Support

Representation ID: 6267

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Smith

St.Georges Barracks is better suited to meet Rutland Housing needs than Quarry Farm due to its size and inferior biodiversity compared to that at Quarry Farm, and therefore should be bought forward earlier as a site for development.

The barracks should therefore be considered in this current plan period and bought forward as a priority as a housing development over the far more diverse 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 a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs. SGB is also important in terms of its biodiversity with parts being considered as a Local Wildlife Site due to the extent of calcareous grassland there.

Object

Representation ID: 6271

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Chris Hartley

St George's barracks site should be considered as a primary development opportunity within Rutland. The quarry farm site whilst being theoretically in Rutland will in reality be an extension of Stamford and not Rutland. This is not FAIR for Stamford residents!

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 allocation of Quarry Farm will support the sustainable growth of Stamford and allow necessary road and infrastructure improvements whilst contributing towards Rutland’s housing needs. It is not a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs.

Object

Representation ID: 6275

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Caroline Hartley

I object that there is a proposal to develop Quarry Farm in Stamford ( which is not in Rutland itself) but St George's Barracks is not being developed, even though this is in Rutland. This is fundamentally unfair as the pressure on Stamford's infrastructure will be immense.

Comments noted. The Local Plan allocates Quarry Farm (as part of the Stamford North development) for housing, which is within the Rutland boundary. SGB is identified as a future opportunity area alike Woolfox. 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 allocation of Quarry Farm will support the sustainable growth of Stamford and allow necessary road and infrastructure improvements whilst contributing towards Rutland’s housing needs. It is not a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs.

Support

Representation ID: 6287

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs N Wayling

I support building on this brownfield site instead of the greenfield site of Quarry Farm, which is a candidate wildlife site. Rutland County Council’s proposed EN1 policy states, “ Development resulting in significant harm to biodiversity will not be permitted”. So, building on Quarry Farm would be in contravention of this policy.

The Barracks are due to close in 2026 and so the additional housing that could be built here would be included in the 2041 quota.

In addition, the Barracks site already has some of the infrastructure that would be necessary for a residential development.

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 a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs. 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: 6339

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

I support development of brownfield sites. I believe it should be developed following the eventual departure of the MOD. Ideal site for connectivity and expansion and there is already existing infrastructure.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 6425

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs SUSAN SMITH

This brownfield site will boost economies within Rutland such as Uppingham and Oakham, and provide community facilities without having to rely on the overstretched and already inadequate infrastructure of neighbouring Stamford. This site should be included as a full allocation in the Local Plan in priority over the Quarry Farm site which is smaller, greenfield and with more biodiversity value than the Barracks site. Developing St George's would be independent of Stamford and its growing number of local issues.

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. The allocation of Quarry Farm will support the sustainable growth of Stamford and allow necessary road and infrastructure improvements whilst contributing towards Rutland’s housing needs. It is not a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs. 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: 6426

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hilary Smith

I support BUT note that as the present infrastructure will only support 350 dwellings. Any increase in housing will need the building of infrastructure BEFORE further development if it were to take place . More than 500 houses would completely change an area which presently attract many visitors to Rutland each year for the environment and nature which presently exist.

Support and comments noted. The provision of the infrastructure necessary to support the redevelopment of SGB would be a key part of the masterplan and Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out how this would need to be delivered ahead of, or in tandem with, the development of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 6524

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Roderick Morgan

St George's Barracks is only an opportunity area because it is available for development, not because the site is suitable in whole or in part. A rigorous and high-ambition Masterplan is critical. It should include 'trading' parts of the SGB site which should be returned to nature and/or agriculture under any objective assessment, in return for sites in locations which would be suitable / complementary to existing settlements but are not currently available.
If SGB is developed, there MUST be transport comms infra in place BEFORE development starts, including a transport hub in conjunction with a rail station at Luffenham.

Comments noted. The text accompanying Policy SS5 (now SS4) outlines how about a third of the site would be suitable for redevelopment with the remainder of the site subject to various constraints restricting development there. The provision of the infrastructure necessary to support the redevelopment of SGB would be a key part of the masterplan and Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out how this would need to be delivered ahead of, or in tandem with, the development of the site.

Support

Representation ID: 6578

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB

The ICB would want to speak to work with RCC and any Developers in respect of strategic opportunities to improve local healthcare infrastructure.

Support noted. The provision of the infrastructure (including healthcare) necessary to support the redevelopment of SGB would be a key part of the masterplan and this would involve discussions with the ICS.

