Rutland County Council Considering Spending £850k to support the redevelopment of the Officers Mess at St Georges Barracks
Plans to build a garden village / town on the St George's Barracks site are underway.
Rutland County Councils Cabinet are being asked to give approval for the release of £850,000
If released the Council will start work on acquiring the section of the base and would work with
developers to build new homes.
Campaigners against the entire development of St Georges Barracks have already started objecting.
Perhaps they would like a few thousand more homes crammed into our towns and villages, which are already in my opinion over developed.
I think there has two be some careful planning and whatever ever is agreed the council and developers must stick to it. I can see the complete mess of the Oakham North Development which looks nothing like the original main planning application, that was meant to be a village style development with shops and infrastructure. The result of that development due to Rutland County Council taking the cash is there is none of the proposed supporting infrastructure, School, Medical Centre, Sports and Community Centre etc. Instead we have little clusters of homes marooned on the edge of town. I would not want to see the same happen at the St Georges Barracks site.
The biggest failure of the Oakham North site is the failure of the council to ensure the developers build the required amount of affordable homes.
Report No: 54/2018
PART EXEMPT
CABINET
20 March 2018
ST GEORGES BARRACKS – POTENTIAL ACQUISITION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF THE OFFICERS MESS
REPORT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Strategic Aim: Delivering Sustainable Growth, Supporting the population of Rutland in
achieving their full potential and a balanced Medium Term Financial
Plan.
Key Decision: Yes Forward Plan Reference: FP/221117
Exempt Information Yes:
This report contains exempt information as defined in
paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local
Government Act 1972, namely information relating to
the financial or business affairs of any particular
person (including the authority holding that
information).
Cabinet Member(s)
Responsible:
Cllr Oliver Hemsley, Leader and Portfolio Holder for
Rutland One Public Estate & Growth, Tourism, &
Economic Development and Resources (other than
Finance and Communications)
Contact
Officer(s):
Andrew Edwards, Head of Property
Services.
Tel: 01572 758391
Email:
aedwards@rutland.gov.uk
Ward Councillors Cllr K Bool
Cllr G Waller
DECISION RECOMMENDATIONS
That Cabinet:
1. Authorises the Chief Executive in consultation with Leader and Portfolio Holder for
Rutland One Public Estate & Growth, Tourism, & Economic Development and
Resources (other than Finance and Communications) and Director of Resources to
enter into negotiations to acquire the Officers Mess Site on a conditional basis which
are set out in Section 3.
2. Approves the release of up to £850k of funds from capital receipts to support the
redevelopment of the Officers Mess Site at St Georges Barracks up to the point
where tenders are received from contractors for the development works.
3. Authorises the Chief Executive in consultation with the Leader and Portfolio Holder
for Rutland One Public Estate & Growth, Tourism, & Economic Development and
Resources (other than Finance and Communications) and the Director of Resources
to determine a procurement route, award criteria and if a suitable supplier or
suppliers are identified move forward and award a series of contracts for all works
necessary to develop the proposals at ‘The Officers Mess’ up to the point prior to the
issue of tenders for the contractor that will deliver the works element of the project.
1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
1.1 To obtain Cabinet endorsement to move forward to agree an option for the
acquisition of the Officers Mess Site (part of St Georges Barracks) subject to final
Council Agreement.
1.2 To release capital receipts of up to £850k that will test the financial viability,
undertake risk mitigation surveys and develop the design to a point where it is
practicable to issue tenders to potential contractors who will build the units.
2 BACKGROUND AND MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
2.1 In November 2016 the Ministry of Defence (MOD) made the decision to close St
Georges Barracks during 2021.
2.2 The MOD and RCC have signed an innovative Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) – the first of its kind in the Country – to work together in a Public/Public
partnership to deliver joined up de-risking, master planning and development of
the site.
2.3 St Georges Barracks is a 300 Hectare brownfield site with enormous potential in
an accessible and attractive location. It gives an opportunity to deliver a 1,500 –
3,000 homes in a ‘Garden Village’ at pace alongside an Enterprise Zone and an
area for enhanced leisure and recreation.
