To receive any petitions, deputations or questions received from members of the public in accordance with the provisions of Procedure Rule 28. The total time allowed for this is 30 minutes. Petitions, deputations and questions will be dealt with in the order in which they are received and any which are not considered within the time limit shall receive a written response after the meeting.
Minutes:
i. The following deputation was presented by Mr C Bacon on behalf of the Council to Protect Rural England:
Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen,
The purpose of my deputation this evening is to report to you the professional opinion of the Head of Land Use and Planning at CPRE (Campaign to Protect Rural England), on the matter of the St George's proposals for development. This deputation has the endorsement of the Chairman of CPRE Rutland, who is unable to be here this evening to present it himself.
During recent months a number of Parish Councils have written to Sir Alan Duncan asking for his support and intervention with the Ministry of Defence to secure a significant reduction in the scale of their plans to develop the St. George's Barracks site. Sir Alan has replied by saying that he supports Rutland County Council in pursuing their Memorandum of Understanding with the MOD and that, if RCC did not continue to work closely with the MOD, even more houses would be built on St.
George's. He cites the example of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks at Grantham, where a larger development is planned and where the Local Authority has declined to work in collaboration with the MOD. It seems to us that Sir Alan is supporting the ambitions of the MoD rather than the significant weight of local opinion regarding St George's, and that this should be a matter of concern to all in the county.
Some of Sir Alan's letters to his constituents have been passed on to CPRE Rutland asking for our advice. CPRE Rutland has sought advice from the Head of Land Use and Planning at National CPRE. This is the highest level of professional planning advice in CPRE nationally, and is a well-respected source of such advice, particularly in government circles. His advice is as follows:
We have a planning system for a reason, which is to enable the right development to be located in the places where it will most appropriately meet the needs of the community that needs it.
Rutland has an Adopted Local Plan that was prepared with and agreed by its community. The MoD's proposals should be assessed in the light of Rutland's existing housing need, which is low, and as a result of recent years of over-development, is already well exceeding the established need. The defining principles of development in Rutland are the vision and strategy expressed in the Adopted Local Plan (repeated in the Local Plan Review dated July 2017) and not the pecuniary interests of the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, the Local Communities and the Local Authority have no reason to be intimidated by our MP supporting a Government Department attempting to impose development which is not supported by either local or national planning policy, or, indeed, by local opinion.
Furthermore, if development (which isn't needed locally) goes ahead in this location, it means that development that should have happened somewhere else, e.g. in Rutland's existing towns, or other nearby places like Stamford, Corby or Peterborough (the latter two of which actually need regeneration), is likely to be reduced - hence homes and business premises will be provided at greater distances from where the real need is.
Fundamentally, this is not how planning should be done. Planning is community-led, not developer-/landowner-led, and especially not when led by the pecuniary interests of a government department in Whitehall.
Every case concerning the MOD's plans to dispose of and develop their sites is different and presents therefore different planning considerations. Prince William of Gloucester Barracks is a completely different kettle of fish since it is adjacent to the town (and significant sub regional service centre) of Grantham, arguably forms a reasonably sensible extension of the town, directly on the A52, with established bus services connecting to the town centre and London-Edinburgh mainline railway station! It bears no comparison whatsoever with St Georges, which is remote from any such significant services.
The advice we have been given is to make sure that the residents of Rutland understand how the planning system should be supporting community wishes and to explain this to our MP, which we plan to do.
Questions from Members:
Mr Bacon responded that there was a distinction between the local housing need and the national housing need.
ii. The following deputation was provided by Mr P Cummings - concerned resident of North Luffenham:
Good Evening - I am Paul Cummings - I am making this deputation as a concerned resident of North Luffenham. I would wish this evening to raise a miscellany of points relating to the St George's Barracks Project.
Firstly, a word of praise to those Officers who found themselves with the daunting task of summarising the myriad of points raised by Industry, Town Councils, Parish Councils and Individuals regarding the specific consultation considering the implications of potential development of St George's within the Local Plan. With a total of over 1,500 responses received either directly or through an opinion poll/petition the Council must be prepared to take very seriously the issues raised through the consultation process.
The issues and questions raised through the consultation paper, and indeed the document itself, were hugely complex and many struggled to understand the language and the technical planning terms such as NPPF, in this Local Plan Review process. However, what was clear from the results, was that the vast majority of those responding to the proposals, found them at best unacceptable and at worst abhorrent.
An analysis of the findings contained in this comprehensive report shows that actually the public did have a far greater grasp of the issues than might have been expected and their responses were very well articulated - I congratulate those who strove to advise, publicise and educate. What is clear is that the fulsome objections raised were made by the majority of those communities that you represent. It is unfortunate that though the document is dated Mar 2018, the results of this consultation were not available until after the County Council Elections. The report confirms that opposition to the scheme is widespread, and comes not just from local residents but from communities further afield and indeed the building industry itself. Let me give you just a couple of quotations -
"DLP Planning for Larkfleet Homes questions the soundness of an approach that redistributes development to less sustainable locations and considers the trajectory of 100 dwellings per annum for St George's Barracks to be unrealistic and unachievable"
Hereward Homes is concerned about the deliverability of the site and considers that there is no evidence to support the expectation that there is a need for this many dwellings in a single location or that the market is strong enough to absorb the dwellings at such a rate.
If the building industry think this plan is 'ill-advised' - do you really think that as the County's representatives, you are well placed to know better.
