DEVASSIST: Rutland Housing Shortfall Prompts Inspector to Approve 30-home Development
An inspector has granted approval for up to 30 new homes in Braunston-in-Rutland after Rutland County Council withdrew its opposition to the scheme, following a steep decline in its housing land supply.
Background to the scheme
The proposals, submitted in November 2022 by Mr and Mrs Brand, sought outline consent for up to 30 homes, including as many as 12 affordable dwellings, on 1.33 hectares of arable farmland near the village. When Rutland County Council failed to determine the application in time, the applicants appealed to the Planning Inspectorate (PINS).
Inspector OS Woodwards originally allowed the appeal in May 2024, but the High Court later quashed the decision after finding a “material error of fact” in relation to the council’s annual housing requirement. The case was then remitted to PINS for redetermination.
Council’s revised stance
In his decision letter on 13 August, Inspector T Burnham confirmed that the main issue concerned “the suitability” of the site, including the status of the council’s housing land supply. Burnham noted that the authority had changed its position prior to the reopened hearing, confirming that it no longer wished to object to the development.
This shift was followed by the publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024. The aforementioned changes increased Rutland’s annual housing requirement from 123 to 266 homes (a 116% increase), leaving the council unequipped to demonstrate a five-year supply of land for housing.
Assessing housing need
At the hearing, all parties agreed that the calculation should be based on the new figure of 266 homes per year, which must be increased to 319 with a 20 per cent buffer due to the recent delivery falling below 85 per cent of targets set by the Housing Delivery Test.
The council argued that its supply amounted to 3.1 years, while the appellants put the figure at 2.96 years. Burnham found that the true figure fell within this “limited range”.
Although Rutland’s five-year housing land supply statement in July 2024 suggested 7.7 years’ worth of deliverable sites, a March appeal decision concluded that only 2.96 years could be demonstrated. Burnham described this as a “considerable shortfall” and gave “significant weight” to both the establishment of up to 30 homes and that of up to 12 affordable homes.
Local plan context
Rutland’s new local plan has been submitted for examination, with hearings scheduled for September. However, Burnham pointed out that the draft plan’s requirement of 123 dwellings per year was “substantially lower than the current requirement for Rutland” and provided “no obvious remedy to the housing shortfall in the short or medium term”.
He added that the current development plan was “failing to meet its strategic challenges” and that “it is very likely that some sites beyond the present settlement boundaries, such as the appeal site, will be required to deliver the required housing.”
Although the scheme conflicted with elements of the local plan, Burnham assigned only “limited weight” to that dispute and allowed the appeal.
Industry response
In a statement, planning consultant Class Q, acting as agent for Mr and Mrs Brand, said:
“Perhaps the most important takeaway from the decision is the inspector’s acknowledgement that, despite the council having submitted its emerging plan into examination before the 12 March cutoff set out in the transitional arrangements of the December 2024 National Planning Policy Framework, ‘the housing requirement set out in the emerging plan at 123 per annum is substantially lower than the current requirement’ assessed using the revised standard method.
Councils should be conscious that while their emerging plans submitted under transitional arrangements might be assessed against the previous version of the framework, this does not resolve the fact that those plans might not account for up-to-date housing needs, and this may have a bearing on the weight to be given to new housing.”
Kindly shared by DevAssist