2.4 Essential in taking this development forward will be the development of the
Officers Mess site. This is a brownfield site (4 Hectares) adjacent to St George’s
Barracks but entirely separate. The proposal is that the Council acquires this site
and takes forward the development outside of the main St Georges project.
2.5 There are a number of reasons for taking this approach:
It will allow the Council to take control of the design and build quality which
will help set expectations for the main St Georges project.
The site will be used to build confidence with the local community regarding
future developments of the Officers Mess and main St Georges Project.
It will bring forward housing that will build out quickly. Effectively, c70 homes
could be completed by June 2023 or earlier if the Army are able to vacate St
Georges or the Officers Mess before 2021. Alternatively it could be included
as a site within the main development of St George’s Barracks. If this
approach is adopted then it is unlikely that that housing will be delivered
prior to April 2025.
3 PROJECT PROGRAMME
3.1 This project will be split into a number of phases which will in some instances run
concurrently. The Flowchart at Appendix A sets out how the various phases will
work together and where the formal approvals are required. An overall project plan
is attached at Appendix B which identifies the shortest timescales possible. The
programme will be adjusted to meet the actual release date from the MOD when
known
3.2 It should be noted however informal consultation has already started regarding the
development of The Officers Mess as part of the overall consultation on St Georges
Barracks. This will be fed into the master planning process for The Officers Mess.
Consultation will formally take place during the development of the plans for the
development of the site with Statutory Consultees and the Community as set out in
the High Level Programme at Appendix B, and will in particular consider the
proposals set out in the High Level Masterplan.
Phase 1: Acquisition of the Officers Mess Site
The MOD has indicated that they may release this part of the site prior to
formal closure of St Georges Barracks. Before RCC can move forward it will
be necessary to have some clarity on the future value. It has been agreed
by both parties that the District Valuer will undertake an initial valuation, but
this will be revisited prior to the formal transfer of the site to RCC later in the
project.
As part of the Site Investigations (Phase 2) and Design Development (Phase
3) consideration will be given to the levels of contamination and other factors
that will influence the development costs of the site. As part of the ‘Option’
agreement and eventual contract of sale it will be clear that the cost of any
remediation work or other factors that influence development costs will be
borne by the MOD.
The land will be transferred to RCC at a suitable point provided that a
number of conditions will be met. These will include:
i) Financial viability of the development
ii) Vacant possession
iii) The land value is acceptable to RCC, taking into account mitigation costs.
iv) Any ‘clawback’ and ‘buy-back’ provisions required by the MOD are
acceptable to RCC
v) The MOD are able to sell the site free from encumbrances and/or are
able to provide a satisfactory indemnity to RCC against any factors that
could impact on the ability to develop the site.
Phase 2: Site Investigations and Risk Mitigation
With any site of this nature it will be necessary to undertake a series of
surveys to fully determine the scope and extent of any works that could have
an impact on the overall costs. Typically surveys will consider but not be
limited to:
Asbestos
Ground Contamination
Ground Conditions
Wildlife – in particular roosting bats, badgers, flora and fauna
Archaeology
Services and utilities
This phase will also include:
i) The development of the initial Masterplan that will confirm that the site
can support the intended residential density and confirm the initial viability
of the proposals.
ii) An Initial Feasibility Report that will confirm that the proposals set out in
this report, including financial viability are realistic and can be achieved.
These will take place early in the development process to inform the final
costs and also aid the design process. Costs for the completion of these
works are included within the overall request of £850k.
Phase 3: Appointment of the Design Consultant and Design
Development.
Given the nature of this project it is proposed that the lead designer is
appointed via a design competition. This will ensure that we encourage
innovative design approaches that will provide an iconic design solution that
sets the standard for the rest of the development. Planning will be engaged
early in the process to ensure that the design standard and quality is set.
This ‘design standard’ could form the basis of the whole development at St
Georges. It is currently anticipated that this will transfer across to the MOD
for them to use in procuring the development of the St Georges Barracks.
