Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 7341

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Whilst the title of this policy relates to the circular economy, the wording of the policy focuses on waste
management and construction waste. The supporting text briefly addresses the principles of the circular
economy, however, these are not addressed within the policy itself. If this policy is seeking to address the
circular economy design principles, the policy should relate more to the design of the buildings and how to
ensure they are reused and adapted with appropriate evidence to support the policy wording and providing
certainty as to how the policy should be implemented.

Agree that the principles of the Circular Economy do go beyond waste management and construction waste but the policy also requires developers to show how the broader principles of a Circular Economy have been taken into account in their proposals, with examples in the accompanying text given of these. It is also consistent with the environmental objective of sustainable development in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 7342

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The policy must ensure it is aligned with the Written Ministerial Statement entitled, ‘Planning – Local
Energy Efficiency Standards Update’. This sets out that, ‘The Government does not expect plan-makers
to set local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go beyond current or planned buildings
regulations…. Any planning policies that propose local energy efficiency standards for buildings that go
beyond current or planned buildings regulation should be rejected at examination if they do not have a well reasoned and robustly costed rationale that ensures:
• That development remains viable, and the impact on housing supply and affordability is considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
• The additional requirement is expressed as a percentage uplift of a dwelling’s Target Emissions
Rate (TER) calculated using a specified version of the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP).

This relates in particular to criteria e) around heat supply and connect to the gas network.

Point f) should clearly ensure that energy consumption is reduced initially and only any remaining energy
requirements are from renewable energy sources. Energy generation on ‘or near’ the site should also be prioritised to ensure there is flexibility to accommodate site specific circumstances.

It is also considered that these measures could be better addressed through a dedicated Energy/Sustainability Statement, rather than the Design & Access Statement, with clear examples and supporting text clearly explaining the requirements to ensure there is certainty over the implementation requirements associated with this policy

Broad support for Policy CC2 noted. Disagree regarding the weight that must be given to the WMS 2023. Legal advice obtained by Essex County Council in February 2024 (https://www.essexdesignguide.co.uk/media/2966/updated-open-advice-re-energy-policy-building-regs-26-2-24-final.pdf) concludes that:
Local Authorities have a clear power, in sections 1-5 of the Planning and Energy Act 2008, to adopt planning policies that set higher targets for energy performance standards for development in their area than the national baseline, provided such standards comply with the usual plan-making requirements of section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and are reasonable, in that they do not affect the viability of new development to an unreasonable extent. This position has not been changed by the 2023 WMS. The WMS must be interpreted in a way that allows for the effective operation of the PEA 2008 powers; and allows LPAs effectively to meet the obligation on them to ensure development plan documents include policies designed to secure that development of land in the local authority’s area ‘contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change’. This means that the 2023 WMS cannot be interpreted to prevent LPAs from putting forward, and planning inspectors from finding sound, policies which are justified and evidenced and which use metrics other than the Target Emissions Rate metric and/or do not require calculation by Standards Assessment Procedure. Having said this, 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 are due to take effect in 2025. The FHBS is 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 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.
Disagree part f). Maximising the generation of energy from renewable sources on-site would play a vital role in reducing carbon emissions in accordance with national planning policy. On-site generation is most appropriate and achievable and it is very unlikely that developers would be able to secure renewable energy generation nearby off-site.
Agree that the measures required in Policy CC2 would be best addressed in an Energy Statement rather than in the Design and Access Statement. Such a requirement should form part of the local list for RCC’s validation requirements.

Support

Representation ID: 7343

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The broad principles of this policy are all supported and align with the NPPF. However, any duplication with other policies should be avoided. For example, there appears some crossover with the requirements in policy CC14 and CC1 within policy CC3, particularly points b) and d), which could be incorporated within policy CC1. This should be addressed to ensure the policies are compliant with the NPPF.

