6 reasons why building a new town at St George’s Barracks is a bad idea

  • Rutland doesn’t need that 2300 houses at SGB - the 2017 County plan (agreed but not adopted) had sufficient housing to meet local needs and government targets (130 houses pa plus a recommended 5% buffer).
  • In order to justify the development of 2300 houses at SGB, Rutland County Council in an unpublicised arrangement with South Kesteven Council, agreed that 650 houses planned at Quarry Farm in Rutland could be included in their house building numbers.
  • An argument made for SGB has been Rutland’s need for more ‘affordable’ housing and that 30% of these houses will be affordable. People who live in affordable houses need jobs nearby and good public transport as many won’t have cars.
  • The development is in the wrong place. A recent report on 22 ‘Garden Villages’ showed the reality was that almost all were car-dependant housing estates in the countryside which failed to deliver on garden village principles. Link to report at bottom of this page
  • If housing demand is less than expected in future, then SGB will be a slow development with unsold houses, whereas if development is planned in existing towns and villages, houses will naturally only be built as needed.

The Plan to build a new town at St George’s Barracks needs to be reviewed

A new town at St George’s Barracks will not benefit Rutland businesses financially

Rutland County Council have not listened to Rutlanders

St George’s Barracks risks not being a sustainable development

And there is a strong moral argument:

Back to Home