Regulation 19 Rutland Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 8130

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Why bring forward a Local Plan that is so unsound and not positively prepared that it will need reviewing as soon as it is adopted?

Why not address these challenges and solve the housing provision problem at the outset rather than limiting new housing and perpetuating the status quo for the next 15 years, making the situation even worse?

The proposed revised method confirms a housing need figure for Rutland of 264 dwellings per annum. This draft Local Plan skirts around this issue, seeking to 'bank' a lower level of housing in the face of evidence of much higher need.

Object

Representation ID: 8137

Received: 28/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Criterion b) places a significant burden on smaller developers - and could delay occupation and delivery of housing if there are not sufficient independent firms available to produce such calculations. Will this data need to be sent to the Council for review? Is there the resource, funding and expertise in the Council to fully assess and understand the implications of such 'as built' data. What are the implications (what will happen?) should the 'as-built' calculations be different to the design stage estimates?

Object

Representation ID: 8216

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Regard needs to be had to the significantly higher need figure of the proposed revised method.

Ignoring this now exacerbates and artificially restricts access to housing. The plan is built on an entirely false premise and genuine housing need is not met, and access restricted to new housing. The plan is therefore not positively prepared - the gap between the current target figure and the new Government figure as a percentage is huge.

That unmet need will only make matters a lot worse for the next Plan. It needs dealing with now in the interests of intergenerational fairness.

Support

Representation ID: 8217

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We support the inclusion of Edith Weston as a sustainable location for new development and its designation as a Larger Village where growth will be permissable.

Object

Representation ID: 8218

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

We are concerned the focus of the majority of housing growth at Oakham and Uppingham leaves the plan perilously dependent on housing delivery at these 2 market towns.

Support

Representation ID: 8219

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

We feel it is important that this policy is included within the Development Plan so that should there be a 5 year housing land supply shortfall, there is a policy (not just the NPPF) that directs local residents and Councillors to the need to address this need on land outside PLDs.

Object

Representation ID: 8220

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Francis Jackson Homes Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The quantum of housing proposed is too low and seeks to ignore more up to date housing need evidence - the proposed revised method. As it stand the policies are too restrictive and not positively prepared.

Ignoring more up to date evidence will only exacerbate genuine need and make matters worse.

The location for most new housing i too narrow and small - it jeopardises delivery and places all the risk in 2 areas only. Other communities should be allowed the grow and thrive too.