Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8568

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Two sites are promoted for development - land east of Uppingham Road, Oakham (OAK02) and land at Seaton Road, Glaston (GLA01).
There is a need for more housing than the standard method housing need calculation generates, taking account of previous higher housing delivery, the HMA findings that 'a range of different projections typically (but not universally) pointing to a higher figure' and that affordable housing completions have been below target. The housing requirement does not reflect the evidence base and cannot be justified.
The sustainability appraisal has not thoroughly tested all reasonable options across all the growth scenarios.
Site OAK02 was screened out at Stage 2a because of a priority habitat (woodland) and impact on a heritage asset, but these could have been mitigated through a design led approach. A concept plan is appended to show how the heritage constraint can be responded to positively.
Part of the site GLA01 is a previously developed and it is within the planned limits to development (PLD).
Part of site The site was screened out because of the presence of a biodiversity habitat and landscape impact.

Object

Representation ID: 8569

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SS1 focuses the majority of new development within the Planned Limits of
Development (PLDs) of Oakham and Uppingham, and on land adjacent to Stamford North
as part of an urban extension. The Council sought to rely on a new sustainable community at St Georges Barracks in the
withdrawn Local Plan 2018-2036 and the failure to achieve suitable funding was the
principal reason the plan had to be abandoned. Seeking to rely on the site, alongside the
Woolfox Opportunity Area, risks a similar scenario.

Object

Representation ID: 8570

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H5, as worded, acts to restrict otherwise sustainable development where viability impacts occur in conflict with NPPF paragraph 16a and should be revised.

Object

Representation ID: 8571

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land East of Uppingham Road, Oakham is promoted as a housing allocation, as a logical extension to the town.
The respondent is broadly supportive of the vision and objectives and the focus on Oakham for new housing. However, insufficient consideration has been given as to whether the housing requirement should be greater than the standard method housing need, taking into account previous assessments of need, affordability and past under delivery. That the housing number is significantly below previous levels of delivery is a compelling reason to increase the housing number. Also, the suppressed housing number will reduce the delivery of affordable housing to below past trends, which will not address the significant affordability issues. The Council's own housing market assessment highlights that the standard method housing need number is a minimum figure and that a range of projections (but not all) indicate the need for a higher figure. The Council has not considered if any upward adjustments are reasonable and possible.
The 10% buffer for flexibility is not justified or sufficient. There are several sites where delivery in uncertain,
Housing delivery of the residual requirement is heavily dependent on one site, with attendant risks. A wider range of sites, including at Oakham, should be considered. An outline plan of the promoted site is appended. it is not clear the source of the agricultural land classification in the site assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 8572

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

the approach within Policy SS1 and SS3 to remove the PDLs from Smaller Villages and limit development to a maximum of 5 dwellings conflicts with NPPF paragraph 35

Object

Representation ID: 8573

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Jeakins Weir

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land at Seaton Road Glaston should be allocated for housing, being within the planned limit to development for the village and with part on the brownfield land register.
The housing requirement should be higher because of affordability, past under delivery, and the standard method should only be regarded as a starting point.
Delivery of new housing is over reliant on one site, at the expense of other locations.
A 20% buffer should be applied.