Object

Representation ID: 7865

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Table 4 proposes a total of 2512 houses to be built by 2041 including committed, therefore 140 to be completed each year. Is this consistent with the demographic trends in that timescale? Does this account for current housing waiting lists?

Considering existing commitments, the requirement for reduces to 75 pa up to 2041. More are likely to derive from windfall than is allowed. The windfall allowance of just 45 seems unrealistically low, given the rate of windfall completions to date; a more realistic figure, of up to 20 pa, might be more appropriate, leaving a requirement for new planned development to 55 dwellings pa.

Reserve Sites to accommodate 657 dwellings are listed, it should be made clear that they should not count towards the housing requirements, which already include a buffer, but can be used to ensure a 5 YLS. The impact of the possible development at St George's Barracks should also be made clear.

We welcome the acknowledgement that the
proposed policy considers that Neighbourhood Plans can make provision for more housing development than that
required in the strategic policy and the Council supports groups that wish to provide site allocations for housing
development within their neighbourhood plans that go beyond the minimum requirement contained in the strategic policy, particularly those who assess their local housing needs through an appropriate assessment and plan to meet it.

The proposed indicative housing supply for Uppingham should be 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: 7983

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

Is there a list of “land banks” held by developers that already have planning permission but haven’t yet been developed?

This information is not within the Local Plan however, information may be found in an appendix to the Five Year Land Supply, setting out the sites with planning permission.

Object

Representation ID: 8002

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr PJRS Hill and Pikerace Limited

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

Whilst Draft Policy SS1 specifies the majority of development will be focused at Oakham and Uppingham, this is not reflected in the draft allocations nor in those
sites identified for reserve status.

Those settlements identified as “larger villages” are proposed to accommodate 13% of net growth through the emerging local plan; whilst Oakham will accommodate a slightly larger percentage of 16%. That is not a spatial strategy which reflects the primacy of Oakham or the
settlement hierarchy but rather one in which rural dispersal of development becomes a significant proportion of the spatial strategy.

Whilst allocations in some of the more sustainable rural settlements is an appropriate response to ensure balanced delivery and to encourage growth in rural areas, a large number of rural settlements identified for growth in Draft Policy H1 are plainly not suitable for sustainable for the level of growth proposed.

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

Object

Representation ID: 8008

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr PJRS Hill and Pikerace Limited

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

The emerging local plan identifies a 10% supply buffer on the minimum requirement of 123 dpa. Notwithstanding our view expressed above that 123 dpa is an underestimation of housing need within Rutland, and that the emerging local pan’s own evidence base so confirms, a 10% buffer on the overall supply is inadequate to reflect the non-delivery risks inherent within the emerging local plan’s spatial strategy.

We recognise that the emerging local plan identifies a number of reserve sites mostly within Rutland’s rural settlements, but there is little clarity as to the ircumstances in which these can come forward.

Draft Policy H1 states that that the reserve sites “may be required” where the housing requirement increases or any of the preferred sites listed become unavailable. The
housing requirement should be set through the plan-making process to give certainty to communities, stakeholders and to the development industry. This is fundamental to a plan-led system.

Given the uncertainties associated with the emerging local plan’s spatial strategy and the individual sites it relies upon, we would suggest that a 20% supply buffer
would be more appropriate.

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

Object

Representation ID: 8026

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Messrs J, P & P Turner; Scott & Scott (Ayston) Limited; Peterborough Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

Those settlements identified as ‘larger villages’ are proposed to accommodate 13% of net growth through the emerging local plan; whilst Oakham will accommodate a slightly larger percentage of 16%. That is not a spatial strategy which reflects the primacy of Oakham or the settlement hierarchy but rather one in which rural dispersal of development becomes is a significant proportion of the spatial strategy.
From the Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Report it is clear that not all of the ‘larger villages’ perform equally well in sustainability terms. There is a significant and obvious disparity between the sustainability credentials of the different settlements within this tier, having regard to the number of households within each settlement, as well as the availability of core services and facilities. There does not seem to be a logical, transparent or discernible approach to the apportionment of growth in each village, given that the sustainability credentials of the settlements bear little relation to the level of housing growth planned for there.

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

Object

Representation ID: 8028

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Messrs J, P & P Turner; Scott & Scott (Ayston) Limited; Peterborough Diocesan Board of Finance

Agent: Silver Fox Developments

There is limited evidence supporting the emerging local plan regarding the timing trajectory and overall deliverability of the plan-led supply.
The local planning authority has included within the emerging evidence base a “Five Year Land Supply & Developable Housing Land Supply Report” dated May 2023 but this only considers supply over the period 2023/2023 to 2027/2028.
Given the emerging local plan is currently anticipated for adoption in 2026, the May 2023 report does not necessarily indicate that the emerging local plan will establish a five-year supply upon adoption.
We consider that the emerging local plan should be supported by a full assessment of the deliverability of the sites relied upon, and a detailed trajectory extending to the end of the plan period produced to set out the anticipated timing and rate housing delivery.
Given the uncertainties associated with the emerging local plan’s spatial strategy and the individual sites it relies upon, we would suggest that a 20% supply buffer would be more appropriate.

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