The Reason Why Rutland County Council Planning Takes No Notice of Oakham Town Councils Comments
For many years now I have sat and listened to town councillors making comments on planning
applications sent to them for consultation and more recently I have been contributing to those
comments.
For many years Cllrs have expressed concern about inadequate consideration being given
by 'them up the road'
This past few days the reason for this has become very apparent they are not always receiving
our comments.
For example The Application from Aldi and this how all the Councillors comments are
shown on Rutland County Councils website:
http://planningonline.rutland.gov.uk/swift/MediaImages/28378-67644.pdf
A whole list of application sent to RCC with just the word Approved added
This is appalling when you consider we pay a full time clerk.
Please compare this with the nearby parish of Langham who don't pay a full time
Clerk:
2015/0829/MAJ Langham Parish Council 5th Oct 2015 Proposed retail unit (A1 Use Class) with associated car parking, landscaping and servicing. This application follows a previous application for a similar, but smaller, Aldi store which was approved by Rutland County Council. The proposal is for a larger store on the original site and additional adjacent land. It will stock the same range of goods but the larger store will ensure that wider aisles are available for shoppers, which will be of particular benefit to those using wheelchairs, mobility scooters, prams and pushchairs. All customers will therefore gain from a more enjoyable shopping experience. Access – The access is noted as constrained and via the new filling station access road. This is to be used by both cars and delivery lorries. A pedestrian footpath will be incorporated, which is clearly necessary and welcome. However, in addition, this pathway will take a separate route to customer parking, with its own crossing point relating to staff and delivery vehicles. The proposed long opening hours will require that adequate lighting is provided and clear identification for both motor vehicles and pedestrians. This application does include one customer/disabled toilet. This is an improvement on the first application, but hardly generous. Scale – The proposed single storey, larger building is stated as being modest in scale. It will, however, be positioned on the highest location of the site. It is hoped that this location is below the brow of the next hillside in order that the lighting and signage will not be an intrusion in to the rural locality, nor cause a safety problem with dazzle to the by pass. Landscaping and Appearance – This has been well considered in relation to the locality. The retention and improvement of hedges and healthy trees on the site is to be commended. Parking – It is stated that the disabled parking spaces are greater than the provision identified in RCC’s Parking Standards Review (Sept 2012). However, experience by disabled blue badge holders shows that existing provision is far from adequate and an increase in the number of disabled parking spaces is recommended. There may also be a need to designate more parent and child parking spaces than currently appear on the plan, in consideration of the expected uptake of local new build housing by young people and families. The addition of another supermarket in Oakham will give residents more choice and encourage competition. A welcome addition to Rutland. Recommend Approval subject to the above concerns being addressed. 5th October 2015
You might just think this is just a one of, no it's not because I have seen many examples
This goes back many years, I beggars the question why do Oakham Town Councillor
even bother making comments, better still why are we paying the Clerk?
September 2012 I sat through a planning and parks meeting at which members made
many comments about The Oakham School building in Church Street and another
major development, the Charles Church homes. looking at the list supplied to
Rutland County Council you would be forgiven for thinking Cllrs only commented
on the two refusal recommendations.
http://planningonline.rutland.gov.uk/swift/MediaImages/24713-15326.pdf
From today I will be making my comments direct to RCC as it appears there
is little point in asking Oakham Town Council to pass on comments.
As town councillors we are not paid like the Clerk to sit in long meetings and
wast our time.
For many years now I have sat and listened to town councillors making comments on planning
applications sent to them for consultation and more recently I have been contributing to those
comments.
For many years Cllrs have expressed concern about inadequate consideration being given
by 'them up the road'
This past few days the reason for this has become very apparent they are not always receiving
our comments.
For example The Application from Aldi and this how all the Councillors comments are
shown on Rutland County Councils website:
http://planningonline.rutland.gov.uk/swift/MediaImages/28378-67644.pdf
A whole list of application sent to RCC with just the word Approved added
This is appalling when you consider we pay a full time clerk.
Please compare this with the nearby parish of Langham who don't pay a full time
Clerk:
2015/0829/MAJ Langham Parish Council 5th Oct 2015 Proposed retail unit (A1 Use Class) with associated car parking, landscaping and servicing. This application follows a previous application for a similar, but smaller, Aldi store which was approved by Rutland County Council. The proposal is for a larger store on the original site and additional adjacent land. It will stock the same range of goods but the larger store will ensure that wider aisles are available for shoppers, which will be of particular benefit to those using wheelchairs, mobility scooters, prams and pushchairs. All customers will therefore gain from a more enjoyable shopping experience. Access – The access is noted as constrained and via the new filling station access road. This is to be used by both cars and delivery lorries. A pedestrian footpath will be incorporated, which is clearly necessary and welcome. However, in addition, this pathway will take a separate route to customer parking, with its own crossing point relating to staff and delivery vehicles. The proposed long opening hours will require that adequate lighting is provided and clear identification for both motor vehicles and pedestrians. This application does include one customer/disabled toilet. This is an improvement on the first application, but hardly generous. Scale – The proposed single storey, larger building is stated as being modest in scale. It will, however, be positioned on the highest location of the site. It is hoped that this location is below the brow of the next hillside in order that the lighting and signage will not be an intrusion in to the rural locality, nor cause a safety problem with dazzle to the by pass. Landscaping and Appearance – This has been well considered in relation to the locality. The retention and improvement of hedges and healthy trees on the site is to be commended. Parking – It is stated that the disabled parking spaces are greater than the provision identified in RCC’s Parking Standards Review (Sept 2012). However, experience by disabled blue badge holders shows that existing provision is far from adequate and an increase in the number of disabled parking spaces is recommended. There may also be a need to designate more parent and child parking spaces than currently appear on the plan, in consideration of the expected uptake of local new build housing by young people and families. The addition of another supermarket in Oakham will give residents more choice and encourage competition. A welcome addition to Rutland. Recommend Approval subject to the above concerns being addressed. 5th October 2015
You might just think this is just a one of, no it's not because I have seen many examples
This goes back many years, I beggars the question why do Oakham Town Councillor
even bother making comments, better still why are we paying the Clerk?
September 2012 I sat through a planning and parks meeting at which members made
many comments about The Oakham School building in Church Street and another
major development, the Charles Church homes. looking at the list supplied to
Rutland County Council you would be forgiven for thinking Cllrs only commented
on the two refusal recommendations.
http://planningonline.rutland.gov.uk/swift/MediaImages/24713-15326.pdf
From today I will be making my comments direct to RCC as it appears there
is little point in asking Oakham Town Council to pass on comments.
As town councillors we are not paid like the Clerk to sit in long meetings and
wast our time.
