Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8443

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H4 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified and not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

This policy states that development proposals for sites of 10 or more dwellings should provide for a range of house types, sizes and tenures to meet the general and specialist needs for housing in Rutland. Table 4 sets out the proposed housing mix.

40. The HBF understands the need for a mix of house types, sizes and tenures and is generally supportive of providing a range and choice of homes to meet the needs of the local area. It is, however, important that any policy is workable and ensures that housing delivery will not be compromised or stalled due to overly prescriptive requirements, requiring a mix that does not consider the scale of the site or the need to provide significant amounts of additional evidence. The HBF would expect the Council to ensure that the policy is applied flexibly, and makes allowance for home builders to provide alternative housing mixes as is required by the market.

Object

Representation ID: 8444

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy outlines the requirement for all new homes to be adaptable and accessible, unless the M4(2) standard is impractical. It also suggests providing convenient external access, parking, and storage facilities for mobility scooters. A minimum of 2% of dwellings on site of 50 or more dwellings must meet the M4(3) standard. The government plans to mandate the current M4(2) requirement in Building Regulations as a minimum for all new homes, with M4(1) applying in exceptional circumstances. The HBF supports providing homes suitable for older and disabled people, but recommends applying the criteria set out in the PPG. The Council must provide a local assessment justifying the inclusion of the M4(3) standards in its Plan policy. The HBF supports the inclusion of the Nationally Described Space Standards (NDSS) in Rutland at this time.

Object

Representation ID: 8445

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H6 is deemed unsound due to its lack of justification, effectiveness, and consistency with national policy. The policy encourages larger development sites to provide serviced plots for self-build and custom build homes, with sites of 50 dwellings and over required to provide at least 2% of the site capacity. However, the Housing Market Assessment (August 2023) reveals that the Rutland Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register equates to an average of 9 plots per annum, and the Council permits an average of 12 plots per annum. The HBF recommends collating evidence to identify the need for self and custom housing and ensuring that house building delivery from this source contributes to boosting housing supply. The PPG also outlines ways local authorities can increase the number of planning permissions suitable for self and custom build housing, including supporting neighborhood planning groups, effective joint working, using Council-owned land, and working with Home England. The HBF advocates for self and custom-build policies, but acknowledges that coordination with wider site development is unlikely.
The HBF would therefore suggest that any unsold plots should revert to the original developer after a six-month, not twelve-month marketing period.

Object

Representation ID: 8446

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H7 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

This policy states that all major residential developments comprising 10 or more dwellings will be required to make provision for a minimum of 30% of the schemes total capacity as affordable housing. It goes on to state that in the designated rural areas, developments of between 6 and 9 dwellings inclusive will also be required to make affordable housing provision for a minimum of 30% of the scheme’s total capacity.

54. The Housing Market Assessment (August 2023) identifies an affordable housing need of 78dpa. The Whole Plan Viability Assessment identifies the viability challenges in Rutland. Table 12.4a identifies the viability challenges in Oakham, Uppingham and wider Rutland, particularly for brownfield sites and large greenfield sites. Viability is an important consideration when setting affordable housing policies, as set out in the NPPF , and it is important that such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the Plan. The HBF has set out its concerns in relation to Viability and the Viability Assessment later in this response.

55. The HBF notes that the policy states that the 30% affordable housing requirement applies to Use Class C2 supported housing where these meet the Council Tax definition of a dwelling. The HBF notes that the Viability Assessment states that Extra Care Housing has capacity to bear affordable housing, however, this is unlikely to be at policy compliant levels.

Object

Representation ID: 8447

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H8 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

HBF reiterate that there is no need to repeat national guidance or any specific reference to requirements set out in the NPPF and the PPG within the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8448

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SC2 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

This policy states that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to Conservation Area Appraisals, adopted Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) and adopted site-specific design guides and design codes.

This policy seems to be seeking to give Local Plan status to an existing SPDs which is not appropriate. Planning policy must be made through the Local Plan process and be subject to mandatory requirements for public consultation and independent scrutiny through the Examination process.

Object

Representation ID: 8449

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SC3 is deemed unsound and inconsistent with national policy due to its requirement for major development to comply with Manual for Streets guidance, Building for Healthy Life, and Streets for Healthy Life. The HBF is concerned that this policy may elevate other elements of guidance to Development Plan status, and recommends changing it to "all major development should give consideration to:..." The HBF also notes that NDSS are not required in Rutland at the moment, but suggests the Council will review it. The HBF also notes that standards can negatively impact viability, increase affordability issues, and reduce customer choice. The HBF's Annual Industry Customer Satisfaction Survey shows that 90% of new homeowners would buy a new home again and are satisfied with the internal design and layout, not suggesting issues with room size or the need for NDSS.

Object

Representation ID: 8450

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SC5 requires major development proposals of over 10 dwellings to have a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) accompanying them, which is considered unsound and unjustified. The policy is not in line with national policy as it does not align with the principle of improving health and well-being through local plans. The HBF supports plans that focus on enhancing health and well-being and believes that local plans should address health impacts and have policies to address any concerns. The PPG highlights that HIAs are useful for significant impacts, but local plans should already consider broader health issues. The HBF suggests that requiring an HIA for all developments of over 10 dwellings without evidence of significant health impacts is not justified. They propose amending the policy to only require an HIA for developments that deviate from the plan and are likely to significantly impact local health and well-being, with the assessment scale reflecting the proposal's scale and impact.

Object

Representation ID: 8451

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SC7 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

This policy states that all new residential developments of 10 dwellings or more will be required to provide new or enhanced publicly accessible open space, to meet the needs of their occupiers in accordance with this policy and the standards set out in Appendix 3 and in any subsequently prepared SPD.

Again, this policy seems to be seeking to give Development Plan status to as yet unwritten SPDs which is not appropriate. The HBF recommends that this policy is amended to ‘and should take into consideration any guidance provided by subsequently prepared SPD’.

Object

Representation ID: 8452

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: House Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy EN1 is not considered to be sound as it is not justified, not effective and not consistent with national policy for the following reasons:

The HBF suggest that the policy is currently unclear and cumbersome. The reference to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), when there is also a separate BNG policy, is potentially confusing. In light of the new guidance on BNG that has recently been published, the HBF strongly suggests the Council need to review this whole chapter to ensure it fully reflects all the new legislation, national policy and guidance. Our detailed comments about BNG can be found in response to Policy EN3.