Object

Representation ID: 5098

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England notes that this policy aims to minimise any built development on undeveloped land within the curtilage of these sites. We therefore suggest that these sites may be appropriate locations for the provision for Biodiversity Net Gain off-setting.

Comments noted. Agree that sites may be appropriate for application of biodiversity net-gain for major development. This would be covered by Local Plan Policy EN3 and criteria c) of the policy refers to the enhancement of the natural heritage. As the introductory chapter makes clear the policies of the Plan should not be read in isolation from each other and, for this reason, the Plan does not normally include cross referencing between policies.

Support

Representation ID: 5162

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Frank Brett

Agree in principle.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 5619

Received: 05/01/2024

Respondent: Julie Gray

I concur with Natural England .
- this policy aims to minimise any built development on undeveloped land within the curtilage of these sites. We therefore suggest that these sites may be appropriate locations for the provision for Biodiversity Net Gain off-setting

Comments noted. Agree that sites may be appropriate for application of biodiversity net-gain for major development. This would be covered by Local Plan Policy EN3 and criteria c) of the policy refers to the enhancement of the natural heritage. As the introductory chapter makes clear the policies of the Plan should not be read in isolation from each other and, for this reason, the Plan does not normally include cross referencing between policies.

Support

Representation ID: 5813

Received: 06/01/2024

Respondent: Braunston-in-Rutland Parish Council

These military sites cover large areas and due consideration should be given to returning undeveloped areas to agriculture

Support noted. It would be outside the scope of the Local Plan to require MOD land to be returned to agriculture given the length of time that the sites have been occupied by the armed forces when compared with, say, more temporary development such as solar farms.

Object

Representation ID: 6065

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Mr Gareth Jones

There is no mention of any accommodation needs for veterans as a supporting policy in the Local Plan

Comments noted. Policy SS7 (now SS6) is a Strategic Policy in the Local Plan setting out key requirements that need to be considered for any alternative uses of the military base or prison. Such provision would be considered and, if appropriate, covered by Local Plan housing policies or through the Council’s housing allocations policy.

Support

Representation ID: 6342

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Mrs Hannah Williams

Yes, this seems sensible. Consideration should be given to maintaining any existing biodiversity and not offsetting/ building hedgerows elsewhere (where at all possible).

Support noted. The sites may be appropriate for application of biodiversity net-gain for major development. This would be covered by Local Plan Policy EN3 and criteria c) of the policy refers to the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage.

Support

Representation ID: 6583

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation (DIO)

Agent: Montagu Evans LLP

DIO support the policy given the strategic nature of these sites. The DIO are not opposed to the requirement for a masterplan or development brief and endorses the need for the Council to have a role in bringing forward development on sites of a strategic nature. The DIO support the suggestion of the use of Supplementary Planning Documents for sites which are yet to be identified and considered for major development.

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 6716

Received: 11/01/2024

Respondent: Jane Alexander-Orr

Why aren’t redundant military bases eg St George’s Barracks being considered as viable sites for limited ground based solar?

Comments noted. Part of the St Georges Barracks is already identified in the Local Plan as an opportunity area for ground mounted solar pv development. The Barracks are also subject to a number of other constraints/designations shown in the Local Plan that would determine the appropriateness of the site for renewable energy proposals.

Support

Representation ID: 7101

Received: 02/01/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Policy SS7 – Use of military bases and prisons for operational or other purposes The St Georges Barracks location would also comply with this policy in relation to the sustainable re-use of redundant military bases and prisons on brown-field land.

Comments noted. Reference is made in the overall representation to St George’s Barracks (‘the above location’ in this representation). Policy SS7 (now SS6) would not be applied to development proposals at St George’s Barracks. Instead, Local Plan Policy SS4 would apply.

Support

Representation ID: 7119

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Tim Maskell

An imaginative ambition of RCC should be to create a flagship “Centre of Excellence” in Rutland – potentially on the St George’s site. Something similar to Carmarthen’s proposed ‘Pentre Awel’ development in Llanelli where such a centre aspires to be a world-class centre of excellence in its chosen area of medical technology – supported by research councils, local neighbouring universities, charitable funds etc. A major, dynamic, innovative, attention grabbing, project to put Rutland on the map as offering something more than an attractive resting home for OAPs.

Rutland should seek to establish a trend setting system of support for start-up commercial ventures (linked with above Centre). To attract and support a ‘hatching ground’ of entrepreneurial excellence as a basis for the County’s longer term economic development.

Support noted. This representation applies to Policy SS4.

