Object

Representation ID: 4529

Received: 28/11/2023

Respondent: Mrs Christobel Price

My comment on this is that there is no provision in the plan for affordable housing in villages. Villages need a good mix of age groups if they are to thrive and survive, otherwise who is going to help keep the community flourishing and growing?
I feel there is a great lack with RCC in making this provision for local people to have sensible affordable housing, and I don't mean properties in excess of £300K.
I strongly feel we need to have a good mix of shared ownership homes so the young and not so young can have a home.
I sincerely hope this will be re-considered in the future planning, not just houses for the rich

Under the Spatial Strategy and Policies H1 and H2, the majority of housing will take place in the towns. However, appropriate development will take place in villages although the minimum number of dwellings for on-site provision of affordable housing is normally ten. There is also scope for provision through Policy H8 (Rural exception housing). The arrangements for different types of affordable housing are set out in Policy H7. Outside Oakham and Barleythorpe, under Government policy First Homes will largely displace shared ownership housing for new provision except for wholly affordable sites. The maximum initial cost for First Homes after discount is currently £250,000. Affordable housing for rent remains the Council's highest priority.

Object

Representation ID: 4762

Received: 13/12/2023

Respondent: Miss Hannah Mitchell

Saying that at least two-thirds of affordable housing will be for rent and the remainder for ownership is wrong. Renting or buying in Rutland currently is absurd, nothing is affordable. In average mortgage repayments are the same value as rent each month, so why not make more housing accessible and affordable to buy? I’m a first time buyer and unfortunately having to look outside of Rutland as I simply can’t afford the prices here. Many were led to believe the new-builds on Leicester Road were “affordable” but are being sold at £1million+. You’re simply driving the young out of town!

Policy H7 is based on the national policy definition of affordable housing in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the national rules on First Homes. The values are carefully controlled, with rent formulas and, for instance, the maximum initial cost of First Homes being £250,000.

Support

Representation ID: 4804

Received: 19/12/2023

Respondent: Kevin Hawkes

I put a site up for affordable housing and two other categories. Stocken Hall road, Stretton.
IMO this site would be perfect for starter homes.
Affordable housing doesn’t need to be cheap looking. People who have good jobs from the local area still can’t get on the property ladder.
RCC should re look at sites that are right next to existing housing

Policy H7 (f) to (h) covers quality of provision for affordable housing, Starter Homes are not an active part of national policy, having been superseded by First Homes. H7 (a) to (e) sets out the affordability rules for affordable housing. Other policies cover the location of development.

Support

Representation ID: 4866

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Burley Parish Meeting

If the developer makes a commitment to build 30% of the properties to be "affordable", first time buyer properties. Then the council must make a contract commitment that any deviation from achieving this minimum is severely penalised in monetary terms.

Otherwise develops will switch the development to medium and larger homes to get higher property returns for each square meter of land.

The penalty for this needs to exceed the uplift in selling price. Developers must not be under any illusion that they can take RCC for fools.

Under Policy H7, development of affordable housing has to meet the definitions of Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the national rules on First Homes. Provision is usually enforced through stringent section 106 contracts to prevent potential abuse. Policy H4 requires a wide mix of housing of all types to be provided in Rutland to meet needs.

Support

Representation ID: 4972

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sue Scarrott

I strongly support the need for affordable housing in Rutland but am concerned developers will avoid following the policy as described. Stiff penalties for not complying need to be set. The 'cart seems to be pulling the horse' at the moment and far too many overlarge , expensive houses are being built in the county.

Policies H7, H8 and H9 set out clear and robust arrangements for affordable housing provision. Dwelling mix across all tenures is covered by Policy H4.

Support

Representation ID: 4995

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

WDH supports the delivery of affordable housing and, as set out in response to Policies SS1, SS3 and H1, consider that additional development should be facilitated to address the affordability issues arising in the County. In particular, suitable medium-sized sites within larger villages (including Land at Mill Lane, Cottesmore) should be brought forward for development within this plan period, which would deliver an increased quantum of affordable housing.

