Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8309

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Please see 'Persimmon Homes Regulation 19 Comments' document, to be read in conjunction with the comments below.

Persimmon Homes supports a policy on energy efficiency and the need for an Energy Statement in planning applications. Support is given to the flexible wording of the policy and believe that building regulations are the most effective way to introduce energy efficiency standards. However, there are concerns about the cost implications of energy storage, particularly battery storage, which can cost £5,000 to 10,000 per dwelling. A Regulation 19 Viability Note has been prepared by HDH Planning and Development Ltd in September 2024. The Council has confirmed that these policies are not seeking standards over and above Building Regulations and that while it is seeking Zero Carbon development, it is not mandating zero carbon standards.

Object

Representation ID: 8310

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Persimmon Homes support the flexible nature of this policy, particularly with the level of detail to be provided
being commensurate with the scale and type of application.

This Regulation 19 Plan includes the additional criteria point which refers to the potential to incorporate a
green roof. Persimmon Homes are of the view that green roofs are more relevant to commercial/ industrial
buildings rather than volume house building where few, if any, flat roofs are proposed. There is also the added
complication with the future maintenance of green roofs on individual houses. Furthermore, incorporating
green roofs are costly and these additional expenses have not been included within the Whole Plan Viability
Assessment (2023) or the Rutland Regulation 19 Viability Note.

The HDH Planning and Development Ltd Regulation 19 Viability Note states at paragraph 4.5 in respect of
policy CC3 that:
‘The Council has confirmed that these policies are not seeking standards that are over and above Building
Regulations and that whilst it is seeking Zero Carbon development, it is not mandating Zero Carbon standards.’
Green roofs and walls are not a requirement of Building Regulations.

Object

Representation ID: 8311

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst the re-consultation on the Future Homes Standard does not include embodied carbon the government has set out in its consultation that it intends to consult in due course on its approach to measuring and
reducing embodied carbon in new buildings. Persimmon Homes are still of the view that requirements in respect of embodied carbon should come through Building Regulations. Notwithstanding the above, Persimmon Homes do support the flexible wording of this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8312

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Persimmon Homes are still of the view that climate change matters need to be led centrally through Building Regulations.

Object

Representation ID: 8313

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst the re-consultation on the Future Homes Standard does not include embodied carbon the government has set out in its consultation that it intends to consult in due course on its approach to measuring and
reducing embodied carbon in new buildings. Persimmon Homes are still of the view that requirements in respect of embodied carbon should come through Building Regulations. Notwithstanding the above, Persimmon Homes do support the flexible wording of this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8314

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Persimmon Homes supports the clarification on the areas where permeable paving will be required within bullet point 1.Persimmon Homes also support the extra flexibility incorporated into the wording of bullet point 2 (soft landscaping) where the words ‘must ensure’ have been replaced by ‘should consider’. It is important to emphasise that there will be extra costs in meeting the requirements of this policy which have not been factored into the Whole Plan Viability Report (2023) or the Regulation 19 Viability Note. The extra costs of providing permeable paving is in the region of £50 and the costs of green roofs and walls is expensive, furthermore green walls and roofs are more suitable for commercial properties rather than volume housebuilding, where the type of product is less suitable for green roofs and walls and there is difficulty with management and maintenance.
Whilst it is recognised the wording of this policy includes the word ‘viable’, it would be unreasonable to expect all developments to provide viability assessments as part of the determination of this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8315

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Persimmon Homes are still of the view that it is unclear the impact this policy would have on the viability of a scheme. The requirements of this policy are not considered in the Whole Plan Viability Report (2023) or the Regulation 19 Viability Note and this has not been updated as part of this Regulation 19 plan. In the Council’s comments to representations received as part of the Regulation 18 Plan the Council have
commented that: ‘It is likely that further work to update the cost evidence for a number of options for the wording of the Climate Change policies will be undertaken to inform the next stage of the local plan. This will build on the Whole Plan
Viability Assessment (2023). Any changes to the draft policies arising from consultations responses and/ or new
evidence on climate change will be consulted on through the Regulation 19 consultation.’
It is clear from this response that the Council do not have the cost evidence to support this policy and for this
reason Persimmon Homes are of the view that this policy is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 8317

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Persimmon Homes object to the 10% uplift applied to the Local Plan’s annual requirement of 123 dwellings per annum.

In line with the NPPF’s increase on RCC’s housing numbers to 264 per annum, this is a 114% increase.
Therefore, we are of the opinion a 20% uplift would be a more appropriate uplift, given the impending
implementation of the NPPF’s housing increase. It is acknowledged that the outcome of the emerging NPPF’s
legislation on transitional arrangements for local plan preparation is yet to be acknowledged, a 20% uplift is
still a more appropriate allowance for flexibility.

Please also see Persimmon Homes' comments for Policy H1, as these can also be applied to SS1.

Object

Representation ID: 8318

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

PHEM objects to the inclusion of policies in the Local Plan that frame development management principles for sites that are not formally included in the Local Plan. The inclusion of such strategic policies in the Local Plan prejudices the fair and equitable site selection process in future local plan reviews. If the Council wishes to identify area for potential future growth it should ensure that this is undertaken in a manner that is equitable with all other reasonable alternative locations for growth in any future Local Plan period, i.e undertake a full
assessment of alternative strategies / locations for growth for that period. Until this process is undertaken the assumption that these locations will be identified for growth in plan period beyond this plan period is unsound and prejudicial. As such the policies are not justified and should be removed from the development plan, or
at a minimum removed from having development plan status.
If the authority wishes to provide some indication of potential future growth, these areas should not have formal development plan status, and at most only be indicative to ensure that the local plan review is not prejudicial.
The approach taken by the authority is seeking to identify allocations for a future plan period without taking account of the responsibility for that process to be open, fair and equitable, as well as subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The current process seeks to circumvent that process and is inappropriate. Equally the advocation of a separate Development Plan Document being prepared for these areas is equally unsound on
the basis that they have no rationale or linkage to this development plan process.

Object

Representation ID: 8321

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Land at Cold Overton Road, Langham has been wrongly excluded from the site assessment process, in confusion with adjacent land that has planning permission.
Object to 10% uplift of the housing requirement. A 20% uplift would be more appropriate, given the impending implementation of the NPPF’s housing need increase to 264dpa, and for flexibility.