Support

Representation ID: 6586

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Bush

I support development here as it is a more environmentally friendly solution to meeting the housing needs as this is already da brownfield site and saves biodiverse areas such as Quarry farm from being developed. You talk about quality of life and making Rutland a good place to live, work and study, please also consider Stamford residents quality of life if you permit building at Quarry farm, it will be disastrous. St George’s barracks should be made priority for development as it will not impact the neighbourhood and environment as Quarry Farm would.

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.

Object

Representation ID: 6594

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Sally Renner

I think 350-500 additional dwellings in Edith Weston is too many and just not realistic. The location of the village is not suitable for so many extra cars on the roads, as residents would no doubt need to commute towards the A1, A47 and other main roads, and also deliver children to schools in the area. Are there enough jobs to sustain so many new residents? There are many issues and I don't have time to adequately address them all!

Comments noted. The provision of the infrastructure necessary to support the redevelopment of SGB would be a key part of the masterplan and Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out how this would need to be delivered ahead of, or in tandem with, the development of the site. It is also envisaged that any redevelopment of SGB would include employment opportunities.

Support

Representation ID: 6596

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Sally Middlemiss

I support this brownfield development, as a more environmentally favourable alternative to a greenfield site development eg. Quarry Farm. To develop on greenfield locations with endangered species is illogical and unfair, when larger brownfield sites eg St George’s Barracks exist. I believe our Local Plan should protect local biodiversity and ecosystem integrity - this Barracks redevelopment opportunity does this, whereas the Quarry Farm proposal does the opposite.

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 a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs. 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: 6636

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Harriet Alexander

It would be sensible to redevelop the existing site, rather than building on green fields such as 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 a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs.

Object

Representation ID: 6637

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Charlotte Waldock

I object to this proposal for the following reasons
- 350-500 houses is too larger development for this area of Rutland
- local Road network cannot support this size of development
- concern for drainage and sewage system
- detrimental affect on Rutland Water (wildlife, light pollution, nesting birds)
- inadequate infrastructure to support this size of development (schools, GP surgery)

Comments noted. Policy SS5 (now SS4) is in recognition that SGB will become vacant during the plan period and sets out how any redevelopment of the site will be planned for. It allows for the council to take a proactive approach to the future development of the site and recognises that some form of modest, mixed use development would be appropriate for the site. As a brownfield site its development could reduce the pressure, in terms of future housing and employment site allocations, on greenfield sites. Issues relating to infrastructure provision and biodiversity impacts would form part of the masterplan.

Object

Representation ID: 6640

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

St George’s Barracks is a known development site with the ability to make a significant contribution to the delivery of homes and employment land across the plan period, offering a suitable and sustainable location for development. The DIO supports its inclusion within the emerging Local Plan as a development opportunity as this reflects the NPPF’s direction to plan makers to plan for larger scale development and use of brownfield land. The DIO object to the wording that "no allocation is made in this Local Plan" and suggest an alterative approach is adopted - see full comments for further detail.

Support for inclusion of SGB within the Local Plan noted. Objection to SGB not being allocated in the Local Plan and requiring a DPD to bring the site forward noted. The plan already makes provision for housing and employment development identified to meet the needs of the County to 2041 and the decision was taken by the council that SGB is covered by a policy setting out the parameters for it to be covered in a separate DPD. As the site is not allocated then it is appropriate, given the number of issues that would be raised by the redevelopment of the site, to require preparation of a masterplan that has the status of a DPD. This would allow for full consultation and an independent examination through a review of the Local Plan. Details of the phasing for the redevelopment of the site would be set out in the masterplan. Identifying St George's Barracks as a Future Opportunity Area provides a framework to ensure that any future development is sustainable and holistically planned and address the issues raised. The Woolfox site will also be identified as a Future Opportunity Area in the Regulation 19 Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6762

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Barrowden Parish Council

We support the development of St George’s Barracks on a more extensive basis than up to 500 homes.

It has the opportunity if properly developed to provide all the housing and employment required in Rutland over a 20 year period as a properly designed new self sufficient new town and with facilities which could be used by other residents in Rutland such as medical and sports facilities, etc.

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 rather than for a large scale site whilst acknowledging that SGB and similarly Woolfox, may be appropriate for meeting some future development needs either during this plan period and/or beyond. Identifying St George's Barracks as a Future Opportunity Area provides a framework to ensure that any future development is sustainable and holistically planned and address the issues raised. The Woolfox site will also be identified as a Future Opportunity Area in the Regulation 19 Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 6830

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Ms Kate Parker

SS5 – designates the St George’s Barracks (SGB) for “350 and 500 dwellings as part of a mixed-use development” but fails to provide any strategic justification for a development of this scale.