The support of Policy H7 is noted. Other policies cover the spatial strategy and site-specific allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 5174

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

The Local Plan needs wording to support bringing forward ('pump priming') provision of affordable housing. Those unable to afford housing currently cannot wait years to purchase / rent.

The Local Plan includes three robust policies for the delivery of affordable housing - H7, H8 and H9. Having more affordable housing early on would impact on viability and could jeopardise delivery later in the plan period. Delivery within individual sites is phased through section 106 agreement 'trigger points' to ensure the delivery of affordable housing in a timely way. In practice, some sites will be wholly affordable which will help to facilitate delivery.

Support

Representation ID: 5290

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

If a developer deviates from 30% affordable homes and includes more larger homes to get greater returns per square metre, there must be a developer penalty that exceeds the uplift in selling price. It is essential that offsite provision of affordable housing or a commuted sum in lieu is avoided as we need affordable housing in our villages to revitalise ageing communities and provide accommodation for key workers essential in caring for an ageing population.

Policy H7 is clear that developers are expected to provide a minimum of affordable housing on sites of ten or more dwellings. On sites of six to nine dwellings in villages, unless a Neighbourhood Plan requires on-site provision, off-site provision of 30% affordable housing through a commuted sum is permitted. This is because on-site affordable housing is harder to provide on small sites.

Object

Representation ID: 5308

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Bisbrooke Parish Meeting

Village Meeting Bisbrooke November 2023
We support affordable housing policies in principle but we object to the lack of a policy to require a small house in the mix on small sites of 6 to 9 houses. Off-site contributions are insufficient.
Many larger houses could be released for families if such provision were to be made. Speculative development appears to lead only to large expensive houses being built rather than for local need.

It is difficult to provide affordable housing viably on very small market sites, except perhaps if the properties are First Homes. First Homes do not meet the most acute housing needs, because they are sold at a discount of 30% of open market value and must not cost more than £250,000 for the initial purchase. Policies H3 and H4 cover density and housing mix.

Object

Representation ID: 5315

Received: 01/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Ann Lewis

The focus seems to have been on building executive-style housing rather than building the required affordable housing, and I mean ‘affordable’ housing. Oakham has not met its required targets for these. Why not? There are currently people on waiting lists for social housing which is unacceptable.

Policy H4 covers dwelling mix. The market needs some flexibility for affordable housing to be viable. Delivery problems in Oakham are due largely to issues with an historic section 106 agreement which will not be repeated. Policy H7 provides a robust foundation for the delivery of a wide range of affordable housing.

Support

Representation ID: 5341

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Mary Cate

We need to ensure housing is truly affordable

Affordable needs to be built on site in the villages and not commuted sums, as this does not provide housing for local families

Policies H7 and H8 provide a robust basis for the delivery of affordable housing. It is very difficult to deliver a mix of affordable housing on sites of six to nine dwellings due to the reluctance of housing associations to take small sites. First Homes could often be delivered, but these do not meet the greatest housing need as they have a continuing 30% discount from open market value and the initial sale price cannot exceed £250,000. Suitable sites in villages for the spending of commuted sums will be considered under the Planning Obligations SPD where practicable.

Object

Representation ID: 5426

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Whilst applauding / supporting the aims of the policy, will this 30% - will this make development unaffordable, maybe push up the price of the market priced housing to cover shortfall in viability.

The Council's Whole Plan Viability Assessment demonstrates the balance between market housing, affordable housing and viability, along with the supporting text to Policy H7.

Object

Representation ID: 5486

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Janet Taylor

The whole concept of ‘Affordable Housing’ is flawed. It merely means that some house are less expensive than others, and too often the developer can wriggle out of even this provision by demonstrating that it is not economically viable. For those on low incomes housing in Rutland is not affordable whether for purchase or rent.
We need the council to be proactive in developing sites for social rent, building to high standards and reflecting the needs of the local population. Other councils are doing this - Cardiff is building Passivhaus standard homes - why can’t Rutland?

