Aldi Supermarket, Oakham, Planning Application, Rutland County Council and Oakham Town Council Consultation, Hawksmead

Oakham Town Council will be considering this application at their meeting on the 9th April
2014 should be fun. 7.00pm

Town Council Offices
Victoria Hall
39 High Street
Oakham

Rutland

planningonline.rutland.gov.uk Veiw Hawksmead Application For Aldi Store Click Here


Some people might wish to object to a supermarket on the doorstep of Oakham.

Examples of valid objections

The relevant issues in a planning application vary from case to case but the following matters may be included:

conservation of buildings and the natural environment trees design, appearance and layout
character of an area noise, disturbance and smells highway safety and traffic previous planning applications
compliance with Unitary Development Plan Policies, Supplementary Planning Guidance and other planning policies compliance with government guidance and legislation the effect of a proposal on sunlight and daylight
the effect on the privacy of neighbours whether the proposed development will have an overbearing effect on neighbouring properties visual impact

There are also non valid objections the following matters are usually not relevant:

Issues covered by other laws eg. Licensing, Building Control, Health and Safety Regulations
Private property rights (eg. boundary or access disputes)
The developer's morals, motivation or activities elsewhere
Perceived impact on property values Competition between businesses

To Comment on Applciation Via Rutland County Council Web Site Click Here

The site already has comment that is not valid from Anonymous 22nd March 2014

   2014/0258/FUL

"I fully endorse this Aldi application as i feel there is a need in Oakham for this supermarket"


The local authority can not consider Anonymous or in confidence comments.

Application form	ApplicationFormNoPersonalData.pdf
Additional information	Additional_information_19-03-2014.pdf
Aldi Retail Assessment	Aldi_Retail_Assessment.pdf
Arboricultural Report	Arboricultural_Report__Jan_2014.pdf
Design & Access Statement	Design_&_Access_Statement.pdf
Ecological Scoping Survey	Ecological_Scoping_Survey.pdf
Employment Land Report	Employment_Land_Report_V4_secured.pdf
Noise Survey Report	Noise_survey_report.pdf
Site Location Plan	P001_SITE_LOCATION_PLAN.pdf
Existing Site Plan	P002_EXISTING_SITE_PLAN.pdf
Proposed Site Plan	P003_PROPOSED_SITE_PLAN.pdf
Proposed Drainage Plan	P004_Rev_A_PROPOSED_DRAINAGE_PLAN.pdf
Proposed Landscaping Plan	P005_-_PROPOSED_LANDSCAPING_PLAN.pdf
Proposed Floor Plans	P200_PROPOSED_FLOOR_PLAN.pdf
Proposed Elevations	P201_PROPOSED_ELEVATIONS.pdf
Proposed Roof Plan	P203_PROPOSED_ROOF_PLAN.pdf
Proposed Sections A-A and B-B	P300_PROPOSED_SECTIONS_A-A_AND_B-B.pdf
Proposed Sections c-c and D-D	P301_PROPOSED_SECTIONS_C-C_AND_D-D.pdf
Proposed Section E-E	P302_PROPOSED_SECTION_E-E.pdf
Planning Statement	Planning_Statement.pdf
Road Collison Plan	Road_Collison_Plan.pdf
Statement of Community Involvement	Statement_of_Community_Involvement.pdf
Transport Assessment	Transport_Assessment.pdf
Travel Plan	Travel_Plan.pdf
Tree Constraints & Protection Plan	Tree_Constraints_and_Protection_Plan.pdf
Tree Survey Plan	Tree_Survey_Plan.pdf
Environment Agency 20th March 2014	Environment_Agency_20th_March_2014.pdf
Anonymous 22nd March 2014	Anonymous_22nd_March_2014.pdf
Wood 25 March 2014	Wood_25_March_2014.pdf
EIA Screening	EIA_screening_Aldi_0001.pdf

No Community Hall, Oakham, Hawksmead, 106 Payments, Rutland County Council

No Community Hall, Oakham, Hawksmead, 106 Payments, Rutland County Council

This week Rutland County Council voted to reject the offer of a community centre from
Hawksmead as part of their 106 payments.

The council instead decided to take 1.3 million and use it for sport and other unknown
community projects in consultation with these groups.

The other no sports groups was added to the accepted proposal.

What concerns me is this money is for the benefit of Oakham and was described for that
purpose and the rules of 106 payments are very clear on this. I wonder why Councillor
King kept slipping in Rutland when talking about the expenditure. In the past he has expressed
an interest in diverting some of the cash toward sport at his prison in Ashwell.

So we have now gone from a super sized community venue to a smaller one to nothing.

Cllr King said Oakham has various small halls such as churches and the scout. he pointed
out all these needed investment of course if it were not for the amendment to his proposal
most of them would not fallen into the sports category. 

Cllr Gale of the Rutland Anti Corruption Party published the following:

Who negotiated the Section 106 Agreement, CW?

Feb 12 2013 5:57 PM

When the Hawksmeade 1,096 house planning application was approved there was a 

Section 106 agreement in place to support the development. An agreement can be made 

up of a number of components to provide a facility or an amount of money to support the 

extra cost of providing services for the increasing population within the new development. 

eg. Fire, Police, Library, recreation, affordable homes etc.

