Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 6574

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

The solar gain measures proposed in this policy are not consistent with current BRegs provisions.
Surely there is no need to repeat the BRegs provisions within planning policy?
Imposing all these measures will have an impact on viability and could result in fewer homes, particularly affordable homes, being delivered.

Agree part a) may contribute towards overheating: suggest changing to ‘such as to manage’ in place of 'to optimise'.
It is acknowledged that the Government is committed to improving the energy efficiency of new homes through the Building Regulations system under the Future Homes and Buildings Standards which is due to take effect in 2025. Thiss still being debated, however, and there is no legal guarantee of that date being met. Recognising that buildings are the UK’s second-highest emitting sector, and that it is significantly cheaper and easier to install energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures when building from scratch rather than retrofitting them afterwards, Policy CC2 sets out a series of design principles for new energy efficient buildings. The Plan acknowledges that a key consideration for Policy CC2 is its impact on the viability of new developments (that would include affordable housing). 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. Any changes to the draft policies, such as setting standards for energy efficiency, 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 an energy use limit such as that used in other adopted local plans.
Policy CC2 should not be read in isolation regarding design and the text accompanying the policy sets out the supporting documents and policies that consider design principles.

Object

Representation ID: 6589

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

This policy seems to be at odds with policy CC2 which encourages solar gain. The measures suggested should again be addressed via the BRegs process and do not need to be repeated or enlarged upon within planning policy. It is not stated how some of the criteria can be met/measured, which leaves it open to interpretation. The planning system needs less ambiguity and more certainty in order to support successful and timely housing delivery.

Disagree. Subject to change to Policy CC2 part a) to read: orientation of buildings such as to manage opportunities for solar gain and to minimize winter cold wind heat loss’, the two policies are seeking to achieve design solutions that manage solar gain whilst preventing overheating – a balance between the two is required. There are significant benefits in solar gain in terms of heating and solar panel efficiency particularly in the winter months but these must be balanced against the harmful risks of overheating. The PPG on climate change advises that when preparing Local Plans, authorities should pay particular attention to mitigation and adaptation. Examples include maximising summer cooling and avoiding solar gain. Requiring applicants to consider how buildings can minimise overheating is therefore justified in seeking to secure high quality design and higher levels of efficiency in new construction. The National Design Guide (2021) has useful advice: ‘Well-designed buildings make the most of passive design strategies to minimise overheating and achieve internal comfort. These include: the layout and aspect of internal spaces; insulation of the external envelope and thermal mass; management of solar gain; and good ventilation to reduce overheating.’

Object

Representation ID: 6591

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

This policy, as drafted, is placing an extra burden and cost on housebuilders and developers to prove the energy efficiency of new homes, which is unnecessary when this is already covered by BRegs.

Comments noted. Disagree. The NPPF states that, in order to increase the use and supply of renewable and low carbon energy, plans should provide a positive strategy for energy from these sources. As a Local Plan has a limited influence on retrofitting existing buildings, in order to reach targets for carbon reductions, significant reductions in the energy requirements of new buildings are urgently needed and Policy CC4 seeks this aim. 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.

Object

Representation ID: 6612

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

Proposed housing delivery over the Plan period is less than the current Development Plan provides for, and yet we have a growing population. Why is Rutland relying on South Kesteven to deliver a significant element of its housing requirement? Although the policy will permit windfall development in the villages, this is unluikely to make a significant contribution to housing delivery because few sites for development remain within the PLDs. The Plan should acknowldge that people wish to live in villages; in turn this creates more sustainable communities, enhancing the vitality and helping their services, facilities and shops etc to thrive.

The plan does not rely on South Kesteven to deliver any of the County's housing requirement as the Quarry Farm site lies within Rutland and will contribute toward meeting Rutland housing needs. Windfall development is allowed for through policies SS1, SS3 sand SS4

Object

Representation ID: 6635

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

BRegs provide for accessibility standards; is it necessary to repeat here in planning policy?
Where a local authority or planning policy requires certain house types, sizes and tenures, it is accepted that this should be provided as long as genuine need in that particluar location can be evidenced, and viability allows the delivery of siuch homes in that location. It is unclear what constitutes up to date evidence of local housing need and how this should be approached at a local level.

The issue relating to Building Regulations and accessibility standards is addressed in Policy H5 and its supporting text. Evidence of housing need, other than through the HMA, could be data from the housing register (waiting list), rural housing surveys, council tax or VOA statistics or other suitable sources.

Object

Representation ID: 6647

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

We support the introduction of a policy on self and custom housebuilding (SCB). However, the Local Plan does not offer up much opportunity for SCB plots since there are few plots of land available within the PLDs and development adjoing PLDs is not supported. Where will these people build their homes? The data shows that they do not wish to build a home on land which is attached to a major development scheme but would prefer an individual plot in a village location.

Policy H6 strikes an appropriate balance between requiring SCB (see Policy H2(b)(iii)) and facilitating it. The supporting text to Policy H6 states: "It is important that the policy approach is flexible and accounts for challenges associated with self-build and custom housebuilding... The Council could allocate sites specifically for Self and Custom Build homes. This is not considered appropriate or necessary at this time."

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: 6653

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

This policy, as drafted, could mean that valuable brownfield sites may not be brought forward for housing development since viability may be an issue on contaminated sites. Why not just condition any planning consent in relation to contamination, as is currently the case? This policy places an unncessary upfront cost on developers at the planning application stage which again can threaten viability and ultimately housing delivery

comments noted, however it is considered that the requirement in respect of contaminated sites should be considered and addressed through the planning application process.

Object

Representation ID: 7148

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

We object to this not only because it is inconsistent with the Environment Act and national policy requirements of 10%, but also because of the impacts on viability and housing delivery. The on-site provision of 15% BNG is likely to result in a reduced site density, and therefore impact viability and could be argued to be at odds with the policy on density which encourages making best use of land. Off-site provision, whilst perhaps not limiting density on the subject site, will also impact on scheme viability through the associated costs of purchasing credits. The purchase price is varied and uncertain (and not insignificant) so this in turn creates uncertainty for developers when purchasing sites. In both cases, housing delivery and affordability will suffer since the increased costs will render many schemes much less viable.

Comments noted. Change from 15% to 10% as a higher percentage than the statutory objective of biodiversity net gain needs to be evidenced. In order for the Local Plan to be deemed sound this uplift above the mandatory level must be robustly evidenced.

Object

Representation ID: 7149

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Distinctive Developments Group Ltd

We object to this policy as it seems unnecessarily restrictive. If we are to protect and maintain historic buildings which become unsuitable for their current use or which have been disused for some time, the property owner should have the freedom to bring that building back into whatever use most suits their requirements. An owner may not wish to start a tourism or recreation business or rent the space out to another business and a residential use may be the most suitable use of their building whilst serving a housing need and freeing up an existing home for another occupier. Eg some property owners such as the elderly may need a more suitable home to meet their changing needs which they can’t find elsewhere in the village and they may not wish to leave the village if they still enjoy living there. This policy as drafted is not in the spirit of other policies in the Plan which encourage re-use of existing buildings as it could result in existing buildings not being used and create greater demand for new buildings.

Objection noted.
Policy EN13 states that for designated heritage assets, national policy will be applied. Para 206 of the NPPF states that 'any harm or loss of the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification'. Para 207 states that 'where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm (or total loss) of a designated heritage asset, local authorities should refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss..'