Object

Representation ID: 8104

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mr John Deag

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

St. George’s Barracks and the Woolfox sites should be bought forward for development in this Local Plan and not reserved for the future. St. George’s Barracks will be a brownfield site. The reasons for rejecting the large Woolfox site are weak; as an ex-airfield it should be classified as a brownfield site. It has the advantage of being close to the A1 where new slip roads could be designed and built without the constraints and complications associated with the A1 junctions in Stamford. In contrast to H2 both sites can be developed without damage to valuable habitat.

Support

Representation ID: 8114

Received: 27/11/2024

Respondent: Mr Rob Cooke

These policies describe what should happen within the development boundary. Additional consideration should be given to impacts outside the development envelope such as increased pressure on existing facilities, increased traffic and associated nouse and air pollution; risk of water quality deterioration etc. Biodiversity net gain is a statutory requirement for larger developments; its principles should be applied to all developments.

Object

Representation ID: 8184

Received: 29/11/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Reg.19 consultation has introduced Woolfox as a Future Opportunity Area so has not been tested through consultation. No proven need for large developments in Rutland; proposals appear to stem from the controversial St. George’s Barracks plan. There is little public support for such developments, which are seen as exceeding local needs. While policy SS4 outlines 16 criteria for Masterplans, it fails to assess the necessity of the proposed settlements. Local communities, particularly around Cottesmore, have not been adequately consulted about the implications of the Woolfox development.

Object

Representation ID: 8252

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The creation of the SGB masterplan should not commence until the public have had the findings of the SSSI application and considered them. This site is very close to Rutland Water and it is imperative that wildlife and nature is continued to be monitored and protected. Local people do not agree that the whole site is brownfield and many areas have been treated as "green" for years (golf course, sports ground, farmed areas etc). Consultation representations on alternative uses at the site at earlier stages have all been ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 8277

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: Susan Walling

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Risk of coalescense with Edith Weston.
Gypsy and Travelling show people.
Claims regarding cars and traffic.
Edith Weston neighbourhood plan and over provision of housing.

Object

Representation ID: 8306

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of Mr PJSR Hill and Pikerace)

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

As the sole landowner of the site at Former RAF Woolfox Barracks (henceforth “Woolfox”), Mr PJSR Hill and his family business Pikerace support the identification of the site as a “Future Opportunity Area” in Policy SS4. That is entirely appropriate in that it will maximise the potential of a suitable part-brownfield site in a strategic location to deliver a residential-led mixed use development to meet housing and employment needs arising in the County (and potentially the wider region) in the medium to long-term. However, some modifications to the policy are required to ensure that it is sound in NPPF terms.

Object

Representation ID: 8318

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

PHEM objects to the inclusion of policies in the Local Plan that frame development management principles for sites that are not formally included in the Local Plan. The inclusion of such strategic policies in the Local Plan prejudices the fair and equitable site selection process in future local plan reviews. If the Council wishes to identify area for potential future growth it should ensure that this is undertaken in a manner that is equitable with all other reasonable alternative locations for growth in any future Local Plan period, i.e undertake a full
assessment of alternative strategies / locations for growth for that period. Until this process is undertaken the assumption that these locations will be identified for growth in plan period beyond this plan period is unsound and prejudicial. As such the policies are not justified and should be removed from the development plan, or
at a minimum removed from having development plan status.
If the authority wishes to provide some indication of potential future growth, these areas should not have formal development plan status, and at most only be indicative to ensure that the local plan review is not prejudicial.
The approach taken by the authority is seeking to identify allocations for a future plan period without taking account of the responsibility for that process to be open, fair and equitable, as well as subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The current process seeks to circumvent that process and is inappropriate. Equally the advocation of a separate Development Plan Document being prepared for these areas is equally unsound on
the basis that they have no rationale or linkage to this development plan process.

Object

Representation ID: 8419

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Grangers Land and New Homes

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

We object to draft Policies SS1 and SS4 as unsound because they are not positively prepared, lacking a coherent strategy to meet housing needs per NPPF 2023 and future Standard Method figures. They are not justified, failing to consider reasonable alternatives and proportionate evidence, such as land in western Uppingham. Additionally, they are inconsistent with national policy, hindering sustainable development and the new Labour Government's goals to boost housing supply.

