Support

Representation ID: 4906

Received: 27/12/2023

Respondent: Mr David Flynn

I support the development of St George's Barracks ahead of Quarry Farm near Stamford.
Housing development on this designated brown field site would have far less environmental issues than on Quarry Farm, where the biodiversity could remain undisturbed! I understand that the MOD intend vacating St George's Barracks in 2026, therefore should it not be listed for development consideration in the revised local plan which will run until 2041?

Support noted. The approach taken in the Local Plan for the location of new housing is for a wider spread of development across the communities whilst acknowledging that SGB may be appropriate for meeting some future development needs either during this plan period and/or beyond. The Local Plan must allocate sufficient housing land to meet housing needs during the plan period and the Council took the decision that SGB is to be identified as a Future Opportunity Area. The timescales for delivery of the two sites (Quarry Farm and SGB) are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 4914

Received: 28/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Andrew Nebel

I object to the total number of houses proposed as Reserve Sites. The :Local Plan's exclusion of any future and highly predictable development of the St Georges Barracks is unrealistic. As this will almost certainly occur to some extent during the next 20 years, some contribution should be factored into the plan's Reserve calculations, thus reducing the need for other villages to contribute the excessive number of additional sites currently listed as reserves.

Comments noted. Reserve sites are not to be included in the Regulation 19 Plan. St George's Barracks and Woolfox alike are identified as Future Opportunity Areas.

Object

Representation ID: 4941

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mr Neal Ince

This brownfield site should be used before other greenfield sites, such as the Stamford North site, which has important environmental features and is inappropriate for development for that and many other reasons.

Comments noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. Both SGB and Quarry Farm have biodiversity interests with parts of SGB being considered as a Local Wildlife Site due to the extent of calcareous grassland there. The Quarry Farm proposals will include mitigation to ensure biodiversity net gain secured through a habitat creation and management plan.

Support

Representation ID: 4957

Received: 31/12/2023

Respondent: Mrs Jane Ince

Fairness.
This would be a far better development than Stamford Quarry. This plot is twice the size of Quarry Farm.
Rutland does not appear to be providing any of the services that residents of Quarry Farm would need. It would need to provide services to St Georges Barracks.

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case of SGB being able to take priority over Quarry Farm. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. The impact of Quarry Farm on existing infrastructure will be assessed as part of the planning proposals with the possible application of the Community Infrastructure Levy/s106 agreement.

Object

Representation ID: 4988

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Define (on behalf of William Davis Homes)

It is unclear what status this policy will give to the St George’s Barracks Opportunity Area and how / when RCC envisages that the site will come forward, although the approach to not include it in Policy H1 as a proposed allocation is welcomed. In that regard, WDH query how the position in relation to the deliverability of this site has altered since the previous RLP was ultimately withdrawn due to fundamental questions specifically in that regard.

Comments noted. The aim of Policy SS5 9now SS4) is to provide a framework for the development of SGB in the likely event that it becomes vacated during the life of the local plan. In not including it in Policy H1, the plan still identifies sufficient housing land to meet housing needs thus removing the reliance on SGB for housing land. The Council took the decision for SGB and Woolfox alike to be identified as Future Opportunity Areas and for their development to be considered in a separate DPD.

Support

Representation ID: 5013

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sara Glover

Agree

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5025

Received: 22/12/2023

Respondent: Empingham Parish Council

EPC notes that possible development at SGB is only referenced in the new plan as a possible development for about 350 dwellings sometime in the future. RCC should ensure that only sustainable appropriate modest development is considered

Comments noted. Policy SS5 (now SS4), in recognising the complexities of the SGB site, gives a likely figure of between 350-500 dwellings for the site. The policy seeks to ensure that any development is sustainable and holistically planned through a masterplan with the status of a DPD, thus ensuring that it would be considered through a review of the local plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5066

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Trott

What an excellent suggestion, Rutland to develop houses clearly in Rutland on a brownfield site rather than using the farmland of Quarry Farm. The size of Stamford North will destroy Stamford, though not a Rutland concern we have development on the Blackstones and Cummins sites, we have new development on Empingham, Uffington and Priory Roads. Every space developed for houses and no cohesive plan to provide benefit for the people of Stamford and not damage our society, infrastructure and environment. Do something different, think of more than money in your coffers, think about the people which your decisions affect.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5097

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes bullet point (f) which requires the development to demonstrate how the scheme will protect and enhance the natural environment and ecological networks; ensure that a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain can be achieved; and that any impacts on Rutland Water are mitigated.
We would also wish to see an additional requirement for Green Infrastructure to be integrated throughout the site and considered at the earliest stages of the planning process. It should be ensured that all new residents have access to high quality green infrastructure.