The affordable housing definition used is that in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Government rules on First Homes. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment and Policy H7 and its supporting text set out the balance of market housing, affordable housing and viability. The policy gives priority to affordable housing for rent in line with the greatest needs. The Council is using commuted sums to fund social rented housing association homes. The Council has limited landholdings and experience in developing and managing housing as our Council dwellings were sold to a housing association in 2009.

Support

Representation ID: 5512

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth Field

Cottesmore requires more affordable housing, however:
-Sites put forward provide max 3
-site Cott 03 off Rogues lane was fully supported by the village and can offer higher proportion of affordable housing, up to 14
-fills naturally the boundary edge of housing on that part of village
-well concealed by natural hedging
-on a quiet road leading only to barracks
-bounded by allotments and cemetery
-flat and currently used as agricultural land
-has none of the issues regarding the other sites
-no valid reasons given for not being put forward this time
-this site needs reconsideration!

Noted that Cottesmore requires more affordable housing. Other points are site-specific and relate to other parts of the consultation document.

Support

Representation ID: 5532

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr C Udale and Grafton Spaces Ltd

The proposed policy appears both proportionate and appropriate, setting out clear guidance for the provision of affordable housing, but also the scope that exists for departures from policy to be considered where these are robustly justified.

Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5825

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

Affordable housing in Rutland is simply not affordable, what is required is good quality social housing to replace local authority housing sold under the right to buy scheme and to meet the needs of young families on average and below average incomes, we need to hang on to our youngsters, only youngsters from affluent families or with above average incomes can afford to stay in Rutland, a sorry state of affairs.

The definition of affordable housing used is the same that is in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the national rules on first Homes and in the Housing Market Assessment. The provision of affordable housing for rent is prioritised. Under the Whole Plan Viability assessment, this is normally affordable rent for reasons of viability. However, the Council is working with housing association partners to deliver social rent with commuted sums,

Support

Representation ID: 5979

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Ellis

The housing needs of the people of Rutland need to be at the forefront of RCC's sustainable housing development strategy

Currently, developers appear to be building expensive commuter and leisure homes and do not deliver the affordable properties needed locally. It appears planning conditions are breeched. Planning enforcement is key and the updated NPPF should provide more teeth for RCC to insist affordable housing is built. If it is not, sanctions should be put in place, with developers' past performance being taken into account if future planning applications are made

Policies H3 and H4 cover the types of properties built of all tenures and their density. Policies H7, H8 and H9 specifically cover affordable housing. Rigorous section 106 agreements require developers to meet their affordable housing obligations for sites meeting the thresholds.

Support

Representation ID: 6413

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

affordable housing has long been an issue which developers “get round” This policy needs to be water tight

Policy H7 sets out the arrangements for providing affordable housing through planning gain from market-led sites with clear requirements. Rigorous section 106 agreements are there to ensure delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 6505

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The nature of housing most needed in the county is small, affordable starter homes. This requires a greater density. There is already a preponderance of large, detached homes proposed and the plan needs to ensure over 50% of all future developments contain small, affordable starter homes. 'Affordability' must not be calculated as a quotient of the county's existing housing stock's price averages, which are much higher relative to the national average. It should be linked to average wages in this area and the cost of mortgages in order to be truly and justifiably 'affordable'.

Density is covered by Policy H3 and housing mix by Policy H4. Affordability is defined by Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework and by national rules relating to First Homes. Starter Homes are not a current form of affordable housing, having been replaced by First Homes. The Housing Market Assessment examines affordability in detail, but all forms of affordable housing are linked in some way to proportions of the market value of rent or sale price.

Object

Representation ID: 6595

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

Comments made on behalf of the DIO as part of a full written response to Rutland Council. Representations should be read in context and not in isolation.
The DIO supports Policy H7 which identifies the requirement for 30% affordable housing, with a mix of unit sizes and affordable tenures, subject to appropriate assessment of viability. The DIO note that not all development proposals will be viable due to a number of factors such as abnormal costs related to demolition and site remediation. The Council should amend the wording of the Policy to reflect this.

Noted. Viability is already taken account of through the Whole Plan Viability Assessment and the provision in Policy H7 for site-specific viability assessments in exceptional circumstances and for consideration of Vacant Building Credit. Further provision for viability is unnecessary until a site-specific DPD is prepared further to Policy SS5.