To secure this service it will be necessary to develop a brief that will form
part of the formal tender package. The selection criteria will be based on the
design solution together with a value for money assessment. The
development of the design brief will require additional resources and these
are included within the funding request of £850k
Included within the proposal will be costs to undertake all Project
Management and Supervision tasks during the length of the project.
Before proceeding to the appointment of the Development Contractor
(Phase 4) it is anticipated that due to financial constraints an additional
report will be required for Cabinet and Council as the design fees will exceed
£1m. It should be noted that this will be one of the ‘Gates’ In the
development process and should the project not meet the defined criteria
then it will progress no further.
The final mix of units (market, affordable, rented, etc) will be determined as
the design progresses and in accordance with the overall Council policy.
The aim will be to provide a development that fits this location and
surrounding area but also delivers a minimum of 30% affordable units.
The Council has ambitions to exceed the 30% affordable homes as required
by Planning Policy. However this is dependent upon support funding from
Homes England (previously known as the Housing and Communities
Agency). The Council continues to pursue this as a possible funding option.
The development will offer mixed residential and included within the overall
scheme will be a number of ‘starter homes’.
It is at this point we will seek to engage with the community to understand
their ambitions for the site. We will hold a number of meetings with
stakeholder groups to set out how we are taking the site forward and to
understand and mitigate and concerns. Where practicable these will be
incorporated into the design.
Phase 4: Appointment of the Development Contractor
The design and specification issued to the development contractor will be
well developed. Whilst there will be scope for innovation on their part the
documents will specify certain requirements that must be delivered including
agreed site layouts and unit densities. This approach will ensure that the
quality of the units not only exceeds minimum standards but also meets our
expectations. RCC will control the site and since we have not transferred
ownership densities, house types and numbers will remain as previously
agreed.
The appointment of the Development Contractor will be subject to a further
report to Cabinet and Council seeking the release of funds, setting out the
award criteria and seeking delegation to appoint the contractor.
One consideration at this point will be the mechanism used to appoint the
development contractor. There are 2 options available:
(i) A formal tendering exercise where the design is offered to the market
and bids invited. Given the level of design we are proposing this
approach will open up the project to both larger and small
housebuilders who do not have standard designs or a design
capability. The down side is that this will be a formal tendering
exercise that will need to comply with EU procurement rules as it
exceeds the works threshold of £4.5m
(ii) The MOD will appoint a Land Sale Delivery Partner (LSDP) to take
forward the development of St Georges. There is the potential for the
LSDP to take forward the development of the ‘Officers Mess’ on our
behalf. The disadvantage of this approach is that there is lengthy
tendering process.
The formal recommendation to Cabinet and Council will be dependent upon
a business case that considers the options, the benefits and costs and
whether or not the LSDP appointment is at a point where the transfer of the
Officers Mess site for delivery is realistic.
Phase 5: Marketing
Key to the success of this project will be the targeted marketing of the site
both inside and outside of the RCC area. As a result of this early in the
development process a marketing specialist will be appointed to ensure that
we target the relevant market segments.
4 CONSULTATION
4.1 Consultation has taken place internally with Senior Elected members, Finance
and Legal Services. Comments are included within this report
5 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS
5.1 In identifying alternative options for the site the overarching aims of the MOD must
be considered. It has been clearly stated that the MOD is under a remit to:
Maximise capital receipts to support the Defence Budget, and
Support Central Government targets in the delivery of additional housing.
It is likely that the MOD will insist on these requirements in their disposal agreement
to RCC should it proceed.
5.2 Given this the Council has considered the following alternative options:
Use as a Hotel/Leisure Complex: Whilst there is an argument that additional
facilities of this nature will be required as a result of the development of the
main site these are best placed close to their point of use. In addition this
option will not be supported by the MOD as it fails to meet their aims, i.e.
additional housing and maximised Capital receipts
Use as a recreational area. Activity of this nature in this area will generate
noise that will be disruptive to the local population. However as above this
option will not increase housing number or maximise Capital receipts.
