivered to meet the need.

Housing Strategy
The Draft Local Plan includes allocations of less than 10 dwellings. A number of proposed allocations are not evidentially deliverable.

Land South West of Belmesthorpe Lane, Ryhall (H1.7) is stated to be brownfield but is greenfield.

In the absence of evidence to suggest that an uplift in affordable housing on a site-by-site basis would be viable, the Council should adopt the higher annual requirement of 190dpa, as described by Option 3 of the Issues and Options draft, to provide certainty of both a sufficient supply of affordable housing over the plan period as well as a variety of house types and tenures to meet market demand.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7294

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton and Tinwell Joint Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

We are pleased that there have been no further sites allocated within our Neighbourhood Plan area. Our Neighbourhood Plan policies (KT 11 and KT 12) relating to development made it very clear that the Plan area had seen more than its fair share in recent years.

However we are disappointed to see that all the reserve sites mentioned are greenfield. Should the unfortunate situation come to pass that more housing delivery was required to be identified, this would represent an unacceptable sprawl out of the larger villages. We would argue that an increased focus on urban brownfield sites and the concept of building ‘up’ rather than ‘out’ (i.e. blocks rather than individual dwellings in an urban context) would help avoid what would otherwise be a constant erosion of the rural character of the county.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7317

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

The NPPG is clear that Standard Method is a ‘starting point’ for a district’s housing requirement and there are a few factors which should be taken into account when considering whether this figure should be increased - including the need to provide a range of choice of sites, the need for flexibility, viability considerations and whether higher levels of open market housing are required in order to secure increased delivery of affordable housing.

If the Council are to meet the Vision for providing the ‘minimum’ amount of affordable and market housing, then at least the higher position from the 2019 SHMA should be taken, which is 190 dwellings, with a 10% contingency.
Council also needs to set out clear intentions and guidance on how housing delivery is to be effectively monitored so that if there is a delay to delivery can address any shortfall as soon as possible.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7336

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

We are concerned regarding the inconsistent and contradictory assessment provided of our client’s site at East of Uppingham Road, Oakham (REF OAK02) within the Site Allocations Assessment and ask that this element of the evidence base is revisited.
Taken cumulatively the approach of Draft Policy SS1 in respect of the smaller rural settlements is overly restrictive and will discourage suitable windfall sites from coming forward within the county’s smaller rural settlements. This is contrary to the advice of paragraph 69 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires local planning authorities to, amongst other things, support the development of windfall sites through their policies and decisions, giving great weight to the benefits of using sites within existing settlements for homes. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) similarly states:
“A wide range of settlements can play a role in delivering sustainable development in rural areas, so blanket policies restricting housing development in some types of settlement will need to be supported by robust evidence of their appropriateness.”
Supply-side contingency should not be identified as a way to address concerns about the robustness of the housing requirement. Similarly, contingency should not be identified as a way to address uncertainties over the deliverability of the supply. Rather, deliverable sites should be selected from the outset and contingency added to these to ensure flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7356

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Housing Numbers
It is clear that at the anticipated time of adoption the emerging Local Plan will be working within
a 15-year Plan period horizon. Based on the LHN figure (123 dwellings per annum), the Council will be required to deliver a minimum of 2,460 dwellings during the plan period. It is noted that draft Policy H1 provides for a total supply of 1,375 dwellings to be delivered through allocations across the Plan period, in addition to a total of 1,358 existing commitments and completions). As such, there is an anticipated shortfall against the LHN, which is indeed a ‘minimum’ housing figure.

Whilst Policy H1 allows for a buffer and includes some additional reserve sites, it is considered fully allocating more sites that are sustainably located, in single ownership and align with the spatial strategy in focussing growth towards Oakham (such as ‘Land at Uppingham Road’) to ensure greater certainty that the ‘minimum’ LHN can be met and ideally to support the Council in committing to a housing requirement that goes beyond this figure for the reasons set out above.

In addition, the Council should consider whether there is scope to increase residential development densities on sites that are sustainably located and well related to the main town of Oakham (such as ‘Land south of Stamford Road’ and ‘Land at Uppingham Road’), in order to meet local housing needs.

The policy text notes that the site capacity are ‘potential figures’ and based on achieving ‘30 dwellings per hectare’. It will be important for this policy to not be overly prescriptive and instead, enable development densities to be tested through detailed design and the planning application process, to ensure sufficient flexibility in meeting local housing needs.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7382

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Norman Milne

Why is Edith Weston considered an appropriate location for 764 new dwellings (H1)?

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 7403

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes

Agent: Barmach Ltd

The following 2 sites should have been included in Policy H1:

1: Address: Whitwell Road, Land East of Cemetry, Empingham ,OAKHAM ,LE15 8PX
ID: 77

The site was included as an allocation in the abandoned Local Plan and it is unclear why it is not included in this Plan as there are no constraints to development. The previous Site Allocations Assessment in January 2021 concluded that the site was suitable for 5 dwellings.

Whilst Hereward Homes fully supports the proposed reserve site allocation H.1.c to the south of Whitwell Road, development there would extend into the open countryside beyond the existing physical framework of the village. The allocation of land on the north side of Whitwell Road immediately opposite this site allocation would ensure an appropriate rounding off of development alongside that allocation through natural infill.

Hereward Homes support the comments of the Parish Council for this site.

2: Address: Barrowden Rd, Ketton
ID: 15

The site is a disused quarry which also includes an area of hardstanding formerly used as a coal depot and haulage yard immediately adjacent to and immediately opposite existing housing. It can be demonstrated that there are no technical constraints to development of the former coal depot area for up to 10 dwellings and that the long-term future of the adjacent former quarry as an area of enhanced and protected value for wildlife and biodiversity can be secured.

All site appraisals have been reviewed in the light of comments and further evidence received to determine their suitability for allocation.