Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 7153

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

Whilst the intention that all developments (with the exception of householder applications for extensions and alterations) set out within submitted Design and Access Statements the approach to site waste management and how construction waste will be addressed is supported in principle, the expectations need to be proportionate to the type and scale of development proposed.

Agree. The level of detail in a Design and Access Statement (DAS) should be proportionate to the complexity of the application. The scope of a DAS is, however, limited and Government guidance on DAS sets out that they (DAS) provide a framework for applicants to explain how the proposed development is a suitable response to the site and its setting, and demonstrate that it can be adequately accessed by prospective users. It would not be reasonable to include in a DAS the developer’s approach in waste management as required in Policy CC1. This would need to be part of the Council’s local list for validation requirements. Suggest 2nd para of CC1 is reworded to: All developments (with the exception of householder applications for extensions and alterations) should be accompanied by a statement setting out their approach to site waste management……

Support

Representation ID: 7275

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The proposed approach which does not set out prescriptive standards is supported.

Support for CC2 noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7276

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The proposed approach which does not set out prescriptive standards is supported.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7278

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The proposed approach which does not set out prescriptive standards is supported, but the requirement for maximum generation of renewable electricity as practically and viably possible on-site (and preferably on-plot) needs to be clarified. Will this require practicality and viability assessments for all major developments? Such a requirement would not be proportionate or justified.

Comments noted. The Plan acknowledges that a key consideration for Policy CC4 is its impact on the viability of new developments. It is intended that further work to update the cost evidence will be undertaken to inform the next stage of the local plan. This will build on the Whole Plan Viability Assessment (2023) and will inform the policies at the next stage of the local plan having looked at the feasibility and cost implications of such policies. Any changes to the draft policies, such as setting standards for renewable energy generation or rewording from ‘maximum generation’, arising from consultation responses and/or new evidence on viability in relation to the climate change policies, will be consulted on through the Reg 19 consultation. Following this work there may be sufficient, robust evidence to set energy demand targets for renewables such as that used in other adopted local plans.

Support

Representation ID: 7281

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The proposed approach which does not set out prescriptive standards is supported.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7282

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The expectation that all new dwellings should achieve the Optional Technical Housing Standard of 110 litres per day per person for water efficiency as described by Building Regulation G2 is supported.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7284

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The proposed approach to support but not require EV charging points in excess of Building Regulations requirement is supported.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7285

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

It is queried whether a Policy that repeats the requirements of the NPPF is required, and it is noted that the Policy also relates to major development whereas the NPPF applies to all development.

Comments noted. Agree NPPF applies to all development so word ‘major’ should be deleted. Whilst the policy does follow the requirements of the NPPF it aids developers in fleshing out what they should consider in terms of flood risk and mitigation. Similarly worded policies have been adopted recently in other Local Plans.

Support

Representation ID: 7286

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

Ryhall’s inclusion as a Larger Village is supported. The inclusion of “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 4 deliverable and developable land. This will normally be undertaken through a review of the Local Plan” is welcomed.

Support noted

Support

Representation ID: 7287

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

The requirement for ‘proportionate’ information is welcomed. This Policy should be supported by an up-to-date local validation list.

Support for the approach is welcomed. (Note it is recommended the policy SS2 be changed from policy to guidance in the Local Plan)