H1.4 Officer Mess, Edith Weston

Support

Representation ID: 4511

Received: 13/11/2023

Respondent: Mr John Cooch

No comment at moment - need to read and digest

Object

Representation ID: 4675

Received: 08/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Christopher Jordan

In the latest update on the planning application for the Officers Mess sent out by the Ministry of Defence its states that after listening to local feedback they have reduced the number of homes from 99 to 85. They also state this number is required for the return to the public purse this is not the same as the housing needs of Edith Weston

In the withdrawn Rutland County Council Regulation 19: Local Plan 2018-2036, Policy H1.8 Officers Mess, Edith Weston EDI03 it stated an indicative capacity of 70 dwellings on this 3.8 hectares of land

Object

Representation ID: 4775

Received: 11/12/2023

Respondent: Alistair Parker

The identification of the Officers Mess site as entirely a brownfield site is incorrect as a third has never been developed, that re-use has not been considered (SO9) and that the allocation of 90 units is excessive for the scale and character of the present village (H1.4)

Object

Representation ID: 4908

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

The Table no.4 on page 82 states 153 houses are needed as a minimum after allowing for commitments & competitions yet this section on the contribution required from Larger Villages confusingly states 184 houses. This is a discrepancy of 31. This means that the Section 18 Consultation is invalid as the public are being asked to agree to inaccurate and contradictory information. What are we being asked to agree to 153 or 184?

Object

Representation ID: 4935

Received: 29/12/2023

Respondent: Mr keith simpson

Give Development of Oakham and Uppingham priority to increase their commercial viability. Share any housing development in villages in a balanced way and do not concentrate development primarily in one village.

Object

Representation ID: 5014

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

90 houses stated is a significant increase on the 53 houses most recently identified by RCC for Edith Weston and is disproportionate to the size of the existing village

Object

Representation ID: 5268

Received: 24/12/2023

Respondent: Gary Gregg

Village & Design Guidance (Jan 2022 AR Urbanism) identifies the village density at 14-18 dwellings per hectare (dph) reflecting the core at 15.1 dph, the western military at 16 dph and the eastern at 17dph. The H1.4 site, outside the PLD, is adjacent to the core village and hence development density should be 15 dph to remain consistent with the current conservation area character. With a curtilage of 3.94 ha, this implies a site capacity of some 60 dwellings rather than the 90 units allocated. However, a third of the site has never been built on since being taking out of agricultural use in 1939. Hence a site capacity of some 40-50 dwellings would be more consistent with the village character and scale of identified local needs and one likely to be welcomed by the local community. As the revised NPPF notes “significant uplifts in the average density of residential development may be inappropriate if the resulting built form would be wholly out of character with the existing area”.

It is noted that the DIO reportedly argue it needs 85 units to make it viable. On more complex Rutland sites requiring greater infrastructure, it is noticeable that developers maintain that lower figures are required for viability (for example, 66 at Whissendine re 2023/0271/FUL).

Contrary to NPPF, no consideration appears to have been given to sustainable re-use of the buildings, particularly the core Neo-Georgian ‘M’ scheme buildings designed under the aegis of the Royal Fine Art Commission.

Object

Representation ID: 5325

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

The site, right next to a busy road junction (especially bank holidays and weekends), will be too crowded with 90 dwellings on it. The mix of units (some 3 storey) on the site does not match the street scene or building designs of the village and the proposals for the commercial units will destroy existing, excellent facilities in the village. It neither complements or matches the community needs and it will overload traffic and endanger schoolchildren on their daily travel to and from school. The proposals should be scrapped or seriously reduced with consideration given to sensitive alternative use.

Object

Representation ID: 5376

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Christopher Payne

The proposal for 90 dwellings is far too high in proportion to the extant village.

Object

Representation ID: 5516

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Helen Jacobsen

90 houses is not only a significant increase on the previously RCC suggested figure of 53 houses, it is out of scale with the existing built landscape in Edith Weston and out of proportion with the total proposed development in the Larger Villages outlined for the county in the Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 5607

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Pam Allen

MOD should be made to consider alternative uses for the site which are more sympathetic to the adjacent, listed heritage building. No consideration has been given to using the site for the care of MOD personnel who have been injured physically or emotionally. The main officers' building could even be renovated with some external landscaping providing green respite areas. Such facilities could be blended in to the village street scene in a much more harmonious way than the design proposed in the outline planning application. The danger to schoolchildren with the extra traffic flow should reject the planning proposal outright.

Object

Representation ID: 5621

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

90 houses! 50% of the allocation of 20 villages - since when is this fair? Edith Weston has evidence of need for 23 houses - therefore allowing a generous buffer there should be no more than 35 houses built here.

