Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 7339

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Alongside Oakham, Uppingham is one of two principal settlements in Rutland and hence the high apportionment of net dwellings over the plan period to this settlement. For such a fundamental limb of the emerging local plan’s spatial strategy, not allocating any land within the emerging local plan to meet this need represents a significant risk in the event of any delay to the review of the Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan. It should also be recognised that emerging neighbourhood plans are not subject to the same stringent tests of soundness and accordingly, there is a greater risk of site allocations within the neighbourhood plan not coming forward.

Noted. The Uppingham Neighbourhood Plan is currently under Examination.

Object

Representation ID: 7340

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

The figure of 123 dpa is Rutland’s Local Housing Need (LHN) figure calculated using the Standard Method. The PPG advises that upward adjustment to the LHN may also be considered in situations where previous levels of delivery in an area, or previous assessments of need (such as recently produced Strategic Housing Market Assessments) are significantly greater than the outcome from the standard method. Relatedly, local planning authorities should also consider through their evidence base whether the overall housing requirement will deliver sufficient new homes to meet identified needs for affordable housing arising over the plan period. Previous assessments of need and housing delivery have been significantly greater than suggested by the LHN and this provides a compelling reason for an upward adjustment to the housing trajectory.
Any consideration of an upward adjustment to the LHN is absent from the local plan itself. If this is not rectified then the local plan as adopted will be unsound for want of justification given that its housing requirement is out of step with the evidence base.

Comments noted. The matter of housing need and requirement is considered in detail under Policy H1

Object

Representation ID: 7350

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

Firstly, no clarity is offered on what constitutes a “large” development site.
Secondly, Draft Policy H6 requires custom and self-build proposals to be in conformity with all other policies of the local plan. As such, it stands to reason that these dwelling types will only be permitted within established settlement boundaries. Such locations are also suitable, in principle, for other forms of housing. Such an approach is very unlikely to bring forward the number of custom and self-build homes required within the area on a sustained basis.
Thirdly, there is no analysis provided within the emerging local plan or its evidence base as to the scale of need anticipated by the SHMA (2023) for custom and self-build housing in Rutland on one hand, and the number of sites that might viably deliver such housing over the plan period on the other.
The emerging local plan should identify and allocate specific sites for custom and self-build housing. The number of such allocations should clearly respond to the scale of need arising over the plan period as set out in the SHMA.

Accepted that 'large' site not defined. Noted that 10 self-build plots included in their submission. Policy H2 includes provision for self- and custom-build. The supporting text for Policy H6 shows that Rutland is meeting the numerical need for the register and that allocation for sites specifically for self- and custom-build is not required.

Object

Representation ID: 7351

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Jeakins Weir

It is noted that despite the emerging local plan’s commitment to addressing climate change and the need for Rutland to become net carbon zero as set out within the local plan’s vision, there is no consideration in the individual assessment of sites in respect of their contribution towards these important objectives.
These matters should be considered in the selection of sites if the LPA is to meet its ambitions in these areas and it is apparent from a review of the Site Allocations Assessment that they have not been. This represents a missed opportunity to achieve the emerging local plan’s vision.

Support for inclusion of Climate Change policies in the Local Plan noted.

The Sustainability Appraisal (November 2023), that is one of the pieces of supporting evidence for the Local Plan, includes Climate Change, assessing sites with regard to both climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. The SA concludes that: ‘the most sustainable sites are Oakham, Uppingham and the edge of Stamford, in South Kesteven District. The preferred sites deliver 86.6% of homes in these three main towns. In this respect, the preferred sites perform well by supporting the use of sustainable transport modes, given residents have good access to existing services, facilities and amenities in these towns. Due to the main towns forming key nodes to local transport networks, directing growth to these settlements would help to encourage a modal shift and reduce reliance on the private vehicle, helping to minimise an increase in emissions.’ Overall the SA concludes that, in the context of wider regional, national and global contributions to and impacts on climate change, both the preferred sites and the reserved sites are unlikely to represent a significant change in the baseline. As a result, no significant effects are anticipated.