The Hawksmeade agreement does provide a very significant seven figured amount of 

money for sport and a similar figure for a community Hall. Last night at Full Council we 

were debating whether to take £1.338M as a cash receipt rather than the Developer 

providing the Hall facility. The portfolio holder that had been involved in negotiation and 

overseeing this development, favoured the suggestion that Council takes the money and 

spreads it over the county but later said the money could be spent all around Oakham.

The size of the Hawksmeade development is significantly larger than most of Rutland’s villages 

and when the S106 agreement was drawn up it had considered that a village Hall type building 

was needed in the development and so provided for this. It now seems strange to me that 

the suggestion is the money is not spent on the site but a mile away, perhaps further. What 

happened to the need ON the site that generated the money?

Of course the underlying worry is that whoever negotiated the agreement with the developer 

put greater emphasis on the £millions going to sport / community Hall etc. than Rutland’s 

greatest promise to the community of providing c35% affordable homes in residential 

developments. This Hawkmeade development currently only provides a meagre 15% that 

may rise slightly when the economic climate strengthens.

Unfortunately there is no easy mechanism within the Council that can track and display 

all Section 106 money coming in. This is a concern of the RAC Group and Dave has raised 

the matter with The Council Leader. The leader talks about an annual declaration where 

we would like to see something that can be accessed at any time to see what the current 

position is.

Larkfleet, Hawksmead, New Homes, Barleythorpe, Rutland, Photographs

Nice house with fake chimneys, although I prefer the field of daffodils
that used to pop up here.

Outline planning application Hawksmead approved by Rutland County Council even though the procedure "is a bit of a Arse"

Outline planning application Hawksmead approved by Rutland County Council even though the procedure "is a bit of a Arse!!"

I think the highlight of the meeting was when Cllr Mr Richard J Gale (Independent) - OAKHAM NORTH WEST WARD came to the conclusion  Mr Edward Baines (Conservative) - MARTINSTHORPE WARD (Chairman of the Council) had described the procedure of planning a bit of an arse and if he felt that way maybe he was not going to vote tonight.  Mr Hugh E G Rees (Conservative) - KETTON WARD said Mr Richard J Gale was interesting! certainly more interesting than the good doctor.


Mr Hugh E G Rees likes to be known as Dr. said he would like to distance himself from local GP Dr. Tim Gray and his awful comments at a public meeting held in Langham Village Hall on 31 October 2010

The Development Control & Licensing committee met to decide an outline application:


OUT/2009/1306 - Hawksmead Ltd


the application was for approximately 1096 houses, aiming to provide 35% affordable housing.

shops and sports pitches


A officer presented a long but informative presentation. Afterwards
Mr Peter W Jones (Conservative) - OAKHAM SOUTH WEST WARD said "I don't normally do this, but this time I would like to thank the officer for his work" That surprised me as his concentration level seem very low as he slouched forwards and back during the presentation and often cupping his head in his hands.

All members then spoke.

Mr Trevor Lovell (Independent) - OAKHAM NORTH WEST WARD said he had Highways concerns for both Langham and Oakham. Issues relating to the level crossing. The crossing to the sports field was a recipe for disaster a bridge or underpass should be the preferred option. There was to many children's pitches and no adults. He seem to have some issues of confusion relating to the Councils Core Strategy and there was not enough affordable homes a figure of 50 would be better.

Mr Richard J Gale (Independent) - OAKHAM NORTH WEST WARD  pointed this was one of the largest applications Rutland had been asked to consider.

He was concerned about the lack of public involvement and said the public keep telling him the don't get involved because the Council don't listen. (well said)

The development is to big, lack of employment was a concern. House building has become a currency for councils.

He said the development will change Oakham significantly, the number of homes should built should be reduced, but not the affordable ones.

Oakham's road are now becoming so congested, they are reaching levels as they were before the by pass was built.

Any new public transport was to be welcomed.

He was concerned this development was in open countryside.


Mr Marc A Oxley (Lib/Dem) - UPPINGHAM WARD said he shared the two ward councillors views.


Mr Nicholas Mark Wainwright (Conservative) - LANGHAM WARD felt the Local Development Framework needed to be finalised first.

Mr Edward Baines (Conservative) - MARTINSTHORPE WARD (Chairman of the Council) said it was all to much to soon and went on to explain in depth and read a quotation from a old writer, which all gave Mr Gale the impression he felt the whole procedure was a bit of an arse!


He included he was concerned the retail content should be strictly controlled so not to effect Oakham traders. (has he not heard of competition)


Mr Peter W Jones (Conservative) - OAKHAM SOUTH WEST WARD  thanked the officer for his presentation and reminded everyone about one of his many hats Portfolio holder for sports? and he regional strategy require 3,000 homes to be built in Rutland.

Mr Hugh E G Rees (Conservative) - KETTON WARD said the development was on frightening scale, although he felt it would be perverse to turn it down.

He mentioned he was concerned about the building of a care home for old folks and the extra burden of cost it would be to Rutland County Council if old people moved to Oakham.

Mrs Janine Rodger (Conservative) - COTTESMORE WARD said it was not a dilemma for her and echoed much of what others  said.

Mr Marc A Oxley (Lib/Dem) - UPPINGHAM WARD spoke again about green issues.


Mr Gene Plews (Conservative) - OAKHAM SOUTH EAST WARD said something but as I have forgotten what he said I won't try to report that, I am sure it was something nice that was agreeable with his non political conservative colleagues.

Mr Brian A Montgomery (Independent) - WHISSENDINE WARD same for him sorry I forgot.

At the end of it the Council Committee approved the outline planning application.