Object

Representation ID: 6650

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

The use of VBCs is set down in national planning policy and it gives developers certainty when buying previously developed land where viability is often an issue. This part of the policy should be deleted as it is covered by national policy.
What will proposals be measured against to determine whether they “meet the proven local and affordability housing need”?

The statement in Policy H7 on Vacant Building Credit applies only to brownfield sites (and not agricultural), which our policy clarifies. PPG (Reference ID: 23b-028-20190315) states: "In considering how the vacant building credit should apply to a particular development, local planning authorities should have regard to the intention of national policy."

Proposals may be measured against a range of criteria such as the Housing Market Assessment, housing register (waiting list), the profile of the existing affordable housing stock, local need surveys and assessments, neighbourhood plans and professional judgment. The existing wording could perhaps be clarified by improving the grammar and meaning.

Object

Representation ID: 6725

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Amanda Bloomfiled

We need more affordable housing - and I mean low and mid range. Morcott has had 4 , 1million pound houses built recently...more very privileged people moving in, which doesn't increase social mobility, cohesion or affect the social gradient in a positive way in terms of opportunity.

Policy H3 addresses density and Policy H4 dwelling mix. Policy H7 makes provision for on-site affordable housing for sites of 10 or more dwellings, or commuted sums from sites of 6 to 9 dwellings in villages. This is subject to the spatial strategy policies in the draft plan. Policy H8 makes provision for rural exception sites for affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 6768

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

Many authorities require 33% affordable – During the Whole Plan Viability Assessment we would ask that an option of 33% Affordable Homes be considered.
There should be a mandatory requirement to provide either on-site or physically offsite. The current calculation for commuted sums does not provide sufficient finance for the Council to delivery the off-site accommodation . This needs to be reviewed.

Affordable rents should be in line with Local Rent levels and not 80% of market rents
Unfortunately this Policy is similar to the existing Local Plan Policy which has failed to deliver affordable homes and this Policy will not improve that situation.

The adoption of social rent as a minimum standard (as opposed to affordable rent generally capped at the Local Housing Allowance level) would impact adversely on viability levels. This is supported by the Whole Plan Viability Assessment. In the context of this, it is not practicable to raise the level of affordable housing provision.

On sites of six to nine dwellings in villages, 30% affordable housing can generally be provided through commuted sums. On-site provision is impractical as housing associations will not take smaller sites, unless First Homes are used which do not meet the greatest need. Commuted sums are permitted on larger sites in exceptional circumstances. The level of commuted sums is discussed in the supporting text: "The Council's policy - and the calculation method used - is based on the commuted sum being broadly equivalent to the cost of on-site provision and will therefore contain elements of the construction and services cost as well as the land cost."

Object

Representation ID: 6900

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Richard Camp

the Local Plan should indicate that the Authority must, when approving significant housing development, require description in detail of the affordable housing to be built. I recommend that the Local Plan should state the aim to encourage the development in Rutland of small-size accommodation (eg one/two-bedroom flats) for first-time buyers and those renting, bearing in mind that the average salary in Rutland in 2023 was £36,856 per annum, with the average salary for women being £23,879 per annum.

Section 106 legal agreements set out the arrangements for providing affordable housing prior to planning consent being granted. They set out the framework for provision, sometimes in considerable detail. Further information is typically in an Affordable Housing Scheme submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. The Housing Market Assessment 2023 sets out in detail the housing needs of the people of Rutland according to what they can afford. This is referred to in the supporting text of Policy H7 and underpins Policy H4.

Object

Representation ID: 6971

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Cora Homes Limited

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The evidence base clearly suggests that the local planning authority should be considering an uplift to the housing requirement in order to bring forward sufficient affordable housing over the plan period to meet needs. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in the emerging local plan or in its housing requirement.
13. An upward adjustment should be made to the housing requirement to maximise opportunities for affordable housing delivery, against the clear backdrop of Rutland’s affordability issues.

