Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7546

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF support the requirement for the Plan to deliver a mix of house types and sizes and are pleased that the Council has taken on board feedback from developers and
agents was to support Option A- to maintain the current flexibility on the different house types/sizes that should be provided by developers and encourage the mix to
reflect local needs; rather than introducing more perspective policies whilst taking account of up-to-date evidence

Noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7547

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

The requirements to meet Part M4(2) will be superseded by changes to residential Building Regulations. The Government response to ‘Raising accessibility standards for new homes’ states that the Government proposes to
mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. This will be subject to a further consultation on the technical details and will be implemented in due course through the Building Regulations. There is therefore no need for a policy on this issue within the Rutland Local Plan.

There is also a need to differentiate between Part a) and part b) of M4(3) technical standards. M4(3)a sets out standards for wheelchair adaptable housing, where
M4(3)b relates to wheelchair accessible housing which can only be required on affordable housing where the Council has nomination rights. Any policy, if it remained, would need to recognise this distinction. This issue should also be factored into the whole plan viability assessment as both M4(3)a and M4(3)b impact on viability, with M4(3)b being considerably more expensive.

The Government has announced that M4(2) will be the minimum accessibility standard, except in exceptional cases. As the supporting text to Policy H5 states, this policy is needed to secure the provision of M4(2) dwellings before the proposed introduction of the revised Building Regulations and to ensure that provision is made for M4(3) dwellings on large sites. The Council will be required to include evidence for M4(3) in its local plan in order to require it. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment is based on M4(3)(a). M4(3)(b) can only required for affordable housing for rent where the Council has tenancy nomination rights.

Object

Representation ID: 7558

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF does not consider that requiring major developments to provide for self-builders is appropriate. Instead, the HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies that encourage self and custom-build development by setting out where it will be supported in principle. The HBF considers that Councils can play a key role in
facilitating the provision of land as set in the PPG. This could be done, for example, by using the Councils’ own land for such purposes and/or allocating sites specifically
for self and custom-build home builders- although this would need to be done through discussion and negotiation with landowners.

It is considered unlikely that the provision of self and custom build plots on new housing developments can be co-ordinated with the development of the wider site.

However, if a self-build policy is be pursued, then HBF agree that if demand for plots is not realised, it is important that plots should not be left empty to the detriment of neighbouring properties or the whole development. The timescale for reversion of
these plots to the original housebuilder should be as short as possible from the commencement of development because the consequential delay in developing
those plots presents further practical difficulties in terms of co-ordinating their development with construction activity on the wider site.

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: 7559

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF have reviewed the HDH Whole Plan Viability Assessment. HBF suggest that without the clear
and robust evidence of the costs of going further and faster than government policy, the viability assessment is not robust and has not demonstrated any such policies
could be implemented without impacting viability. As such HBF do not believe the current evidence is robust enough to support a 30% affordable housing requirement.
The viability study, and therefore the policy requirements and section 106 asks, must be kept under review as the Plan progresses, especially as the costs of BNG and
Future Homes emerge. HBF also suggests that there is no need to repeat national guidance or any specific
reference to requirements set out in the NPPF and the PPG within the policy.

Comments on viability have been noted.

Policy H7 does not duplicate national policy, but does cross-reference it in places so as to provide justification and context. An appropriate balance has been struck.

Object

Representation ID: 7560

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF reiterate that there is no need to repeat national guidance or any specific reference to requirements set out in the NPPF and the PPG within the policy.

Policy H8 and its supporting text provide a framework upon which paragraph 82 of the NPPF can be implemented.

Object

Representation ID: 7561

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

This policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan status to an existing SPDs which is not appropriate. Planning policy must be made through the Local Plan process
and be subject to mandatory requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.

Agree. Criterion h) should be amended to refer to "adopted SPD" rather than to list specific SPDs

Object

Representation ID: 7562

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF does not support the introduction of the optional Nationally Described Space Standards though policies in individual Local Plans. If the Council wanted to do this,
they will need robust justifiable evidence to introduce the NDSS, as any policy which seeks to apply the optional NDSS to all dwellings should only be done in accordance with the NPPF, which states that “policies may also make use of the NDSS where the need for an internal space
standard can be justified”.

An inflexible policy approach imposing NDSS on all housing removes the most affordable homes and denies lower income households from being able to afford homeownership.

HBF considers that if the Government had expected all properties to be built to NDSS that they would have made these standards mandatory not optional.

If the proposed NDSS is carried forward, then the Council should put forward proposals for transitional arrangements. The land deals underpinning
residential sites may have been secured prior so these sites should be allowed to move through the planning system before any proposed policy requirements are enforced.

This also policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan status to an existing Design Guidelines for Rutland SPD which is not appropriate. Planning policy must be made
through the Local Plan process and be subject to mandatory requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.

Noted. Policy SC3 does not make reference to the Nationally Described Space Standards – rather it reflects the National Design Guide.

Policies are expected to be well designed and the Design Policy and the Design Guidelines for Rutland SPD set out what is expected in Rutland, in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 139 where local design guidance and supplementary planning documents are referenced.

Object

Representation ID: 7563

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

This policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan status to as yet unwritten SPDs which is not appropriate.

The policy provides for the preparation of a future SPD. Any SPD would have to follow the necessary process to be adopted.

Object

Representation ID: 7564

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF suggest that the policy is currently unclear and cumbersome. The reference to BNG midway through the policy, when there is also a separate BNG policy, is potentially confusing. In light of the new guidance on BNG that has recently been published, HBF strongly suggest the Council need to review this whole chapter to ensure it fully reflects all the new legislation, national policy and guidance.

Comments noted. Disagree. The Environment Act (2021) introduced a strengthened ‘biodiversity duty’ which means all local authorities in England must consider what they can do to conserve and enhance biodiversity. The wording of Policy EN1 aligns with the Government guidance set out in para 186 of the NPPF which sets out a number of principles for a hierarchical approach to the protection of designated sites and important habitats. The approach taken in the policy is also generally welcomed and supported by Natural England and the Wildlife Trust (subject to some minor changes to the wording).

Object

Representation ID: 7565

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

HBF suggest the environment section of the Plan and the policies within it are not as clear and logical as they could be. Would would suggest for example that the ordering of the issues/policies of the Plan could usefully be changed so that BNG is dealt with before LNRS.

HBF suggest that the BNG policy (and the Environment Chapter in general) needs to more clearly set out how the Plan will adopt recommendations and guidance from the
Local Nature Recovery Strategies (once these have been prepared) and set out the specific BNG solutions that the Council would like to be prioritised when off-site
credits are needed to achieve BNG policy compliance.

The Plan needs to set out receptor sites and appropriate area(s) for BNG off-site unit delivery so that an
ecologist can run the BNG statutory metric correctly, because the local significance of BNG is one of the inputs into the Metric.

Local Nature Recovery Strategies are new initiative, and one has yet to be prepared that covers Rutland. As the LNRS emerges it will be important for this Local Plan to
be kept under review and further public consultation on the interaction between the two documents and/or changes to Local Plan policy to reflect the LNRS may be
needed.

Comments noted. The preparation of a LNRS is a mandatory requirement under the Environment Act 2021 and is being prepared by Leicestershire County Council on behalf of Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Councils. It is likely to be published in July 2025 with a draft document produced later this year. It will be used to inform the preparation of policies in the Local Plan (the Reg 19 Plan which will be consulted on) and then, once published, the LNRS will be used in the interpretation and application of policies.