Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8564

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land at Ashwell Road, Oakham has the potential to provide a logical extension to Oakham and can provide a sustainable development capable of addressing local housing needs.
The Council must adopt a figure in excess of the Standard Method/LHN on the basis that it has historically delivered materially in excess of it. There is no evidence of any consideration of an upward adjustment, so is unsound as it stands.
A simple 10% buffer in this case is ineffective, not positively prepared nor justified.

Object

Representation ID: 8565

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

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 The Council sought to rely on a new sustainable community at St Georges Barracks in the withdrawn Local Plan 2018-2036 and the failure to achieve suitable funding was the principal reason the plan had to be abandoned.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: 8566

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

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: 8567

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Avant Homes

Agent: Marrons Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Land west of Ashwell Road, Oakham is proposed as a sustainable, distinctive and thriving neighbourhood that forms 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 is appended.