Policy SS1 addresses the Spatial Strategy and how development is numerically spread around Rutland. An increase in the amount of housing allowed for in the draft Local Plan is not thought appropriate. The high level of need for affordable housing in Rutland is noted, but an environmentally sustainable approach must be taken.

Object

Representation ID: 6993

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Greetham Parish Council

All parish’s wish to see the next generation remaining in Rutland if at all possible. Affordable housing is the key and ensuring that affordable continues in perpetuity.
This plan does not make any statement as to whether Rutland Council would be prepared to
Invest in a small “Council’” estate with RCC as Landlords.
Even if not pursued there should be an explanation as to why this is not possible.
Currently affordable housing is a piecemeal approach to 100% ownership of a property over time. Why doesn’t the council adopt a policy which would ensure that affordable remains affordable in perpetuity rather than the 1st time buyer provided with a long term opportunity to purchase the full value of the house thereby removing it from affordability for future generations.
Affordable housing does not work. Rutland needs a bank of houses available to rent, so that when one tenant moves on it is available for another.
In the past we had a system in which councils nationwide could co-operate thus enabling a much more mobile workforce.
This is an issue of national importance to employers who are finding it difficult to recruit.

Policies H7 and H8 enable a wide range of affordable housing to be provided, with the emphasis being on affordable housing to rent. Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework sets out the definition of affordable housing and what may happen to it over time with the recycling of subsidy, alongside national rules on First Homes. Section 106 agreements are normally used to control/restrict this process. There are special protections for wholly affordable sites and rural exception sites.

The Council does not have the capacity to provide its own affordable housing, having transferred its housing stock to a housing association in 2009. We would also not be able to afford to buy affordable homes from developers unless they had an enormous discount, which would probably reduce on viability grounds the number of affordable homes provided.

The Council's Housing Allocation [lettings] Policy has provision to facilitate work-related moves for certain applicants.

Object

Representation ID: 7182

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

No objections in principle to the requirements of this condition, its wording seemed unduly complicated and could be set out in a much clearer manner.

Criteria d) sets out developments need to ‘achieve a minimum of 25 % of all affordable homes secured through developer contributions as First Homes’.

Persimmon Homes are of the view the words ‘through developer contributions’ should be removed from this wording.

Noted. The words 'through developer contributions' should remain so that it does not apply to wholly affordable sites. See national PPG Reference ID: 70-001-20210524.

Object

Representation ID: 7257

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

A blanket 30% allocation of affordable houses without taking into consideration the location, employment opportunities and public transport availability is too prescriptive. A more flexible approach should be used.

Sustainability is assessed under Spatial Strategy policies and Policy H8.

Object

Representation ID: 7307

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The requirement that in the Designated Rural Areas (all parishes outside Oakham and Uppingham parishes) developments of between 6 and 9 dwellings inclusive will also be required to make affordable housing provision for 30% of the scheme's total capacity needs to be evidenced as deliverable if to be required.

Paragraph 2.49 of the Whole Plan Viability Assessment states: "The whole of the County is within a Designated Rural Area with the exception of the parishes of Oakham and Uppingham, so a threshold of less than 10 units is tested." Appendix 13 of the Whole Plan Viability Assessment demonstrates the viability of sites of under ten dwellings providing affordable housing.

Object

Representation ID: 7337

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The more recent 2023 SHMA suggests a need for 78 affordable homes per annum. Even if 78 dpa was an over-estimation of affordable needs within Rutland, it is more than twice the level of gross average annual affordable housing delivery over the last 10 years and almost twice the target of the adopted 2011 Core Strategy of 40 affordable homes per annum. Adopting a housing requirement analogous to the LHN (123 dpa) which is significantly less than historic average delivery will likely not meet even the Core Strategy’s modest and now very dated affordable housing target. The evidence base clearly suggests that the local planning authority should be considering an uplift to the housing requirement in order to bring forward sufficient affordable housing over the plan period to meet needs. Unfortunately, this is not reflected in the emerging local plan or in its housing requirement.

The issue of housing numbers is a matter for the Spatial Strategy. The affordable housing provision is the highest practicable in the context of the Whole Plan Viability Assessment.