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.

Fundamental issues with:

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

There are numerous issues with policy H1. In summary these are:

No justification for the spatial distribution of growth, which has not been properly tested - particularly the changes to the Plan from Regulation 18 stage.
The lack of judication within the site selection process.
Concerns with the justification for Quarry Farm
Concerns with the capacity of the site South of Stamford Road
Lack of justification for selecting between suitable sites
Lack of justification and explanation for the inclusion of the Empingham site at a lower order settlement

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

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.