Weekly digest Nov 11th 2017: Barracks Special

This week’s edition is all about the Barracks. This is the first time we have concentrated on just one topic but the DIO kindly provided us with a copy of their representations, in response to the Local Plan, and it is worth sharing.

As reported last week, we met with the DIO on Thursday to reset our relationship and discuss initial thoughts for the site. This time the meeting was very cordial and productive. We explained our ‘big picture’ perspective to link the Barracks to the HS2 & Toton Lane developments . We impressed on them our view that a major access route into the Barracks from the north is critical to delivering this holistic vision across our Area. The DIO now understand our overall strategic perspective and will be considering the impacts on their initial thoughts and ideas for the site. In return, we also have a good understanding of the DIO position and their current thinking & expectations for the site – more below. We left feeling positive and look forward to building on the outputs of the meeting and further strengthening our relationship.

  1. Map of the Barracks development.
    • Here is theDIO Barracks Map containing their initial thoughts on how the site might be developed. At this stage the map comprises a number of ‘blobs’ indicating potential locations of: housing (beige); green space (green); retail/community space (purple/pink).
    • As you can see the map shows one primary road access point (Swiney Way), and secondary access points to the east (Chetwynd Road), west (Stapleford Lane) and north (near Field Lane).
    • The map also indicates possible green corridors/pedestrian/cycleways (green) through the site.
    • Finally, the black marks indicate the significant sites/buildings that could be retained: the WWI memorial is the dot next to the pink blob; the rest include the Officers’ Mess (far right) and next to it, interestingly, the tunnels that stretch under Hobgoblin Wood. More on this below
  2. We need to talk about Annington
    • In 1996 the MoD sold all of its military houses to Annington Homes (on a lease back basis) making Annington the biggest residential property owner in England.
      Here’s a link to a background story about Annington in the Guardian Apr 2017
    • The red line ‘site’ boundary on the map excludes the 180+ houses – mostly at the top of the site – as they are owned by Annington.
      This gives us a bit of a headache as some of these houses block the proposed northern access point.
    • Furthermore, the DIO told us the MoD intend to retain these houses to be used by service families for a time after the sale of the Barracks.
    • It’s only when the MoD end the lease by relocating these service families elsewhere, do the properties then become Annington’s to manage as they wish.
    • So, we will need to engage with Annington at some point to understand their plans for their stock of housing on the Barracks
  3. Housing numbers – a total of up to 1,500 planned for the site.
    • We knew from the Local Plan that the Council expects to see 500 dwellings built, along with some retail/community development on the site by 2028
    • The submission from the DIO states they want to build ‘up to an additional 1,000 dwellings’ after 2028. These additional numbers will need to be discussed & agreed with the planning authorities but it is useful to know the ambition. Of course, the DIO are duty-bound to maximise the value of the site so it is not surprising they want to build a lot of houses.
    • And after walking around the site, this figure may not be as outrageous as it first appears – there is, after all, an awful lot of land available. But we plan to do our own research (and commission reports) before accepting any proposed numbers. So the question of overall housing numbers will run and run for a while yet.
    • Here’s a link to the DIO submission, on our website, relating their ideas to develop the site so you can see the full details.
  4. Designated Barracks assets
    • The DIO have acknowledged that only the memorial is listed as a designated heritage asset on the site. They have identified other potential heritage assets on the map, such as the Officers’ Mess etc.
    • We are concerned that only the memorial is protected and that the DIO have asked the Local Plan to set a clear distinction between designated and non-designated assets and how they are treated. Here’s a link to this representation.
    • We believe there is more than the memorial that warrants designation, so this is something we intend to pick up on in the next few weeks. We need advice on the best approach to take so we’ll speak to the Beeston Civic Society. If you have any knowledge in this area, please get in touch so we can have a chat.
  5. Next Steps……
    • The Council will review the DIO submission, along with the Forum’s and all other submissions sent in regarding the Local Plan. It will likely take several weeks for the Council to decide whether to accept/reject representations made to them and for us to know the resultant impact on the Local Plan.
    • We will take forward the issue with designated assets asap as we want to ensure appropriate buildings/areas are protected from development. We may be overly sensitive on this point as we know the DIO themselves are keen to protect certain buildings along with the memorial. But best to be clear.
      We’ll also be asking the council for copies of other representations made about developments planned for our Area.
  6. And finally……
    • Remember these DIO submissions are current thoughts, so nothing is cast in stone at this stage. We don’t intend to set any hares running……
    • The SG still needs to review and consider these representations, but we didn’t want to hold off from letting you have early sight – hence this ‘special’ edition.
    • The DIO documents & map are on our website. Please take time to review them & let us have your thoughts. Leave comments on line or else via email to me

A lengthy digest this week but I’m sure you can understand why. Last week I said I’d provide an update on a Comms subgroup mtg, & we’ve also just had a SG meeting but, again, I’ll hold outputs from both to next time.

This entry was posted in Chetwynd Barracks, Latest News and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Weekly digest Nov 11th 2017: Barracks Special

  1. Mark T says:

    The Broxtowe Local Plan and the DIO submission show different areas for the Chetwynd Barracks. This provides significantly different areas available for housing.

    • CTTC Forum admin says:

      Hi Mark
      Yes, the Local Plan maps display the ‘gross’ area of the Barracks inc. the Annington owned houses. Whereas the DIO have excluded these 180+ houses from their map. Which does mean in effect that if the DIO get their way with a total of up to 1,000 houses, then a) the total houses available on the site could be 1,180+ (i.e. including all current service family housing) and b) the 1,000 will be built at a higher density than might have been expected.
      However, as I mentioned, there is a lot of land on the Barracks and the DIO have estimated they are selling 175 hectares. Their plans for density are about 35/40 per hectare which is in line with council expectations.

  2. Mark T says:

    The HS2 Growth Strategy shows a proposal for a road entering the Chetwynd Barracks at approximately the point of the northern “secondary access”, going through an area that the DIO has not included as part of the Barracks site.

    • CTTC Forum admin says:

      Hi Mark
      Yes, this northern secondary access is a problem given it goes through Annington homes land. Its not clear yet whether Annington own just the houses (and associated gardens of course) or the infrastructure around the houses i.e. roads, pavements, street lights etc. Something for us to follow up on in the new few months.

  3. Mark T says:

    The Broxtowe Local Plan states “500 Homes (within the plan period), 800+ overall.”. Whilst 1500 homes is “800+” to double the number is mendacious. Broxtowe should be asked to state a maximum number of homes to be allowed on the Barracks site at any time in the future.

    • CTTC Forum admin says:

      Hi Mark
      Yes, I agree. However I suspect that given the Barracks is a ‘closed’ site, then event the Council are unclear what the overall ‘top’ figure for housing might be. And given the HS2 Growth Strategy document refers to the Chetwynd site as a potential ‘garden village’ location, it begs the question of how to define garden villages and what it means for housing numbers.

We Welcome Comments. Comments are moderated.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.