Object

Representation ID: 8420

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Grangers Land and New Homes

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The owners of the land between Stockerston Road and Leicester Road, Uppingham, object to Policy SS4 and request its inclusion as a Future Development Opportunity Area. This would allow for residential development and the first phase of a western link road for Uppingham, addressing a recognized need. They argue this approach aligns with planning for the area's needs but requires policy modifications to be sound under NPPF terms, ensuring positive and effective planning in line with National Policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8469

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Sport England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

St George’s Barracks at North Luffenham contains sports facilities including playing fields which should not be built on as laid out in paragraph 103 of the NPPF (2023). There is a need to protect these existing sports facilities including playing fields as part of the wording in this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8481

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

ST George’s Barracks Not justified.

The principles below this policy are woefully in adequate and should be removed. They are also premature given the site is under consultation for an a SSSI.

Object

Representation ID: 8546

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: De Merke Estates

Agent: Stantec

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We strongly object to this Policy and the identification of these 2No areas presently: St George’s Barracks and “land at Woolfox”. We do not necessarily object to the future development of either or indeed both of these areas in the long term, but the correct place for such sites to be considered would be in the context of the next Local Plan Review.

Object

Representation ID: 8592

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Mr Norman Milne

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy SS4 proposes a housing allocation of 350–500 homes at St George’s Barracks, which risks overwhelming local infrastructure and services, and does not reflect the character or needs of nearby villages such as Edith Weston and North Luffenham.

Support

Representation ID: 8620

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Anglian Water

support Policy SS4 and welcome the intention to Masterplan the development including the provision of supporting infrastructure. The site would be served by Empingham WRC which has significant headroom capable of accommodating the 350 to 500 homes proposed and investment planned by AWS before 2030 to address the TAL question.

Object

Representation ID: 8642

Received: 01/12/2024

Respondent: CPRE Rutland

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

CPRE Rutland supports the proposal to limit St George's Barracks development to 500 homes, but warns that the site may not be relinquished for future development. The consultation on the St George's Barracks opportunity was part of a larger development, while no consultation has been conducted on the Woolfox opportunity area. The policy does not allocate these areas, but there is no clear public appetite to develop either site. The current Regulation 19 Local Plan does not show a need for such development, and there is no requirement to demonstrate it in masterplans. CPRE Rutland believes this policy adds uncertainty and confusion to the housing development situation in Rutland, leading to housing numbers exceeding established needs. The policy is deemed unsound at this stage.

Object

Representation ID: 8670

Received: 30/11/2024

Respondent: Clipsham Parish Meeting

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

So far as we are aware there is no acknowledged need in Rutland for either one of these
sites to be developed, let alone both of them. There is no evidence in the Regulation 19 Plan
that the Planning Authority has carried out any work to justify and explain the need for
these developments in Rutland

Object

Representation ID: 8699

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Number of people: 2

Agent: Montagu Evans on behalf of Secretary of State for Defence

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

the DIO express strong concerns with the decision to delay the delivery of homes on the County’s largest brownfield opportunity by removing the site-specific Policy for St George’s Barracks, and amalgamation with the Woolfox site under an opportunity area policy.

Object

Representation ID: 8708

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Duplicate of 8709.

Object

Representation ID: 8709

Received: 02/12/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

A heritage impact assessment should be included. The layout, including avenues and building arrangements, is crucial to its historical character, which should be respected in future plans.
Focus needed on preserving the wartime Watch Office and Cold War missile installations, which are significant non-designated heritage assets.

Clear separation is required between new developments and surrounding areas like Clipham and Stretton.
Evaluation of associated infrastructure, such as bridges and lighting, is essential for understanding their impact on the heritage landscape.

Support

Representation ID: 8721

Received: 24/12/2024

Respondent: National Highways

St George’s Barracks has the potential to deliver between 350 to 500 dwellings and Woolfox 4,000 dwellings and 100 Ha of employment. Although these two sites will not be allocated in the local plan, they have been identified as future opportunity areas (policy SS4). The policy includes a framework to secure the viability of these sites for future housing and employment provision through the Local Plan review or the preparation of separate Development Plan Documents (DPD).
National Highways welcomes the provision of a framework to require provision of a detailed transport assessment including proposals for the delivery of sustainable transport and active travel to minimise the reliance on private car use. In due course, we will welcome further engagement to understand and address transport-related matters, including access and potential mitigations, related to the A1.