As one of the biggest development sites in the County, the Plan should address the proposed development in detail. The policy also appears to apply to both the St George Barracks and to the former RAF North Luffenham airfield. The latter was abandoned in 1958 and is hardly a ‘brownfield site’ but more realistically an important wildlife habitat and leisure site. Why is Edith Weston considered an appropriate location for 764 new dwellings (H1)?

The Barracks site with some 70-80,000 sq m of existing buildings should address policy SS7 on the old military bases in terms of re-use of buildings, minimising development on undeveloped land, protecting the countryside, minimising disturbance to nearby local communities, etc. rather than treated as simply an opportunity to build a new village in a place with no sustainable transport links.

Some of the existing Barrack’s facilities are important. Those include the 20m by 9m indoor pool with its new gas-fired infrastructure which is one of only four full sized pools in the County and similarly one of the handful of Rutland’s gyms (Rutland’s Leisure and Wellbeing Needs Nov 2021).

Comments noted. Policy SS5 (now SS4) is in recognition that SGB will become vacant during the plan period and sets out how any redevelopment of the site will be planned for. It allows for the council to take a proactive approach to the future development of the site and recognises that some form of modest, mixed use development would be appropriate for the site. As a brownfield site its development could reduce the pressure, in terms of future housing and employment site allocations, on greenfield sites. Issues relating to protection of existing infrastructure, such as leisure facilities, and the potential to re-use buildings, would form part of the masterplan. The Local Plan must make provision to meet the county’s housing needs and all allocated housing sites in Policy H1 have been through a rigorous site appraisal process that cover environmental, social and economic factors.

Object

Representation ID: 6855

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust

Point f. refers to “…ensuring a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain…”
within the site masterplan. This is inconsistent with the proposed
Policy EN3 – Biodiversity Net Gain which states that a net gain of at least 15% would be required for all qualifying developments.
Note that a large area of the former airfield on the St George’s Barracks site has been identified as a potential Local Wildlife Site due to the extent of Calcareous Grassland, a local and national Biodiversity Action Plan Habitat and Habitat of Principle Importance under the NERC Act, 2006. Any development in and around this area should therefore be firstly avoided in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy.

Comments noted. Policy is to be amended. Policy EN3 is also to be amended to specify a BNG of at least 10%. Details of the extent of the development area would be set out in the masterplan, taking into account the presence and importance of the calcareous grassland habitat.

Support

Representation ID: 7017

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Vickers

I welcome the reduced number of houses planned for the SGB.

Where do you consider other uses of the SGB site, like a solar farm (instead of using precious arable land), a cultural centre or a science park to provide jobs?

Support noted. Policy SS5 (now SS4) would not preclude other forms of development at SGB and Policy CC8 would not preclude the development of a solar farm there (part of the site is identified under Policy CC8 as an opportunity area for ground-mounted solar pv). Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out that the masterplan for SGB would be for a mixed-use development including employment uses.

Support

Representation ID: 7049

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: North Northamptonshire Council

This proposal is significantly smaller than the Garden Village scale development that was proposed in the previously withdrawn Rutland Local Plan (2,215 dwellings), and although 500 dwellings is still a sizeable development, it is likely this scale of development will have less of an impact on wider infrastructure (particularly the road network) and therefore potential cross boundary impacts for North Northamptonshire.

t will be key that robust transport modelling in the surrounding area/at the North Northamptonshire boundary takes place and other potential cross boundary impacts, particularly in relation to infrastructure, are considered. NNC is reassured by criterion g and h of Policy SS5 which sets out that a masterplan of the site must “detail the delivery of an adequate amount and range of infrastructure to support the uses and community on the site which must be delivered in tandem with or ahead of development” and “provide a detailed transport assessment including proposals for the delivery of sustainable transport and active travel” respectively.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7058

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Peter Vickers

I welcome the reduced number of houses planned for the SGB.

Support noted.

Support

Representation ID: 7100

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Policy SS5 – St. George’s Barracks Opportunity Area At 265 Ha. This is a much larger site than the whole of North Stamford. This would seem be an opportunity to create a sustainable and largely self-contained new community on a brown-field site, whilst being able to meet most of the infrastructure requirements and thus fulfil NPPF requirements. It would also meet the needs for the location of social housing in a more sustainable location. However, the current Policy proposal suggests only 350 to 500 dwellings to be provided on this site in the plan period, and these do not appear to be included in the numbers in the current allocation. The Society suggests that this would be a far more suitable location for a substantially increased housing allocation deliverable within the local plan period.

