Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 5489

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We question why the vision sets out a target/objective of only meeting the County's "minimum" housing need. This is, to our eyes, neither a vision nor inspiring to those of all ages, sectors and demographics who may wish or need to live in Rutland. As a vision statement, saying "we are going to the minimum needed" may be appealing for political reasons, but does not seek to actively grasp or engage with the wider housing need issue of the young, or others not already settled in Rutland. Surely as a "vision" the Council can do better?

Support

Representation ID: 5491

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We support the element of the vision that confirms development will come forward in the Larger Villages and smaller settlements.

Support

Representation ID: 5493

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We support growth in sustainable village locations - allowing villages the grow and thrive, and provide housing for all - not just a specific demographic - but the full range that provides housing opportunities for all who wish to live and work in Rutland, including the young and those with families. This should include market housing, as well as affordable housing of various tenures. Villages must be allowed the thrive and grow over time too, not just become fossilised.

Support

Representation ID: 5494

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

This strategic objective is better worded than the similar wording in the 'vision' section. The 'vision' seeks only to provide "a range of high-quality housing that meet the County's minimum housing need" - which is not much of a vision. Housing need and the national housing crisis is very real and whilst obviously development must be sustainable and proportionate to existing settlements, the Council should lead the way on this vision and go beyond providing the bare minimum to avoid exacerbating the housing problem. Planning always for the bare minimum is not the answer and solves nothing.

Object

Representation ID: 5497

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We have selected Object as whilst we in fact support the thrust and majority of bullet points listed, the provision of high quality, sustainable housing - which we have a track record of delivering in Rutland and elsewhere locally, is rarely "low cost". That element is problematic to deliver when the other, numerous and admirable objectives are factored in - innovative design, low carbon, climate resilient, locally distinctive, safe, green, nature-based are supported, but have viability implications for general housing delivery if the other objective is low cost.

Object

Representation ID: 5498

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We have serious concerns over the phrase "Highest possible energy efficiency standards" - as this will have massive impacts on development viability and land coming forward if this is carried forward as drafted. How will this be measured? Will Affordable Housing schemes have to provide the same standard as market housing?

Object

Representation ID: 5500

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

This policy, as read in isolation, fails to square with all the other policies about locally distinctive, high-quality design, character, etc. Not all houses can face the "right" way to benefit from solar gain, as they would be lined up like panels in a solar farm. These key objectives, which are supported in principle, need to be balanced with those about making successful places, respecting the character of streets, villages, Conservation Areas, etc. Layouts need to be able to be more nuanced than just providing a development to maximise solar gain! Also, is any heat supply genuinely net zero?

Object

Representation ID: 5503

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Draft Policy CC3 and CC2 do not relate well together and should be re-drafted, perhaps as one more coherent policy. Policy CC2 seeks to maximise solar gain - Policy CC3 seeks to minimise overheating. Again, orientation alone cannot be the answer, and there needs to be flexibility here to ensure development produces decent places and houses that people want to live in. Is wind exposure a material planning consideration - where has this criterion come from and what evidence is there to support it?

Object

Representation ID: 5505

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

This policy as drafted places a huge burden on applicants for housing. Does this mean every planning application from a single plot to 1,000 houses (say) will have to provide a viability report to set out the level of renewable energy generation is the "maximum" viably possible on site? How else would the Council assess this. Criterion 2. is especially challenging as this level of post-development testing is not a function of national policy, where such matters are generally caught anyway by Building Regs and EPC's. What is the evidence to support the need for this?

Object

Representation ID: 5511

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Reference to "outside hard surfacing" is too vague. Public Highway cannot, from experience, be adopted if it is not impermeable. Does this cover driveways - these can be permeable if the drainage and ground conditions allow, but what about patio areas? Also, drought tolerant plants might not be best for bio-diversity or suitable. Planting in private gardens is not controlled by planning (and can be readily changed by residents) so this wording is not justified or enforceable.