Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8244

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As set out in our objection to Policy SS1 the distribution of development is too heavily biased towards the two largest settlements and (if included) the allocation at Stamford North, leaving the needs of most of the population unmet if they have housing requirements outside of these locations.
The use of the minimum level means that the residual requirement for the Large Villages which serve the majority of the rural area is limited to just 97 of the total unallocated requirement (1,189) which is negligible considering the majority of the County’s population live outside of the two main settlements.

Object

Representation ID: 8245

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As set out in our objection to Policy SS1 the 650 dwellings associated with this allocation should not be counted towards meeting the needs of the County. It is considered that the majority of this 650 should be directed into the Rural Area, focused on the Larger Villages.

Object

Representation ID: 8246

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The policy is over prescriptive and conflicts with the HMA.
Linked to our objection to Policy SS1 the strategy will not provide a range of house types, sizes, and tenures as it over concentrates development on just a few locations.
An approach that relies simply on the provision of smaller dwellings to encourage “right sizing” will not work as if the new supply is predominately smaller dwellings which are not attractive to older persons, then the lack of availability of family housing will negatively impact on both household formation rates and family size

Object

Representation ID: 8247

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There is nothing in the Ministerial Statement, dated 24 May 2021 that suggests the Council should be imposing strict locational criteria on the potential to deliver first homes on exceptions sites. The policy is unsound.

Object

Representation ID: 8248

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

While Policy SS1 proposes to allocate 16 ha, Policy E1 actually allocates 26.4 ha of employment land. We do not consider this is sufficient to deliver the step change in the economy which the Council is seeking. Also, just 6 locations are too few to provide employers and developers with a significant level of choice of locations and sites. Given the known need for new offices for our company at Greetham land at Greetham Quarry should be allocated either independently or as part of a mixed use allocation.

Object

Representation ID: 8250

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The NPPF does not make the distinction between office and other types of employment when it is addressing the need to support the rural economy – there is no justification for such a distinction to be made in this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8251

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As drafted the criteria based approach (clauses i) – vii)) provide a test for the suitability of locating rural employment development (criterion a) but appear specifically to exclude locations outside larger villages.
One solution would be simply to change the locational criteria to refer to “Outside of the planned limits of development”. This would also bring the policy into accord with NPPF paragraph 89 which is quoted in the supporting text.

Object

Representation ID: 8284

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes Greetham Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Had the site been correctly assessed (excluding an area of priority woodland which is not proposed for development) it would have been found suitable for development.
It is self-evident from the grant of permission adjoining that the site is suitable for residential development. Accordingly, it should be included in the local plan to assist in making good a shortfall of housing and rural employment, to address the shortfall of housing allocated to large villages and to help ensure delivery of new homes as the site is demonstrably deliverable and does not require significant new infrastructure not already in place.