Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 6509

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

We generally support the vision. Regarding meeting the housing needs of Rutland County that will compromised if around 50% of the allocated housing total is directed to an urban extension of Stamford as Rutland County is rural with two very small market towns and 52 villages.

Support noted. The allocation of Stamford North will facilitate the delivery of the wider site and meet the duty to co-operate requirement for South Kesteven DC and Rutland. The allocation of the site then allows for a wide spread of smaller housing sites across the county in towns and larger villages.

Support

Representation ID: 6514

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

To help Rutland County' market towns and villages thrive more housing needs to be allocated to them rather than allocating 650 to what is an urban extension of Stamford which of course is a South Kesteven District Settlement.

Comments noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing and it forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. All allocated housing sites have been through a rigorous site appraisal process that cover environmental, social and economic factors. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. The allocation of Stamford North will facilitate the delivery of the wider site and meet the duty to co-operate requirement for South Kesteven DC and Rutland.

Support

Representation ID: 6521

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

The Spatial Strategy is reasonable but the proposed housing allocation of 650 for Stamford in no way is ' linked to the roles of the towns and villages in Rutland'.

Comments noted. Comments about Stamford North and St George's Barracks are considered separately under policies H2 and SS5 respectively.

Support

Representation ID: 6523

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

We support that North Luffenham is defined as a 'Larger Village'. It's population of around 700 is well above the 300 dwelling threshold for a 'Larger Village ' and has a range of local services, most importantly a primary school. No housing allocations have been proposed however which, given the very limited opportunities for windfall development within the Planned Limits of Development, means that the opportunity to sustain the local services and meet local housing needs will be lost.
'

Comments noted. A lack of suitable sites means that no allocations have been made within North Luffenham at this time.

Object

Representation ID: 6530

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Object to the lack of a housing allocation for North Luffenham and consider that the reserve site, South of Glebe Road, should be allocated.

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

Support

Representation ID: 6534

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

We support the proposed Reserve Housing Allocation for land to the south of Glebe Road, North Luffenham. We can confirm that the land is available and that a high quality , sustainable development of around ten dwellings can be delivered within five years of the adoption of the new Rutland County 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: 6541

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

We object to all of the proposed 650 dwellings being assigned to Rutland County' housing needs. The development would clearly be an urban extension of Stamford which lies in South Kesteven District. There is no evidence to suggest that SKDC agree that all 650 dwellings can be assigned to Rutland County. Further given the rural nature of Rutland County, characterised by two very small market towns and around 50 villages, the proposal to allocate 50% of the total allocated housing to North Stamford is inappropriate and not justified.

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

Object

Representation ID: 6552

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

Land to the South of Glebe Road, North Luffenham, should be allocated. The mechanism for releasing reserve housing allocations should be different.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7420

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

The policy wording in relation to Reserve Sites needs to be changed, because the current wording defeats the purpose of including Reserve Sites in the plan. The whole purpose of Reserve Sites is to build flexibility into the plan. They are sites that can be released through planning application if the adopted strategy is not delivering the number of homes planned for. However, the current policy wording only allows for these sites to be released through the review of the Local Plan, which defeats the purpose of identifying these sites in the first place and provides no flexibility to respond positively to a shortfall in housing delivery due to the time it takes to review the plan.

It is our view that Policy SS1 needs to be redrafted. Our preference is that the Reserve Sites such as the Site at Glebe Road are included as allocation in the plan in order that sufficient flexibility is built into the plan from day one. However, if the Council chose to proceed with Reserve Sites, then the policy wording should be changed to allow for the sites to be released through planning applications should the delivery of homes fall short of what is planned/predicted.

We support the identification of Uppingham as a Market Town, which is reflective of its scale and the services and facilities it has to offer. Housing here will help sustain these facilities and provide new homes for local people who wish to stay in the town.


The wording of Policy SS1 is not consistent with the allocations currently proposed in the draft document. Policy SS1 states that “most new development will be focused within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) of Oakham and Uppingham”. Notwithstanding the
fact that we consider the PLD for Uppingham should be altered through the local plan review to deliver the final number of homes it is identified to deliver, at the current time the draft plan does not alter the PLD of Uppingham and leaves this for the Neighbourhood Plan. If this is to
remain the case, then the wording of Policy SS1 should be updated to reflect this.

Reserve sites will not be included in the Regulation 19 plan they were included in the draft plan to ensure that the plan had flexibility to account for some sites falling out following consultation and to ensure that the final plan had sufficient sites to meet the final housing requirement which will be established by the Reg 19 plan.

Scale of housing development included in Uppingham reflects the proposals of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan (UNP) which will make the allocations for the town. Should the UNP be made before the Local Plan is adopted, the Policies Map will be updated to reflect allocations within the UNP and the PLD will be amended accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 7422

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: RDC Limited

Agent: Harris Lamb

We support the role of Uppingham in delivering a relatively large proportion of the housing requirement owing to its status as a Market Town however we have concerns with the proposed approach to leave the allocation of sites at Uppingham to the Neighbourhood Plan.

The 316 dwellings currently directed to Uppingham equates to 23% of the total supply identified and to leave the identification of such a large quantum of sites until an unknown point in time does not provide the certainty needed to ensure these homes are delivered.
It is our view that sites should be allocated in Uppingham through the local plan review to provide certainty for the delivery of what is a large proportion of the proposed housing supply.

It is our view that one of the proposed residential allocations at Uppingham should be SHELAA/UPP/09a – land off the Quadrant.

Noted. The Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan is currently under Examination.