Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7019

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

We support policy SS1 at point a) that directs the majority of new development be ‘within the Planned Limits of Development (PLDs) of Oakham (and Barleythorpe) and Uppingham, and on land adjacent to Stamford (which lies within South Kesteven District adjoining the County boundary)’ and that ‘This will be met by allocated sites and through windfall sites within the planned limits of Development’.

Support

Representation ID: 7762

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

We support policy H1 in its identification that Uppingham will deliver 316 dwellings over the plan period to be allocated through the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7764

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

We are concerned that the wording of the policy will not deliver the specialist housing needed to meet the needs of older people and therefore not be consistent with national policy.

The Local Plan should recognise that housing for older people has its own requirements and cannot be successfully considered against criteria for adaptable and accessible general family housing or smaller homes.

We note however that the plan period is proposed to be to 2041 so these figures would be substantially higher if projected to 2041 instead of 2033. Page 92 of the Preferred Options then confirms that ‘Given that the number of older people is expected to increase in the future and that the number of older single person households is expected to increase this would suggest (if occupancy patterns remain the same) that there will be a notable demand for smaller housing from the ageing population.’

It is therefore clear there will be a significant increase in older people and the provision of suitable housing and
care to meet the needs of this demographic should be more of a priority rather than simply to ‘enable older people to promote, secure and sustain their independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances’. The Council should therefore change their approach and this would ensure consistency with the new NPPF.

While we appreciate that no one planning approach will be appropriate for all areas, an example policy is
provided that, we hope, will provide a useful reference for the Council:

“The Council will encourage the provision of specialist housing for older people across all tenures in sustainable locations.

The Council aims to ensure that older people are able to secure and sustain independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances by providing appropriate housing choice, particularly retirement housing and Extra Care Housing/Housing with Care. The Council will, through the identification of sites, allowing for windfall developments, and / or granting of planning consents in sustainable locations, provide for the development of retirement accommodation, residential care homes, close care, Extra Care and assisted care housing and Continuing Care Retirement Communities.”

Object

Representation ID: 7768

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Our assessment of the viability of older persons housing identifies a number of characteristics of older persons housing that add additional cost to the typology that have not been included within the Viability Assessment. It is our view that the older persons housing typology should be re-run using all characteristics and if older persons housing is found to not to be viable to deliver 30% affordable housing the policy should be amended to reflect the outcome. This would accord with the typology approach detailed in Paragraph: 004 (Reference ID: 10-004-20190509) of the PPG on viability which states that. “A typology approach is a process plan makers can follow to ensure that they are creating realistic, deliverable policies based on the type of sites that are likely to come forward for development over the plan period.” If this is not done, the delivery of much needed specialised housing for older people may be significantly delayed with protracted discussion about other policy areas such as affordable housing policy requirements which are wholly inappropriate when considering such housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 7769

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Our assessment of the viability of older persons housing identifies a number of characteristics of older persons housing that add additional cost to the typology that have not been included within the Viability Assessment. It is our view that the older persons housing typology should be re-run using all characteristics and if older persons housing is found to not to be viable to deliver 30% affordable housing the policy should be amended to reflect the outcome. This would accord with the typology approach detailed in Paragraph: 004 (Reference ID: 10-004-20190509) of the PPG on viability which states that. “A typology approach is a process plan makers can follow to ensure that they are creating realistic, deliverable policies based on the type of sites that are likely to come forward for development over the plan period.” If this is not done, the delivery of much needed specialised housing for older people may be significantly delayed with protracted discussion about other policy areas such as affordable housing policy requirements which are wholly inappropriate when considering such housing need.

Object

Representation ID: 7770

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Requiring BNG above 10% does not meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the NPPF and in particular a greater than 10% requirement is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. A 10% requirement should also be maintained in order to ensure that the requirement is ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development’ (para 57, NPPF). In addition, the Council may find that some development sites, especially smaller brownfield sites and regeneration opportunities, may find it difficult to deliver 10% Biodiversity Net Gain onsite.

Since the publication of the Preferred Options consultation the government have published a draft PPG regarding biodiversity net gain, which amongst other things details under what circumstance a Council may seek a higher percentage BNG than the statutory minimum of 10%. This confirms Paragraph: 005 Reference ID: 74-005-2023 that ‘Plan-makers may seek a higher percentage than the statutory objective of 10% biodiversity net gain, either on an area-wide basis or for specific allocations for development.


The Council should therefore not require a BNG of greater than the 10% and should amend the policy accordingly as the requirement is not justified by biodiversity or viability evidence.

Recommendation:
• Amend policy to only require a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain.
• The council should reconsider the policy in relation to the new guidance and largely delete most of it.