Support noted. Disagree. The PPG on Climate Change advises that when preparing Local Plans, authorities should pay particular attention to mitigation and adaptation. Policy CC3 deals with the future proofing of new development against the impact of climate change in accordance with the PPG. It is appropriate to cross reference to both CC1 and CC14 in the policy so as to guide developers on the wider requirements of the circular economy and flood risk.

Object

Representation ID: 7344

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Whilst the principle of on-site generation is broadly accepted, the policy must incorporate flexibility to
address site specific circumstances where there are opportunities for renewable generation adjacent/ very
close to a site. The Council must ensure there are full resources to enable site specific circumstances around energy provision to be properly assessed to pragmatically enable the most appropriate option to be considered and progressed.

The policy also sets out what ‘proposals supported by an Energy Statement should cover: Whilst the overall aspirations of the policy are understood and broadly accepted, the detail within the policy is not clear. There is currently no industry accepted definition of ‘net zero carbon’. This should therefore be explicitly set out within the policy or elsewhere within the emerging Local Plan, with details on methodology and expectations also clearly set out to ensure there is certainty around implementation.
Additionally, further clarification is needed on what is meant by ‘independently verified calculations’.

Furthermore the policy must ensure it is aligned with the Written Ministerial Statement made on 13
December 2023 entitled, ‘Planning – Local Energy Efficiency Standards Update’.

Disagree. It is a flexibly worded policy with ‘should’, ‘practically and viably possible on-site’ and ‘preferably on-plot. It is suggested that RCC may wish to consider guidance notes and templates to assist in the drawing up and assessment of Energy Statements to help with the interpretation of the policy.
Disagree regarding the alignment with the WMS 2023. Legal advice obtained by Essex County Council in February 2024 (https://www.essexdesignguide.co.uk/media/2966/updated-open-advice-re-energy-policy-building-regs-26-2-24-final.pdf) concludes that: ‘Local Authorities have a clear power, in sections 1-5 of the Planning and Energy Act 2008, to adopt planning policies that set higher targets for energy performance standards for development in their area than the national baseline, provided such standards comply with the usual plan-making requirements of section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and are reasonable, in that they do not affect the viability of new development to an unreasonable extent. This position has not been changed by the 2023 WMS. The WMS must be interpreted in a way that allows for the effective operation of the PEA 2008 powers; and allows LPAs effectively to meet the obligation on them to ensure development plan documents include policies designed to secure that development of land in the local authority’s area ‘contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change’. This means that the 2023 WMS cannot be interpreted to prevent LPAs from putting forward, and planning inspectors from finding sound, policies which are justified and evidenced and which can exceed building regulations standards.

Object

Representation ID: 7345

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

This policy is not clear how ‘favouring’ a building would be assessed or what this might mean in practice. Additionally, the policy does not acknowledge that repairing, refurbishing, re-using and re-purposing a building will not always result in less carbon use. It would be helpful if the policy could explain a methodology to assess the total embodied carbon consumption to consider whether this approach would actually use less carbon.

Comments noted. The policy does not completely prohibit demolition as there may be circumstances where it is unviable to reuse the building, or where a new building would offer a lower carbon solution or there would be public benefits that would outweigh any carbon savings. This argument would be set out in justification for the building’s demolition. The Design Guidelines for Rutland SPD addresses embodied carbon. The SPD also refers to the LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide (2020) that offers guidance on reducing carbon emissions in new development. RCC may wish to consider guidance notes and templates to assist in the drawing up and assessment of Justification Statements to help with the interpretation of the policy, similar to that available to support the policies in the adopted Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 7346

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The approach to reducing water consumption is broadly supported and the policy appears to align with
Building Regulations.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7347

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

This wording reflects Paragraph 173 of the NPPF (December 2023).