Object

Representation ID: 5748

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr John Donaldson

Density of housing is too high. A development such as this will undermine the balance of the village

Object

Representation ID: 6050

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Richard Bonser

85 houses is disproportionate with the size of the village. Edith Weston has NO capacity within it's infrastructure for such growth. The Local Plan identifies a target of 514 homes across the 21 Larger Villages. Edith Weston is already meeting its share of this figure. Why does the Local Plan not put more emphasis on the development of it's major Town Oakham, which is becoming less of an attraction to Rutland residents and tourists .

Object

Representation ID: 6068

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Lunn

Too many houses, it exceeds the housing assessment and RCC's indicative numbers. It represents a 25% increase in the village size and a disproportionate spread of housing across the 10 larger villages for Edith Weston of 50% of the allocation.

Support

Representation ID: 6326

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support housing development on brownfield sites.

Object

Representation ID: 6406

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

Density of housing seems too high - otherwise redevelopment here on Brownfield site seems sensible

Object

Representation ID: 7203

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Nicki Hooper

53 houses were planned for Officers Mess, 90 houses are now being discussed, plus 83 houses for Pennine Drive this total alone is more than the whole county's requirement.

Please do not let this very special rural are be destroyed by the overdevelopment of this unique areas, the volume of traffic at weekends and bank holidays shows how important it is for people to get out to rural spaces and be in touch with nature.

Object

Representation ID: 7271

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Hugh C Palmer

The allocation of 95 houses to this site is completely unacceptable. Please refer to the responses you have already received to 2023/0822/OUT. It is probably incorrect to designate the whole site as Brownfield.

Object

Representation ID: 7449

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Sport England

This site contains sports facilities which would either need to be retained or replaced as part of any redevelopment proposal. The retention of the sports facility may impact on the number of dwellings that could be constructed at the site.

Object

Representation ID: 7490

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr James Preston

The H1.4 Officers Mess site allocation would increase the built village size by 36%. The density of 23 dph is inconsistent with the village character in the adjacent Conservation Area. The Village & Design Guidance (Jan 2022 AR Urbanism) identifies the village density at 14-18 dwellings per hectare (dph) reflecting the core at 15.1 dph, the western military at 16 dph and the eastern at 17dph.

The H1.4 site, outside the PLD, is adjacent to the core village and hence development density should be 15 dph to remain consistent with the current conservation area character. At a curtilage of 3.88 ha, this implies a site capacity of some 58 dwellings rather than the 90 units allocated. However, a third of the site has never been built on since being taking out of agricultural use in 1939. Hence a site capacity of some 40-50 dwellings would be more consistent with the village character and scale of identified local needs. The allocation should also refer to proposed policy CC5 on the re-use of buildings, particularly the core neo-Georgian buildings.

Object

Representation ID: 7499

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs RDP Green

The figure of 90 houses for the Officers Mess Site is a huge increase from 53 houses most recently identified by RCC and I strongly oppose this number of houses. It will become a mass car/van car park and clog up the narrow roads in Edith Weston and make it unsafe for people and children to walk down the roads as there are insufficient footpaths.

It is totally out of keeping with the village of Edith Weston or its requirements.

PLEASE BE pro-active in identifying what sort of investment Rutland wants or requires and RCC should be proactive in attracting suitable businesses to Rutland. Forward thinking to address requirements of Climate Change and cut down on the need for more vehicles and travel.

We have a very pro-active community in Edith Weston which has lots of Community activities which means less travelling. This is what should be encouraged to create a happy and cohesive community.

Object

Representation ID: 7601

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Heritage assessment will be required, adjacent to a
Conservation Area and Grade II Listed Building.

Support

Representation ID: 7758

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

It is noted that the MOD’s ownership includes Site H1.4 Officers Mess, Edith Weston which is allocated in the draft Local Plan (Policy H1) for approximately 90 units. The DIO are supportive of this allocation in Policy H1, which reflects the site’s inclusion within the Planned Limits of Development and current planning application for development on brownfield land

Object

Representation ID: 7792

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

H1.4 recognises the St George’s Barracks’ Officers Mess in Edith Weston, which is consistent with the approach taken in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan.

However, the Neighbourhood Plan policy is based on a housing evidence document, prepared by Urban Vision Enterprise, dated July 2023. This identifies the site capacity as 60 dwellings, rather than the indicative 90 cited in the policy.

The figure of 60 recognises environmental constraints and urban design and character considerations having regard to the National Design Guide 2023.

We believe the figure of 90 fails to take account of these considerations and is also incompatible with the Policy SS7(a).