Why fight 4 Rutland? backup september

1. Because unless we bring a halt to this large unsustainable development, Rutland as we know it, with its 2 Market towns, 52 villages and independent spirit, will be changed forever.

2. Because Rutland County Council (RCC) are not listening to Rutlanders. In the 2018 consultation on the additional SGB site, over 1500 responded. 95% said “No”.

3. Because a new Township at St George’s Barracks (SGB) is not needed to meet the County’s housing needs. It serves the interests of the MOD and NOT the future for Rutlanders.

1. Imagine 3,000 extra cars in the Luffenhams and the surrounding Lanes

A New SGB Township would be only 400 metres from the South shore of Rutland water – our ‘Jewel in the crown’
It would swallow up the villages of North Luffenham Edith Weston and Normanton and create a dormitory for Stamford, with economic benefits flowing out of Rutland
It would be on rising ground above North Luffenham village and highly visible across the Chater Valley and with 3,000 cars using ‘rat runs’ through
- North Luffenham and South Luffenham to the A47 at Morcott and nr Tixover
- Ketton to the A43 at Collyweston and to Stamford
- Edith Weston and Normanton along South shore to the A606 and the A1

2. 2018 SGB additional site consultation - 95% said “NO

RCC did NOT include SGB in the 2017 Local Plan
There was broad Public consultation support BUT, the 2017 Local Plan was NOT adopted
MOD and former MP exerted political pressure to have SGB included in a major change to the Local Plan – effectively a new Plan
RCC does a U-Turn and changes the Local Plan to include SGB
In Public consultation to the changed Plan, 1500 respond and 95% say “NO” to SGB
In a Parish councils’ forum chaired by our former MP, most parish councils say "NO" to SGB
Full Council vote narrowly won 15-11 to include SGB
8-week public consultation period postponed due to onset of COVID-19 crisis
RCC propose amendments to public consultation process, with reduction in consultation period from 8 weeks to 6 weeks and Online access and responses only

3. It’s all about what’s good for the MOD NOT Rutlanders

The land was originally compulsorily purchased from local Farmers to support the war effort. The intention was for it to be returned after hostilities ended. Why should MoD be allowed to damage the County to obtain ‘maximum value’ and fill their coffers now?
Of the £29M Housing Infrastructure Fund (HIF) grant promised, £16m is allocated to de-contaminate the Military site. Who is to say it won’t be more? These things normally are!
And if it is, why should Rutland taxpayers, be exposed to the major financial risk of cleaning up after the MOD?
In reality this development will be an ugly building site for more than 20 years (100 houses per year build rate and with a new Quarry alongside)
It will swallow up Edith Weston on the south shore of Rutland Water AND will be clearly visible across the Chater Valley, looming over the villages of North Luffenham and South Luffenham and the countryside.