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. The allocation of Quarry Farm will support the sustainable growth of Stamford and allow necessary road and infrastructure improvements whilst contributing towards Rutland’s housing needs. It is not a case of SGB being able to be allocated in place of Quarry Farm. SGB is not currently required to meet the council’s housing or employment land needs.

Support

Representation ID: 7164

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Hereward Homes (Greetham) Limited

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

The policy states that the redevelopment proposals are not expected to deliver more than between 350 and 500 dwellings as part of a mixed-use development. It is noted that at this stage none of these dwellings are counted towards meeting the housing need in Policy H1 and this is considered to be the correct approach given the uncertainty of the timing of the release of the site and the complexity of its redevelopment.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7199

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mr David Lawson

I welcome the reduced number of houses planned for the SGB but where do you consider other uses of the SGB site, like a solar farm (instead of using precious arable land), a cultural centre or a science park to provide jobs?

Support noted. Policy SS5 (now SS4) would not preclude other forms of development at SGB and Policy CC8 would not preclude the development of a solar farm there (part of the site is identified under Policy CC8 as an opportunity area for ground-mounted solar pv). Policy SS5 (now SS4) sets out that the masterplan for SGB would be for a mixed-use development including employment uses.

Object

Representation ID: 7205

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Nicki Hooper

I am writing to lodge my concern over the current local plans to develop St Georges Barracks and the Officers' Quarters.

Woolfox has been put forwards as an alternative site and has excellent access to major roads, is it acceptable that this has been dismissed.

Comments noted. The Local Plan must allocate sufficient housing land to meet housing needs during the plan period. Identifying St George's Barracks as a Future Opportunity Area provides a framework to ensure that any future development is sustainable and holistically planned and address the issues raised. The Woolfox site will also be identified as a Future Opportunity Area in the Regulation 19 Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 7213

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Nigel Blackburn

Why is there such a large range of the number of houses planned for the St. Georges Barracks and why has Woolfax as a location been totally dismissed as an alternative, the is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable that the Officers Mess site has increased the number of houses to 90 from 53.

Comments noted. The Plan recognises that SGB is likely to become vacant during the plan period and that some form of modest, mixed use development would be appropriate for the site. As a brownfield site its development could reduce the pressure, in terms of future housing and employment site allocations, on greenfield sites. Identifying St George's Barracks as a Future Opportunity Area provides a framework to ensure that any future development is sustainable and holistically planned and address the issues raised. The Woolfox site will also be identified as a Future Opportunity Area in the Regulation 19 Plan.

Support

Representation ID: 7237

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Taylor Wimpey Straetgic Land

Agent: Bidwells

The approach to the St Georges Barracks site is supported. Any change to make the Barracks sites are more integral part of the Spatial Strategy should be resisted, particularly if it is at the expensive of development in Oakham. This would lead to a Local Plan which has uncertain deliverability and a less sustainable pattern of development.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7255

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manton Parish Council

Whilst St Georges Barracks (SGB) is not currently considered as part of Regulation 18, the development of up to 500 houses will have an impact on RCC Planned housing provision. Will there be a corresponding adjustment (ie reduction) in the numbers set out in the current Local Plan outside SGB from 2026 or as and when SGB becomes available for development?

Consideration must be given to the impact of increased traffic onto the current rural road network connecting SGB to trunk roads.

The suggestion that the Masterplan should address “integration” of a development of 500 houses at SGB with Edith Weston, which only has 380 households in a geographically separate location is a difficult objective to meet in reality. Has RCC considered recognising it as a separate New Village?

Comments noted. Given that the masterplan for SGB would be a SPD or DPD considered through a review of the Local Plan, then any future allocation of housing on SGB would be taken into account in terms of housing land provision for the remainder of the county at the time of the review. Issues relating to transport impacts and impacts on local communities would form part of the masterplan.

Object

Representation ID: 7269

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Hugh C Palmer

St Georges Barracks as an “opportunity area” for 300-500 new houses must be removed since not required. Alternative non- housing uses should be properly assessed, and the results of such assessments made public.

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 and subject to full consultation and independent assessment. There is no current requirement in terms of housing need to allocate housing on SGB.

Support

Representation ID: 7288

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Manor Oak Homes

Agent: Mr Andy Moffat

It is agreed that this site should be identified as a potential Future Opportunity Area and should not be an allocation in the Local Plan.

Support noted.