The report is well presented and well laid out - I would urge you to read it in great detail before you consider the proposals being put forward to rewrite the Local Plan to accommodate St George's and maybe even more worrying, much more development in the County besides.
My second point relates to the ill-informed briefing given by the Secretary Of State in which he advised that a 2,200 home development was being delivered at St George's - what worth local democracy if Government can tell the public before the County Council have considered if St George's can be incorporated within the local plan. RCC's subsequent Press Statement, ignored by the Press provided much greater clarity and accuracy, however it would suggest that the Government intend to ride rough-shod over any objections that you might have.
Finally, may I comment upon the letter written in this week's Mercury by Catherine Davies the Defence Infrastructure Organisation's Head of Estates, in which she comments that:
"Much of the approach that has been taken in developing the St George's Evolving Masterplan thus far has broken new ground for the Ministry of Defence, particularly our commitment to work with Rutland County Council and local communities at the earliest conceivable stage
and
And we will continue to work closely with local communities and wider stakeholders"
We are now 18 months into this project and to date neither North Luffenham nor Edith Weston Parish Council have met with MoD or their agents - we have had one managed workshop session in Feb 18, at which MoD said nothing and a number of Advisory Board meetings at which the MoD's representatives, take an extraordinary 'hull down' profile and generally comment 'nothing to report'.
Questions from Members:
Mr Cummings highlighted that the report reflected widespread concerns from Parishes across the County apart from Oakham and Uppingham Town Councils which had provided feedback regarding the benefit to trade in their towns.
In the last week there has been a plethora of apparently good news stories in the local and national press re the proposed redevelopment of St Georges Barracks (SGB).
Dementia friendly housing, grid pattern lay-out, 5500 people to be housed in a beautiful location, grants to provide expertise to ensure roses round every door etc.
The Parish Council Liaison Group would like to remind members that this is a site that is nowhere near having planning consent. For the new members in particular do not be fooled into thinking that drip fed snippets of apparently good news stories mean SGB is a given.
Councillor Brown in his recent letter to the Mercury set out what a Local Plan is, and how in the next few months careful consideration will be given to all sorts of arguments in the preparation of the upcoming Local Plan. The letter rather skated over the fact that Rutland already has a local plan. Dated 2011and reviewed, widely consulted on and largely agreed in 2017. That review concluded that enough housing land supply was identified to meet Government targets of about 160 dwellings per year, without SGB. The review also continued the core strategy to guard against the over development of redundant military sites.
Unfortunately, at the same time as that review concluded, a small cabal had secretly agreed with the MOD to "jointly develop" their exact words, to jointly develop the site with between 1500 to 3000 houses. Inconveniently the site was not identified in the 2017 review, so it was ditched and another consultation exercise launched last August to include SGB, despite the houses not being needed. That consultation resulted in an unprecedented response and a massive no. We wait with bated breath how the August cabinet report will attempt to bat away the overwhelming anti response of Rutlanders.
More importantly as the Council was very publicly prepared to abandon its own policies to prevent over development, i.e. to ignore Government housing targets and ditch the core strategy regarding redundant military bases, others took their cue. What a surprise that the long-term owner of the Woolfox base decided now is the time to announce plans for up to 7000 houses in Rutland.
The 2017 review had widespread local support, as a new Council it is our view that you would do well to largely reinstate it.
Of course, something must be done with SGB, but a mixture of appropriate employment lead development, some rural re-instalment and housing development on a Rutland scale would be our suggestion as a starting point. A huge modern housing estate with a quarry for a neighbour is not in keeping with Rutland's ambience.
The current proposal of 2315 houses has got nothing to do with what Rutland needs, the old Council meekly acquiesced to what the consultants to the MOD deem to be the most viable option for them. Perhaps the most chilling announcement in the press last week came from the MOD, in welcoming the recent grant award and looking forward to a successful infrastructure grant bid. If such a bid were not successful, and I quote verbatim ........ "we would need to reflect on how the current evolving masterplan might be adapted to ensure best value for the MOD and minimise costs for Homes England "...
So much for the spirit of cooperation trumpeted in the Memorandum of Understanding. When it comes to the sharp end the MOD will strive for every last penny, the sentiments in the MOU will be as much use as a chocolate tea spoon.
Do not allow yourselves to be bullied. A local plan analogous to the 2017 review is a powerful defence. We have a planning system which prioritises the wishes of local people. If it were so flimsy why would the old Council and the MOD go to so much trouble to ditch the 2017 review and try to put SGB into the plan.
Of course, Planning Inspectors can be leant on, but they have to preserve a modicum of professional integrity. A local plan which complies with Government housing targets, retains the existing core strategy re redundant military sites and emphasizes sustainability which SGB offends, is the option local people support.
Rutlanders responded loudly and clearly to the monstrosity of SGB, listen to them.
Questions from Members:
Mr Newton clarified by referring to the Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2017 with the MOD which he stated was not reported to Council, had not been subject to call-in and had missed the scrutiny process.
Mr Newton highlighted that 38,000 population included “cradle to grave” and that the under 18’s and others should be excluded, but that in his experience a response of 1500 to a Local Plan consultation was huge.
Mr Newton responded that he assumed that anyone under the age of 18 would not have been able to respond to the consultation.
Mr Newton responded that he did not feel that their concerns had been taken on board and that he believed there had been a presupposition from the start to drive St Georges Barracks through and that there had not been a realistic debate about whether St Georges Barracks was needed.