Not to acquire the site and to leave the MOD to develop. This option would
depend upon planning policy to control development on this site. It is
inevitable that the DIO will press for numbers of units in excess of those
proposed by RCC due to the lack of Council Control.
5.3 The proposals set out in this report assume that we will use a ‘Delivery-bid-build’
system where a contractor bids on set of design and provides a fixed cost within
prescribed parameters. However as the design phase progresses other options will
be considered. These will include:
Construction Manager at Risk: Here the contractor would agree to deliver
the number of units at a Guaranteed Maximum Cost
Design and Build: The contractor undertakes the detailed design and builds
the units for a fixed cost
Cost plus Contracts: This is an open book approach where all costs are
reimbursed plus a % profit.
Integrated Project Delivery: This is an integrated team where both parties
share the risks and rewards. All parties provide their expertise to deliver the
project together and in line with shared objectives.
Land Sale Delivery Partner: As outlined earlier in the report there is the
potential to use the same physical delivery approach as the MOD. The
potential of using this mechanism will be considered as the design
progresses.
5.4 The above procurement options aim to give an indication of those available. Each
has advantages and disadvantages specific to a particular project. They will be
explored to ensure that the recommended solution offers the most commercially
advantageous solution to the Council.
6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
6.1 Overall Business Case
6.1.1 The financial details and the business case are set out in exempt Appendix C as the
information contained within the report could provide others with a commercial
advantage. However in considering the costs and benefits of the project the
following points should be noted:
The costs and benefits are ‘first-cut’ figures at the initial stages. As the
project matures they will be further developed, refined and tested
There will be ‘Gates’ at which point the project will tested against agreed
criteria. At this point a go/no-go decision will be made and approval sought
to proceed to the next stage.
Gate Phase Description
1 1 At agreement of initial valuation of the site
2 2 Completion of the initial feasibility study, masterplan and
feasibility report.
3 3 Completion of 50% design
4 3 Pre-tender estimate
5 4 Receipt of tender from development contractor
These ‘Gates’ are also identified on the project programme at Appendix B.
RCC will enter into an agreement with the MOD to acquire the land at some
time in the future. This agreement may be a conditional contract that will
require the MOD to sell the land and RCC to purchase subject to certain
agreed conditions being met or an option agreement where RCC is able to
require the MOD to sell if they serve notice on them to do so, and it would be
RCC’s decision whether or not to serve the notice Typical conditions would
include financial viability, vacant possession, clawback to the MOD, a
development programme and a revised value depending on any additional
works. The conditions will be agreed in negotiations between the MOD and
RCC and approved by the Chief Executive in line with the recommendations
in this report.
The actual transfer of any funds would be at the point where RCC receive
control of the land although there is the potential to stage the transfer of
funds on a phased basis in line with the development of the site.
RCC will have reasonable access to the site to undertake initial survey work.
For the purposes of financial profiling it has been assumed that we will
receive the site on the 1
st April 2021. The programme attached at Appendix
B considers the shortest time periods.
6.2 Financial risk
6.2.1 Undertaking a development project of this type carries risk. A high level risk register
is attached at Appendix D. Examples of the types of risks are noted below:
There is limited demand due to changes in the market and the Council is
unable to sell homes developed quickly
Property market dips so capital receipts generated are less than anticipated
Build costs are more than expected due to site issues or external pressures
Site acquisition costs are too great and do not give sufficient scope for a
potential return.
6.2.2 These risks will be kept under review during the project and formally reviewed at the
Gates identified in Paragraph 6.1.1
6.2.3 The initial £850k cost could be at risk should the Council not later proceed with the
development. Importantly should the Council not proceed then it would need to
assess whether costs incurred can be capitalised (paid for from capital receipts). If
this is not the case then costs would be charged against the General Fund.
6.2.4 There may be an opportunity to recoup costs incurred e.g. site investigation
surveys, planning fees, designs etc but this is not guaranteed. The opportunity to
recover costs will be included within the agreement to acquire the site entered into
with the MOD.