Object

Representation ID: 7437

Received: 07/01/2024

Respondent: Cottesmore Parish Council

Given that there is a separate policy in the plan for St. George’s Barracks, currently this policy applies primarily to Kendrew Barracks and HMP Stocken. We welcome that there is still a policy about this in the Plan. However, it is vital that lessons are learnt from St George’s as to how this policy is framed and, if necessary during the plan period, implemented.

We strongly urge that reference is made to engaging with community from the start, if this were to happen and that this point is emphasised strongly within the policy itself. The reference to a supplementary planning document or a development plan document, incorporating a development brief or masterplan is welcomed. But this must be led by the Local Planning Authority and should on no account be led by landowners and/or potential developers. Again this should be reflected in the policy. This is consistent with the way public sector operational land is treated. Thus, whilst it is operational and only whilst it is operational there is some scope to be treated differently under some elements of planning legislation. Once it is no longer required and becomes surplus to operational requirements it is then under the same development rules as any other potential development, even while it is still retained in public ownership.

Comments noted. Policy SS7 (now SS6) states that the SPD/DPD would be prepared in consultation with a number of groups, including local communities. The text supporting the policy states that, if the re-use is likely to be significant then development proposals may need to be through a review of the Local Plan or a separate Development Plan Document. This would allow for full consultation in accordance with the Local Plan Regulations and in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

Object

Representation ID: 7442

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Sport England

Kendrew Barracks at Cottesmore, St George’s Barracks at North Luffenham and HMP Stocken all contain sports facilities which should be protected from being built on as laid out in paragraph 103 of the NPPF (2023). Community use of the sports facilities at Kendrew Barracks are included in the emerging Rutland Playing Pitch Strategy along with the need for their protection. There is a need to protect these existing sports facilities. Appropriate wording should form part of one of the criteria contained in this policy.

Comments noted. The protection of sports facilities is set out in para 103 of the NPPF and Local Plan Policy SC6. These would be used in the assessment of any application affecting sports facilities at the military sites. Furthermore, if a masterplan or DPD is prepared, then this would include details of, and take into account, the sports facilities on the site in accordance with national planning guidance and Local Plan Policy SC6.

Object

Representation ID: 7581

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Criteria c should reference heritage assets and their
settings to reflect NPPF wording.

The following phrase could be added to end of criteria c)
“including heritage assets and their settings”

Agree. Add to criteria c): ‘and heritage assets and their settings’.

Object

Representation ID: 7619

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

This policy does not include sufficient detail to ensure adequate assessment of any risk posed by land contamination is completed to ensure groundwater is not affected by contamination. We therefore suggest the below wording is also added into this policy.

‘A preliminary risk assessment done by a suitably qualified person should be undertaken in accordance with ‘ Land Contamination Risk Management’ as the first stage of assessing any risk posed by land contamination. Groundwater is vulnerable to pollution from activities including discharge of effluents to ground from drainage storage of hazardous substances, and previous land use. The Environment Agency’s approach to groundwater protection provides information on how the Environment Agency will take a risk-based approach to regulate activities that may impact groundwater resources and to prevent and limit pollution.’

Comments noted. Criteria g) of Policy SS7 (now SS6) considers contamination but, for consistency with Policy SS6 (now SS5) , reword g) to that used in Policy SS6 (now SS5) and add in criteria h) as worded in Policy SS6 (now SS5)

Object

Representation ID: 7791

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Edith Weston Parish Council

Policy SS7 should recognise that in some instances redevelopment could be unsustainable and nature recovery or sustainable energy generation could be more appropriate options. We are very concerned that this policy in its current form could be used to support unsustainable housing development in unsustainable locations.

We are unsure of the relationship between Policies SS9 and SS10 and the previous policies SS5 and SS7.

Comments noted. Policy SS7 (now SS6) is a Strategic Policy in the Local Plan setting out key requirements that need to be considered for any alternative uses of the military base or prison. The text supporting Policy SS7 (now SS6) states that, if the re-use is likely to be significant, then development proposals may need to be through a review of the Local Plan or a separate Development Plan Document which would consider the acceptability of, and need for, new housing proposals there. This would allow for full consultation in accordance with the Local Plan Regulations and in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement.

Support

Representation ID: 7903

Received: 08/01/2024

Respondent: Ryhall Parish Council

S7 Reuse of Redundant Military Bases and Prisons - Support

Support noted.

Object

Representation ID: 7985

Received: 03/01/2024

Respondent: R S Hurwood

The military sites at North Luffenham and Cottesmore (apart from the Officers Mess at Edith Weston) are excluded from the housing requirement plan. Why?

Comment noted. These sites were not received as options in our Call for Sites process.