Object

Representation ID: 7771

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Viability Assessment

The Preferred Options is supported by a Biodiversity Assessment, Johns Associates, May 2023 (Biodiversity Assessment). The non-technical biodiversity report, supporting the Biodiversity Assessment at page 21 para 5.2.3 recommends a BNG policy which suggests a minimum of 10% is used rather than 15% detailed in policy EN3. In addition, the Preferred Options is supported by the Rutland County Council Whole Plan Viability Assessment, August 2023, HDH (Viability Assessment). The Viability Assessment makes an assumption of BNG costs taken from a DEFRA biodiversity net gain impact assessment as well as research undertaken by Kent County Council in 2022. The Viability Assessment at para 8.74 states that ‘The Council has not undertaken specific research into the costs in this regard and there are no published England wide data in this regard. Research by Kent County Council has indicated that the additional cost of providing 15% or 20% BNG is relatively modest where it can be delivered on-site’. However, the Council should note that on 27th July 2023 the price of statutory biodiversity credits were published (available from: Statutory biodiversity credit prices - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)). This has enabled it to be determined how much BNG may cost and it is considered that the costs per dwelling put forward within the Viability Assessment have greatly underestimated the costs, with brownfield site BNG costs often being more substantial than Greenfield but this very much depends on the site characteristics. As a result of credit prices having been published, the Council should re-run the Viability Assessment that includes a more realistic assessment of BNG costs and reduce the BNG requirement accordingly.

Object

Representation ID: 7772

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

We would like to remind the Council of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF and that the PPG states that “The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509). The introduction of an embodied carbon policy must not be so inflexible that it deems sites unviable and any future policy needs to ensure this to make sure it is consistent with NPPF/PPG and can be justified by the Council.
We note that the Rutland County Council Whole Plan Viability Assessment, August 2023, HDH (Viability Assessment) does not appear to include a cost for the embodied carbon policy. This is concerning as embodied carbon will have a cost that should be accounted for within any Viability Assessment.

Additionally, new development will often be far more sustainable in many circumstances including building fabric by use of modern methods of construction but also extending beyond that, such as sustainability through optimisation of use of a site and more able to meet the council’s zero carbon aspirations. The Council also need to verify that embodied carbon figures are available to developers from suppliers through an Environmental Product Declaration as in our experience this is not yet readily available from the majority of suppliers.

Recommendation:
Ensure the policy is properly assessed within the Viability Assessment and that the requirement is realistic with data and evidence readily available to the development industry.

Object

Representation ID: 7773

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

We note that point 3 of policy CC6 seeks ‘with any flat-roofed area, should be a green roof (for biodiversity, flood risk and water network benefits), unless such roof space is being utilised for photovoltaic or thermal solar panels’.

As such we would like to remind the Council of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF and that the PPG states that “The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509).

The requirement for a flat roof to include a green roof must not be so inflexible that it deems sites unviable, and any future policy needs to ensure this to make sure it is consistent with NPPF/PPG and can be justified by the Council. We note that the Rutland County Council Whole Plan Viability Assessment, August 2023, HDH (Viability Assessment) does not appear to include a cost for flat roofs to be built as a green roof and this should be reconsidered, and a cost should be accounted for within any Viability Assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 7774

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: McCarthy Stone

Agent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Policy CC12 requires ‘The demonstration of meaningful carbon sequestration through nature-based solutions within a proposal will be a material consideration in the decision making process. Material weight in favour of a proposal will be given where the net outcome is demonstrated to be a significant gain in nature-based carbon sequestration as a consequence of the proposal. Where a proposal will cause harm to an existing nature-based carbon sequestration process, weight against such a proposal will be given as a consequence of the harm, with the degree of weight dependent on the scale of net loss.’

Again, we would like to remind the Council of the increased emphasis on Local Plan viability testing in Paragraph 58 of the NPPF and that the PPG states that “The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan” (Paragraph: 002 Reference ID: 10-002-20190509). The policy requirement must not be so inflexible that it deems sites unviable, and any future policy needs to ensure this to make sure it is consistent with NPPF/PPG and can be justified by the Council. We note that the Rutland County Council Whole Plan Viability Assessment, August 2023, HDH (Viability Assessment) does not include a cost for carbon sequestration and indeed confirms at para 8.6 that ‘As well as the above, the Council has indicated that it is considering policies that cover matters such as protecting renewable energy infrastructure, the wider energy and service infrastructure, carbon sinks and sequestration and sustainable travel.’ This is concerning as such a requirement will have a cost that should be accounted for within any Viability Assessment.

Recommendation:

Ensure the policy is properly assessed within the Viability Assessment and that the requirement is realistic.