6.2.5 The above the ‘Gates’ will allow progress to be reviewed together with financial
viability at various stages. This approach will ensure that should viability be in
question the project can be put ‘on-hold’ until resolved. Resolution could involve
changing the ‘form’ of development i.e. the mix of units or if necessary not
proceeding.
6.2.5 It is anticipated that relatively early in the design process it will be possible to
determine whether or not the scheme is viable thereby minimising the financial
exposure of the Council.
6.3 Use of capital receipts
6.3.1 Presently, the Council has c£1m of capital receipts unallocated. There are various
projects/schemes in the pipeline (e.g. planned maintenance programme for council
properties) which could be funded by capital receipts but the Council has other
resources available to fund such projects in the short term.
7 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
7.1 The site is outside the Planned Limit to Development but is a brownfield site in a
sustainable location. This is similar to the Greetham Garden Centre site where
planning permission was granted for housing as the site met the 3 dimensions of
sustainable development, economic, social and environmental, as set out in Para 7
of the National Planning Policy Framework.
7.2 Policy CS6 of the Core Strategy sets out the criteria for developing redundant
military bases. This states:
‘The Council will seek to ensure that any re-use or redevelopment of former military
bases or prisons is planned and developed in a comprehensive and co-ordinated
manner. Proposals will be subject to a development brief or masterplan setting out
the main requirements. This will form part of a supplementary planning document or
development plan document to be prepared in consultation with the prospective
developers and local communities.
The key requirements for any proposals are that they should:
a) Re-use existing land and buildings and where appropriate minimise any
built development on undeveloped airfield land;
b) Not lead to undue disturbance to nearby local communities through traffic,
noise, aircraft activity or other uses;
c) Protect and where possible enhance the countryside and character of the
landscape, natural and cultural heritage;
d) Be accessed satisfactorily and not generate unacceptable traffic on the
surrounding road network
e) be accessible by public transport and include measures to encourage
walking and cycling;
f) Incorporate high quality design and construction including the need for
energy efficiency, renewable energy and waste management.
7.3 The site is on the edge of the Edith Weston Conservation Area, the boundary of
which runs along the opposite side of the road, where development would be
required to respect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area,
including views into and out of the area.
7.4 Whilst the grant of planning permission cannot be guaranteed, the indications are
that there is a possibility that permission would be forthcoming based on the above
circumstances and polices.
7.5 The Officer’s Mess site is being put forward for consideration as an allocation in the
new Rutland Local Plan. As part of this process the Local Plan team will be carrying
out a site assessment of the suitability of the site for allocation. The Local Plan has
already made significant progress, with a consultative Draft Local Plan published for
consultation last summer. This plan made very little reference to the St George’s
site and did not indicate any of the site being allocated for development. Inclusion of
the Officers Mess in the next version of the plan will therefore be the first
opportunity people have had to formerly comment on it as an allocation in the Local
Plan.
7.6 The next step in the preparation of the Plan will be the publication of a “preSubmission”
version. This should be the Council’s final plan which it considers is
“sound” and which will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination.
The Pre-submission consultation is a formal stage during which people are invited
to make representations of objection or support based on prescribed “tests of
soundness”. The procedure for this is set out in Regulation 19 of the Local Plan
Regulations. All representations made at this stage will be forwarded to the
Planning Inspectorate for consideration as part of the Examination in Public.
7.7 It is currently anticipated that the Pre-Submission (Regulation 19) consultation will
take place during the summer 2018 and that the plan will be submitted in the
Autumn. Examination in Public is then expected to take place towards the end of
the year.
8 LEGAL AND GOVERNANCE CONSIDERATIONS
8.1 This report seeks the release of up to £850k of funding support the acquisition and
development of the Officer Mess Site at St Georges Barracks. Since the
procurement of the works will be in accordance with the Contract Procurement
Regulations there are no Legal and Governance issues. . The eventual transfer of
the land will be subject to formal valuation advice to ensure that the purchase is in
accordance with best value.
8.2 As outlined earlier in the report it is anticipated that subject to meeting the
conditions of the options and demonstrating viability it will be necessary to obtain
further approvals from Cabinet and Council. In addition the project will also follow
the previously approved Council Project Management Framework.