For both ‘Land south of Stamford Road’ (ref. H1.3) and ‘Land at Uppingham Road’, it is noted that a watercourse runs on the redline boundary between these two sites (i.e. on the southern boundary of ‘Land south of Stamford Road’ (ref. H1.3) and on the northern boundary of ‘Land at Uppingham Road’) and is situated within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The sites are however not located within a Flood Alert Area and the majority of the sites sit within Flood Zone 1 (which has a low probability of flood risk).

It is therefore considered that both sites can be sensitively designed for housing development, with appropriate sustainable drainage systems and green infrastructure located to adjacent the existing watercourse, to optimise development on the rest of the site.

Support noted. Comments not specifically related to content of Policy CC4 and accompanying text. Comments relating to two housing sites dealt with under the other relevant chapter of the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7348

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

The proposed housing requirement is based on the standard method of LHN. The draft Local Plan is clear that this is a ‘minimum figure’ and it should be considered ‘if it is reasonable and possible to exceed the Standard Method’. Indeed the NPPF is clear the standard method should determine the ‘minimum’ number of homes needed.

The Housing Market Assessment established ‘household growth of around 124-167 per annum’, therefore concludes that ‘the Standard Method housing need should be considered by the Council as very much a minimum figure with a range of different projections typically pointing to a higher figure’.

Figure 3 of the HMA highlights that there is a net estimated need for 78 affordable housing units per annum across the Plan period.

Policy H7 of the draft Local Plan proposes a 30% affordable housing threshold for developments of 10 or more dwellings. This would equate to the delivery of only 37 affordable housing units per annum across the Plan period based on the LHN. To deliver the required level of affordable housing provision per annum across the Plan period there would need to be the delivery of 260 residential units per annum.

Location of growth

As per our representation response to Q13 of the Issues and Options consultation, this approach to growth is broadly supported as it seeks to assign the majority
of growth to the market towns of Oakham and Uppingham.

Ensuring an adequate supply of housing sites in and around Oakham and Uppingham, including medium
sites (particularly in single ownership such as ‘Land south of Stamford Road’ (ref. H1.3) and ‘Land at
Uppingham Road’ that can be delivered quickly), will be important to meet and respond to local housing
needs.

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

Object

Representation ID: 7352

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

Given the need for housing above the LHN, a flexible approach should be taken to the Planned Limits of Development in order to ensure that sufficient
housing can be accommodated during the Plan period.

The requirements for Policy SS1 set out above, enable ‘greenfield sites adjoining the Planned Limits of Development of Oakham and Barleythorpe, Uppingham and the Larger Villages… [to] be released in exceptional circumstances where it is demonstrated that they are needed to maintain a sufficient supply of deliverable and developable land’, it is considered that in these instances larger scale adjustments to the Planned Limits of Development may be required to achieve the necessary level of housing growth.

Indeed, it is reasonable to ensure that growth should firstly be focussed around the most sustainable settlements, such as Oakham, to ensure that any greenfield development would meet the other objectives of the Plan. However, it is recommended that the supporting text for Policy SS3 is therefore amended to ensure consistency across the strategic policies of the Plan and any Neighbourhood Plan.

Noted. Policy SS3 (now SS2) and SS4 (now SS3) to be amended to allow for small scale infill and re-development of appropriate sites on the edge of settlements whether there is a PLD or not. Policy SS4 (now SS3) should be amended to apply to large and small villages and apply a criteria based approach for all small scale proposals on the edge of a settlement.

Support

Representation ID: 7353

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: The Society of Merchant Venturers

Agent: Savills

It is clear that the existing evidence doesn’t support an allocation on this site coming forward, with the supporting text for this policy confirming ‘Development proposals for the re-development of the site remains uncertain at the point of preparing the Local Plan, therefore no specific proposal is included for the site’.

Indeed, the Council notes that ‘Allocating a development of the scale and nature proposed for Woolfox
would compromise the delivery of the proposed spatial strategy set out in this plan and potentially the plans
of neighbouring areas’. In terms of housing numbers therefore, the site should not be considered to
contribute towards the Local Plan housing requirements.

Comments noted.