Support noted. Add reference to Green Infrastructure to criteria f).

Object

Representation ID: 5141

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England highlights the importance of ensuring that adequate sewage treatment disposal can be provided for this potential development before the masterplan is progressed further to ensure there is no adverse impact on the Rutland Water SPA.
In addition Natural England recommends that further botanical survey work is carried out on the site to assess the extent and status of valuable calcareous grassland communities.

Comments noted. This would be covered Policy SC4 and Policy SS5 (now SS4) requires the masterplan to detail how the scheme would satisfy the policies of the Local Plan. Botanical surveys would be required to inform the masterplan (and would be carried out should part of the SGB site be considered for protection for its nature conservation value).

Support

Representation ID: 5160

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

The production of a new DPD is supported.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 5235

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mary Cade

The brownfield area of St George's is far preferrable for housing, and the necessary infrastructure, to Quarry Farm (smaller and greenfield and really part of Stamford). A development here will boost Rutland's, and Oakham and Uppingham's economies as well as provide essential services and infrastructure for communities in the east of Rutland that currently rely on Stamford's already overstretched facilities. The development of Quarry Farm relies on Planning Permission for the whole Stamford North (SKDC) proposal. A St George's development would be independent and wholly Rutland's. A St George's masterplan should include an upgrade to sewerage facilities.

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case that SGB could be substituted for Quarry Farm in the Local Plan. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5248

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Ginny Matthew

in relation to the overall plan this are is brownfield site and therefore would be a far better area for housing and other development than Quarry Farm Stamford North as these are agricultural greenfield sites and environmentally more valuable, especially Quarry Farm which is a candidate nature reserve - in your own plan elsewhere you emphasise the importance of preserving the natural environment yet propose destroying valuable habitat unnecessarily.

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case that SGB could be substituted for Quarry Farm in the Local Plan. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. Both SGB and Quarry Farm have biodiversity interests. The rationale behind the allocation of Quarry Farm given its wildlife interest is set out in the text accompanying Policy H2 and, if granted planning permission, will include mitigation to ensure biodiversity net gain secured through a habitat creation and management plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5266

Received: 24/12/2023

Respondent: Gary Gregg

The last draft Plan generated many objections to the proposed scale of development. The flying use of the RAF airfield itself stopped sixty-five years ago, in June 1958, when the temporary relocation of No.111 Squadron with Hawker Hunter F6s ended with their return to North Weald. It was then used over 1959-1963 as a PGM-17 Thor missile base operated by No.144 Squadron using a small part of the airfield. Over the last sixty years, the site has been largely used for occasional bomb disposal practice, golf and other open area recreational facilities. The Barracks themselves, occupying less than 20% of the overall site, were taken over by the Army in 1998 with the MoD first announcing its closure in November 2016, deferred now to 2026.

The potential for aerodrome sites to be used for rural housing became more feasible following the 2003 deletion of the PPG13 footnote, noting that airfields and hospital grounds should not be considered brownfield sites. However, a central premise of the policy has been and remains that it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage of a brownfield site should be developed. The definition in PPG 3 included a footnote which defined curtilage and stated that “where the footprint of a building only occupies a proportion of a site of which the remainder is open land (such as at an airfield or a hospital) the whole site should not normally be developed to the boundary of the curtilage”. The revised PPS3 (June 2011) notes that there “is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed”. Given the airfield use has effectively been abandoned substantially since 1958 and entirely since 1963, it has largely “blended into the landscape in the process of time” becoming a wildlife area of County value.

The future use of the Barracks remains to be determined but there is no need for 300-500 dwellings on the site and it is very doubtful, as per the last masterplan for 2,400 units, that any such scheme would be financially viable. That will be disappointing to the MoD who face large budget challenges but set against that is that they only paid £47 per acre for the land when it was compulsorily acquired for wartime use in September 1939.

Comments noted. SGB falls within the definition of a previously developed (brownfield) site (built development and its curtilage) but, in defining previously developed land, the NPPF states that it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed. Due to the complexity of the SGB site and the number of constraints, the text accompanying Policy SS5 (now SS4) makes it clear that opportunities for re-use or redevelopment of the land outside of the north-western corner would be restricted.

Object

Representation ID: 5321

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Les Allen

St Georges' Barracks site is inappropriate for development as it is in the worst possible location with inadequate infrastructure. The threat to nearby wildlife and ecologically protected sites, will be significant. More residential units at two small, separate villages (on top of Officers' Mess and Pennine Drive) will make this area a waste land, threatening the economic dominance of Stamford, Oakham and Uppingham. If Rutland needs extra housing (and this has not been proven) then development at Stamford and Woolfox, utilising nearby infrastructure, must be prioritised first. SGB is not totally brownfield and this classification should be legally challenged.