8.3 Cabinet will be asked to approve the award criteria for the development contractor
and approve the appointment subject to acceptable bids. Council will be asked to
release additional funding to complete the design development and also to fund the
site development works by the development contractor.
8.4 There will be a RCC Project Board that will take forward the development of the
project. This will be focussed on the operational aspects of the project, in particular
progress, financial viability and resources. This Board will be constituted as follows:
Cllr Hemsley (Chair & Leader and Portfolio Holder for Rutland One Public
Estate & Growth, Tourism, & Economic Development and Resources (other
than Finance and Communications)
Helen Briggs (Chief Executive)
Cllr Brown (Portfolio Holder for Regulatory Services
Waste Management, Property Services, Culture & Leisure, and Finance
including Revenues and Benefits and Internal Audit)
Cllr K Bool (Ward Member for Normanton)
Andrew Edwards (Head of Property Services)
Dee Rajput (Corporate Projects – Programme Manager)
Sav Della Rocca (Assistant Director - Finance)
Rachel Armstrong (Planning Officer)
Stacey Potter (Support Officer – Projects)
8.5 The overall development of the Project will report to the St Georges Project Delivery
Board. This board considers the whole of the development – St Georges Main Site
and the Officers Mess. It will be this board that will consider the viability of the
project at the ‘Gates’ described earlier and make the decision as to whether the
project is to progress or where appropriate make recommendations to Cabinet and
Council.
8.6 The Project Delivery Board’s Terms of Reference were agreed in May 2017. The
Board is constituted as follows:
Cllr Hemsley – Chair
Helen Briggs – Deputy Chair.
Debbie Mogg – RCC Director for Resources
MOD Representation
One Public Estate Representation
GCGP LEP Representation
Ward Member
Stacey Potter – Clerk to the Board
St Georges Project Support Teams
Andrew Edwards – Advanced Delivery
James Frieland – Commercial
Roger Ranson (Minerals, Advanced Delivery & Housing)
Robert Clayton (Minerals and Leisure)
8.7 The responsibility of the Board can be defined as:
To agree the vision, objectives, programme and resourcing for the St George’s
project for recommendation to the Programme Board
To agree the overall masterplan for the site for recommendation to the
Programme Board
On-going strategic oversight of the St George’s Project
Responsibility for the St George’s budget and investment plan
Approve and review the Terms of Reference for the St George’s Project Support
Teams
To monitor progress and programme delivery across the St Georges project
Approve recommendations to be made relating to the project to the ROPE
Programme Board, Cabinet and Council.
To sign off and expressions of interest, funding applications or submissions
relating to the project for final agreement by the Programme Board
To sign off any expression of interest, funding applications or submissions
relating to the project.
To sign off the MOU with the MOD.
8.8 The Project Delivery Board reports to the ROPE Programme Board which is chaired
by Cllr Oliver Hemsley and has representatives from RCC, MOD, OPE and the
GCGP LEP.
9 EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
9.1 This reports seeks approval for the release of funds. There is no requirement for an
EIA.
10 COMMUNITY SAFETY IMPLICATIONS
10.1 There are no Community Safety Implications
11 HEALTH AND WELLBEING IMPLICATIONS
11.1 There are no Health and Wellbeing Implications
12 ORGANISATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
11.1 There are no organisational implications
13 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY OF REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS
13.1 The recommendations set out in this report will allow the early progress and
delivery of the Officers Mess site for housing. This will generate confidence in the
local community, bring forward delivery, establish the design standard and deliver a
surplus for RCC which can be reinvested into the Community.
14 BACKGROUND PAPERS
14.1 There are no additional background papers to the report.
15 APPENDICES
15.1 Appendix A – Delivery route and approval process flowchart
15.2 Appendix B – High Level Project Plan
15.3 Appendix C – Exempt Appendix
15.4 Appendix D – High Level Risk Register
A Large Print or Braille Version of this Report is available
upon request – Contact 01572 722577.
