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

The requirement in the policy is simply for the submission of a statement, but this will not achieve the stated objective of the policy. Policy CC1 does not give a clear indication of the content of such a statement and the threshold whereby permission might be refused. More fundamentally, once a statement has been prepared and submitted, and permission granted, there is no mechanism within the policy for it to be enforced. The policy will not achieve its stated aim and therefore will not effective. The policy will not comply with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 16 (d) as it is not clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how a decision maker should react to development proposals. For these reasons the policy 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 KET13 has been unfairly screened out of further assessment which means the selection of housing sites is not justified.
The SA has not assessed the highest dwelling number options.

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 – Residential development in the open countryside
Policy SS8 sets out very restrictive circumstances when new-build open market housing will be permitted in the open countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 8737

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Pegasus group

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst the need to provide a mix of housing types is understood the proposed Policy H4 needs to allow the decision maker to have regard to range of factors alongside the up to date evidence of local housing needs. This should include housing market evidence, economic conditions, viability and site-specific circumstances, all of which may affect the most appropriate mix for a site.

A more flexible approach would support the deliverability of development and uses the evidence in relation to housing mix to guide development over the course of the plan period. There are also site specific circumstances where a mix of homes based on the County wide or local need would not be appropriate from a design point of view, for example in a street where one size of property dominates.

The requirement for all major sites of over 10 dwellings to make provision for specialist housing across all tenures including extra care and other forms of supported housing is unrealistic and impractical. This type of provision will only be viable to run by providers at a certain scale, this part of the policy needs to be revisited.