Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8308

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Comments on the overall plan highlighting the lack of proper consideration of alternatives, the lack of justification for decisions made, including for the selection of sites and the inclusion of the capacity of Quarry Farm in the housing land supply of Rutland.

Object

Representation ID: 8349

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy is not positively prepared, it is unjustified and unlikely to be effective in meeting the housing need of the area.
The housing figure, which does not respond to the Council's own evidence.
The Settlement Hierarchy, with a lack of sufficient planned growth at Oakham, partly as a result of the unjustified decision to include Quarry Farm in the Rutland figures.
The lack of evidence to satisfy the Duty to Co-operate and justify decisions made around Quarry Farm

Object

Representation ID: 8359

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Promoting land at Brooke Road, Oakham. The justification for the spatial distribution of growth in Policy H1 has not been properly tested, especially the changes to the Plan from Regulation 18 stage.
The site selection process lacks judication, and Quarry Farm has not been considered on the same basis as other alternatives. The capacity of South of Stamford Road, Oakham is unrealistically high, there is no justification for selecting allocations from all the suitable sites (e.g. Whitwell Road South, in lower order Empingham), and TWs site at Brooke Road, Oakham has been rejected for reasons of volume of objections.

Object

Representation ID: 8363

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Taylor Wimpey do not consider that the policy is necessary to deliver the aspiration for the highest possible thermal efficiency and lowest possible expected energy use for new buildings and should be re-worded to refer to achieving the FHS. This would bring the policy in line with national policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8365

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The policy is not justified by an assessment of viability

Object

Representation ID: 8367

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy CC6 states that all new developments should demonstrate that they are water efficient where practically viable and feasible. It goes on to state that all new dwellings should achieve the optimal housing standard of not exceeding 110 litres per day per person, and that proposals that go further than this will be encouraged. The Policy also sets out some further water related policy requirements including considering the potential for green roofs and the inclusion of a rain harvesting water butt. The policy will cause difficulties with driving down water usage generally and is not justified by a viability assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 8374

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Moving forward the Local Plan ahead of the publication of the NRS is not justified and has not allowed specific BNG solutions to be established.