Comments noted. SGB falls within the definition of a previously developed (brownfield) site (built development and its curtilage) but, in defining previously developed land, the NPPF states that it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed. Due to the complexity of the SGB site and the number of constraints, the text accompanying Policy SS5 (now SS4) makes it clear that opportunities for re-use or redevelopment of the land outside of the north-western corner would be restricted. It is not allocated in the Local Plan but, recognising that the site is likely to come forward for redevelopment during the lifetime of the plan, Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out the framework for the preparation of a masterplan in advance of a planning application. A legal requirement of the Local Plan is to make sufficient provision to meet the county’s housing needs and this is achieved in Policies H1 and H2. The Woolfox site is also to be included as a Future Opportunity Area.

Object

Representation ID: 5367

Received: 30/12/2023

Respondent: Mr John Deag

I object to Policy SS5 - St. George's Barracks Opportunity Area. This and the Woolfox site should be bought forward for development in this Local Plan and not reserved for the future. The reasons for rejecting Woolfox are weak. Woolfox has the particular advantage of being close to the A1 where new slip roads could be designed and built without all the constraints and complications associated with the A1 / A606 junction in Stamford. St. George's and Woolfox should be developed, not the land at Quarry Farm, Stamford.

Comments noted. The Local Plan must allocate sufficient housing land to meet housing needs during the plan period. The Regulation 19 Plan will include Woolfox as a Future Opportunity Area alongside St George's Barracks.

Support

Representation ID: 5387

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Stuart Stevenson

The existing location is already a disused military site. It is more favourable to build on this site, than Quarry Farm with its wildlife and green space. This will also take traffic away from Stamford and not be a burden of Stamford’s overstretched infrastructure.

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5396

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Liz Taylor

This area should be developed rather than destroying the natural area of Quarry Farm

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5418

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: North Luffenham Parish Council

Will SS6 and SS7 also apply to St Georges barracks, or does SS5 overide these.

No, as the text accompanying Policies SS6 (Now SS5) and SS7 (Now SS6) makes clear, these policies will not apply to SGB.

Support

Representation ID: 5459

Received: 04/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Kevin shell

This would be a better option than putting extra pressure on stamford roads than destroying Quarry farm in Stamford that is a precious place for nature and peaceful for walkers

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5506

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Antony Squires

I support development here as it does provide a good opportunity for Rutland to meet much of its housing needs and it would be a good way to make effective use of the barracks whilst preserving more biodiverse parts of Rutland. However, I am not happy that development on Quarry Farm has been prioritised in this plan period over development here as Quarry Farm is much smaller but the density of housing proposed is far greater. It also has more biodiversity value than St George’s barracks.

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case of SGB being able to take priority over Quarry Farm. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. Both SGB and Quarry Farm have biodiversity interests with parts of SGB being considered as a Local Wildlife Site due to the extent of calcareous grassland there.

Support

Representation ID: 5549

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Christine Ingram

Number of people: 2

Why not use a completely New Village/Town model - St George’s Barracks in Luffenham is closing in 2026. With a school and shop added, plus a Hub for a visiting Surgery for Doctors and Banking. The long term commitment for Rutland would be secured as the development grew over time. It would mean green field sites would be protected for agricultural use or small scale developments added onto existing villages,

Support noted. The NPPF advises that one of the options for meeting housing need is through large scale development and this option (at SGB) formed the basis of the 2018 Local Plan that was subsequently withdrawn. The council then agreed that the SGB site be referenced in the new plan with a policy setting out the parameters for it to be covered in a separate Development Plan Document. The approach taken in the new Local Plan for new housing is for a wider spread of development across the communities and acknowledging that SGB may be appropriate for meeting some future development needs either during this plan period and/or beyond. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5618

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

I also believe that RCC needs to be transparent on the evidence behind Woolfox as NPP favours Tri-regional development - this could add significantly to our economic development and the location would certainly have better infrastructure and thus be sustainable.

Comments noted. The Regulation 19 Plan will include Woolfox as a Future Opportunity Area alongside St George's Barracks.

Object

Representation ID: 5626

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Pam Allen

The original SGB masterplan was rejected by the community. The Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) payment for the original SGB project was rejected by County Councillors. The area neither needs nor wants these houses. Rutland's HNA can be met without these dwellings. The infrastructure to facilitate the plan will be uneconomic and this location is too close to sensitive protected wildlife areas. SGB's site should be replanned to improve Rutland's effort to reach and exceed our mandatory climate targets (Rutland is behind most other UK Counties in this respect). Large housing estates in such a beautiful rural county are totally inappropriate.

