St George’s Barracks risks not being a sustainable development

  • There is no evidence the job targets of 1 per house in the Plan will be met in the timeframe. The majority of Rutlanders in employment, currently work outside the County. The resultant increased commuting from SGB will clog inadequate roads and junctions.
  • The infrastructure, such as roads, healthcare facilities, schools and public transport links, will probably not be built first - despite Rutland County Council’s assurances.
  • If Rutland County Council had stuck with the original 2017 plan of distributed development in the 2 main towns and larger villages, large infrastructure developments would not be needed. Affordable housing could be distributed. This would be more sustainable development.
  • SGB is only viable because a £29.4m Housing Infrastructure Fund grant has been awarded - more than half of this is earmarked to clear up the departing MOD’s contamination. The full terms of the grant have not been published but they are likely to include some obligations on RCC which could be financially damaging if not delivered, with potentially serious consequences for local services and/or tax payers.
  • SGB has been described as a ‘brownfield’ site (meaning previously developed land). In reality most of the site is not brownfield - the ‘green’ parts should not therefore automatically be developed. The presumption to develop brownfield sites first, was primarily intended for urban sites, not those in the middle of the countryside.

St George’s Barracks is not necessary to meet Rutland’s housing need

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

And there is a strong moral argument:

Back to Home