Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8142

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is noted that the spatial portrait states that:
“[Rutland] is one of the least affordable areas in the region with median house price to median workplace earnings ratio of 9.53 in 2023 compared with 7.59 across the East Midlands”.

For the reasons set out later in this in this representation, we consider that the spatial strategy for housing does not respond adequately to this acknowledged issue of affordability as it fails to provide sufficient housing land.

Object

Representation ID: 8143

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

It is noted that Strategic Objective 3 Meeting housing needs is:

“Meeting Rutland’s identified current and future diverse housing needs, including the affordability and adaptability of housing, through the provision of well-designed, energy efficient and low/zero carbon new homes”.

For the reasons set out later in this in this representation, we consider that the spatial strategy provides insufficient housing land and so this spatial objective will not be achieved.

Object

Representation ID: 8144

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy CC1 is not clear as to the content of required statement and does not indicate the circumstances against permission might be refused. Policy CC1 is ineffective and should be deleted.

Object

Representation ID: 8151

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The Local Plan is not positively prepared as it provides insufficient housing land in terms of emerging Local Housing Need, and does not provide sufficient flexibility given the potential delay in delivery for large allocations.

The position of Ketton in the Settlement Hierarchy is supported.

The removal of a clause in SS1 means the Policy will be ineffective, so should be reinstated with amendments. Reference to exceptional circumstances is not appropriate as this is the test for Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 8162

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Option or options should be tested through the Sustainability Appraisal which a include combination of sites or location within the settlement hierarchy which amount to 5,280 homes otherwise the plan is not justified and has not tested reasonable alternatives.

Site KE13 has been unfairly screened out of further assessment which means the selection of housing sites is not justified.

Object

Representation ID: 8163

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy EN3 is not necessary a single ecology policy should be prepared and this should cross reference to the national mandatory requirement for 10% net gain.

Object

Representation ID: 8176

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? Yes

Duty to co-operate? Yes

These representations are submitted by Pegasus Group on behalf of Vistry Group on the Rutland Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation, in relation to our client’s interests at Luffenham Road, Ketton.

Object

Representation ID: 8735

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy CC2 is not clear as to the content of the required statement and not not clearly indicate the circumstances where permission might be refused. The Council has confirmed in its Viability Note (September 2024) that it is not requiring more than Buildings regulations. Policy CC2 should be deleted as it imposes unnecessary requirements which will be ineffective in achieving its stated aim.

Object

Representation ID: 8736

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy SS8 should be deleted as it is very restrictive.

Object

Representation ID: 8737

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Policy H4 needs to be amended to refer to range of factors to be considered by decision maker and the requirement for specialist housing should be revisited.