Comments noted. The Plan recognises that SGB is likely to become vacant during the plan period and that the site may be appropriate for meeting some future development needs either during the plan period and/or beyond. Due to the complexities of the site, Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out the requirement for a masterplan, and the details therein, so that any future redevelopment takes place in a planned way (and as a Development Plan Document) would be part of a review of the Local Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5643

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Miss Emily Payne

St George’s barracks is clearly better suited to meet Rutland’s housing needs than Stamford quarry. This is due to the scale of the barracks, the face is it a brownfield site, and has a lower biodiversity value than the proposed development in Stamford. St George’s barracks should be bought forward as a priority over building at the quarry.

Comments noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case of SGB being able to take priority over Quarry Farm. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. Both SGB and Quarry Farm have biodiversity interests with parts of SGB being considered as a Local Wildlife Site due to the extent of calcareous grassland there. The Quarry Farm proposals will include mitigation to ensure biodiversity net gain secured through a habitat creation and management plan.

Support

Representation ID: 5661

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ketton Parish Council

Agent: Mary Cade

Since the MOD intend vacating in 2026, this site should be included as a full allocation in this Local Plan which will run until 2041. A development here will boost Rutland's, and Oakham and Uppingham's economies as well as provide essential services and infrastructure for communities in the east of Rutland that currently rely on Stamford's already overstretched facilities. The development of Quarry Farm relies on Planning Permission for the whole Stamford North (SKDC) proposal. A St George's development would be independent and wholly Rutland's. A St George's masterplan will be essential and should include an upgrade to sewerage facilities.

Support noted. The approach taken in the Local Plan for the location of new housing is for a wider spread of development across the communities whilst acknowledging that SGB may be appropriate for meeting some future development needs either during this plan period and/or beyond. The Local Plan must allocate sufficient housing land to meet housing needs during the plan period and the Council took the decision that SGB and Woolfox alike, are to be identified as Future Opportunity Areas. RCC has worked with SKDC over the Stamford North proposals, and jointly prepared a Delivery Statement that sets out the means of delivering the scheme in a coordinated manner. The development of Quarry Farm will contribute towards Rutland’s housing supply and any monies from CIL/Section 106 agreement will go to RCC. Infrastructure requirements for SGB would be set out in the masterplan.

Support

Representation ID: 5676

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Mz Jo Bull

A much better choice due to space available and lack of impact on nature and biodiversity

Support noted. Part of SGB are being considered as a Local Wildlife Site due to the extent of calcareous grassland there and biodiversity interests on the site would be taken into account when the masterplan is drawn up.

Object

Representation ID: 5682

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Williams

300-500 new homes at St George’s barracks, plus the number proposed on the Officers Mess site is too many for this area of Rutland to sustain. Roads are inadequate with no public transport. Closest villages would be overwhelmed, others would become rat runs for new residents commuting via the A47, A6003 etc. what about a smaller number of houses, a solar farm on the contaminated runways, a country park, woodland etc. This would assist carbon capture via carbon sinks and boost biodiversity. I note that St George’s is being suggested as a means to save Quarry Farm.

Comments noted. SGB is being put forward in the Local Plan as a Future Opportunity Area alike Woolfox, Policy SS5 (now SS4) provides a framework to help ensure that any redevelopment is in line with the masterplan that would form a Development Plan Document and be part of a review of the Local Plan. The Council must allocate sufficient land to meet the county’s housing needs, but, at present, the development of SGB is not required to meet these needs. In the future, the acceptability of including SGB as an allocated site would be considered as to whether it aligns with the Spatial Strategy in the Local Plan. Policies relating to renewable energy generation, carbon sinks, biodiversity enhancement and open space provision would form part of the masterplan process.

Support

Representation ID: 5698

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Robert Matthew

This should be included in the current proposals for building new housing as it is a largely brownfield site with little environmental importance compared with the proposed Stamford North/Quarry Farm developments. This would be more in keeping with your stated aims for biodiversity and the environment.

Support noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing whereas SGB is identified as a future opportunity area and no allocation is made there. The timescales for delivery of the two sites are different with an expectation that Stamford North will come forward in advance of SGB and therefore forms a fundamental part of the Spatial Strategy for the delivery of housing. It is not, therefore, a case of SGB being allocated in place of Quarry Farm. The availability and deliverability of development sites is a key part of ensuring that housing needs are met through the Local Plan. Both SGB and Quarry Farm have biodiversity interests with parts of SGB being considered as a Local Wildlife Site due to the extent of calcareous grassland there. The Quarry Farm proposals will include mitigation to ensure biodiversity net gain secured through a habitat creation and management plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5736

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elizabeth McLay

Services and infrastructure will be compromised

Comments noted. A detailed Infrastructure Delivery Plan would be published alongside a masterplan for SGB. This would set out the infrastructure needed to support the proposed development there.