Regulation 18 draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 7051

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

With regards to site allocation H1.8, land at Main Street, Cottesmore, I am fully supportive of this allocation.

The land is under single ownership, with the landowner intent on developing the land for the 8 dwellings identified. There are no infrastructure restrictions on the land and can be developed once planning permission is granted.

Whilst refused, all technical matters on the land were resolved and clarified under application 2022/0861/FUL.

Support

Representation ID: 7710

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

With regards to site allocation H1.12, land off Main Street, Market Overton, I am fully supportive of this allocation.

The land is under single ownership, with the landowner intent on developing the land. Whilst the proposed allocation indicates a capacity of 20 dwellings, the land is capable of accommodating up to 27 dwellings, as demonstrated in the current application 2022/1193/MAO. There are no infrastructure restrictions on the land and can be developed once planning permission is granted.

Object

Representation ID: 7711

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

The Council's scoring references the Brooke Road Crossing Assessment, which determined that the addition of more than 200 dwellings on the western side of the rail line in Oakham would bring the crossings at both High Street and Brooke Road to their maximum capacity.

Since the Assessment, a total of 162 dwellings have been approved on Braunston Road, According to the Council's assessment, this leaves a remaining capacity for just 38 additional dwellings.

Despite this, the site has received only an Amber score in the RAG scoring for Access. The Local Highway Authority (LHA) has classified this site as "a concern but could be developed."

Considering the LHA's expressed "concern" and their tentative conclusion that the site "could" be developed, there are doubts about the consistency of the RAG scoring system. Specifically, it seems more appropriate for the site to receive a Red rating rather than Amber. This situation also raises questions about the site's actual deliverability, particularly for the quantum of dwelling proposed.

Paragraph 69 of the NPPF requires for sites to be deliverable. At this stage, without any further consideration to the impacts on the railway crossings and their capacity, this site is not deliverable.

Object

Representation ID: 7712

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

This site provides an indicative capacity of 19 dwellings and lies on the western side of the railway line that dissects Oakham. If allocated, this would further reduce any capacity at the proposed allocation on Brooke Road, Oakham.

The assessment of this site underscores inconsistencies and factual inaccuracies present in the overall site assessments. Notably, for this site, the assessment states that there are "no designated heritage assets on site or within the vicinity of the site."

This conclusion overlooks significant heritage assets in close proximity to the site. The Grade II Listed Oakham Level Crossing Footbridge is directly adjacent to the site's northern boundary, and the Grade II* Listed Hayne House is located directly opposite the site to the east. Additionally, the Grade II Listed Oakham Level Crossing Signal Box is situated merely 20 meters to the north of the site.

Conclusion: The site is unsuitable as the heritage implications of the proposed allocation have not been properly considered or assessed.

Object

Representation ID: 7713

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

The assessment of this site demonstrates the presence of inconsistencies and factual errors in the site assessments process.

Within the Heritage assessment, it is inaccurately stated that the site "borders" the Conservation Area. This is incorrect; in reality, the site is completely situated within the heart of the Cottesmore Conservation Area.

Conclusion: The site is unsuitable as the heritage implications of the proposed allocation have not been accurately considered or assessed.

Object

Representation ID: 7715

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

This site scores highly due to being, in the Council’s opinion, a “brownfield site”. However, in the comments and conclusion section, there's a contradictory statement indicating that the site is "currently a brownfield site in agricultural use."

This demonstrates a clear factual error. Annex 2 of the NPPF clearly identifies that “Previously Developed Land”, or “Brownfield” land is defined as follows:

“Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings”.

Conclusion: The land must be reassessed on the basis it doesn’t constitute a brownfield site.

Object

Representation ID: 7716

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

This site has been allocated with an indicative capacity of 9 dwellings. However, the assessment contains unanswered questions that make the site undeliverable in its current form.

The Technical Consultation section of the assessment reveals that "full species records have not been completed" and a "consultation with the Conservation Officer has not been undertaken." Despite these gaps, the report acknowledges that the site is located within the Manton Conservation Area and notes the presence of several listed buildings in the vicinity of the site.

Further, in relation to access, the LHA confirm that, should a planning application come forwards on the site, it is unlikely to be supported by highways.

Despite the failure to carry out key ecological searches, consult the Conservation Officer and highways objecting to the proposed access, the site remains an allocation for 9 dwellings.

Conclusion: Unsuitable due to ecological, heritage and highways issues.

Object

Representation ID: 7717

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

The Technical Consultation in respect of “Relationship to Settlement” concludes that further assessment is required to establish the impact on the landscape and therefore “potentially” suitable.

Despite these unanswered questions, the Council seek to allocate the site in reserve for 90 dwellings.

Conclusion: Unsuitable for a reserve allocation due to lack of information on landscape impacts.

Object

Representation ID: 7718

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

In the Landscape section of the Technical Consultation, it is noted that the site is situated in Parcel EMP6 of the Landscape Sensitivity Study (2023). However, there appears to be minimal consideration given to key aspects of the study. Specifically, the study advises that housing development should "avoid the rising ground to the north" and it highlights that "The church is a focal point in views from the A606 across the study parcel". These recommendations seem to have been overlooked in the assessment of the site's landscape impact.

The proposed reserved allocation, covering the northern half of Parcel EMP6, directly contradicts the findings of the Landscape Sensitivity Study. This allocation would significantly and irreparably impact the approach into Empingham from the A606, a viewpoint identified as crucial in the study. Such a development would disrupt the landscape as outlined in the study's recommendations.

Conclusion: The site is unsuitable for a reserve allocation due to the Council’s identified landscape impact.

Object

Representation ID: 7719

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Class Q Ltd

I believe that some sites have been inaccurately assessed. I have detailed discrepancies in the RAG scoring that have arisen due to incorrect and inconsistent evaluations. Based on the above, the Council have been incorrect to omit the sites at Brooke Road, Braunston, Normanton Road, Edith Weston and Pickworth Road, Great Casterton as housing allocations. These would be more suitable and realistic than proposed sites which have also been inaccurately assessed. (see analysis provided)