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.

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 first part of this objection is that the policy is in general over prescriptive as it states that:
“Development proposals for sites of 10 or more dwellings should provide a range of house types, sizes, and tenures to meet the general and specialist needs for housing in Rutland in line with Table 4 below, as identified in the latest Housing Market Assessment or other up-to-date evidence of local housing need.”
This is different to the wording above table 4 in the written explanation of the policy which is sourced from the HMA and which states:
“Housing provision in Rutland should be monitored against the following broad mix of market and affordable housing provision:”
It is considered that the later wording is more appropriate as not all sites are suitable for delivering a complete mix of housing types.
The second part of our objection is linked to our objection to Policy SS1 which highlights that the strategy will not provide a range of house types, sizes, and tenures to meet the general needs as it over concentrates development to just a few locations leaving the majority of the area with few or no new allocations which can deliver any housing at all.
The third part of our objection is that the needs for older persons Specialist Housing has been significantly under estimated. Sites can be allocated for older people's housing.

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

Land at Greetham Quarry (GRE11) has been wrongly assessed to include an area of priority woodland, and that was a the main factor in its screening out in the site assessment process. If could be developed as an extension to an adjacent site with planning permission for housing.