Jeakins Weir get the go ahead to ruin one of Oakham's last remaining peices of Open Countryside, they win Planning Inspectorate Appeal against Rutland County Council

http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk
Appeal Decision
Inquiry opened on 24 May 2011
Site visit made on 27 May 2011
by M T O'Rourke BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 24 August 2011
Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
Land west of Uppingham Road, Oakham LE15 6JD
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Jeakins Weir Ltd against Rutland Council.
• The application Ref OUT/2010/0954, is dated 25 August 2010.
• The development is proposed housing development and associated works including
provision of access onto Uppingham Road, Oakham.
• The inquiry sat for 5 days, on 24 to 27 May and on 11 July.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed housing
development and associated works including provision of access onto
Uppingham Road, Oakham at land west of Uppingham Road, Oakham LE15 6JD
in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref OUT/2010/0954, dated 25
August 2010, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule at Annex B.
Procedural Matters
2. The application is in outline with all matters other than access reserved for
future consideration. Originally the scheme was described as being for 112
houses but this was subsequently reduced to 96 units at 30 dwellings per
hectare and proposed as a mix of 2 to 5 bed houses.
3. The examination hearings into the Rutland Core Strategy were held between 21
and 25 March 2011. On opening the inquiry, the Council asked that it be kept
open to allow consideration of the Development Plan Inspector’s report. This
was not resisted by the applicant or by those acting for the Oakham Action
Group (OAG). Having completed all the evidence, the inquiry was adjourned
on 27 May. The Planning Inspectorate, the applicant and OAG were informed
by email on 8 June that the Core Strategy Inspector’s Report dated 26 May
2011 was available to view on the Council’s website. Closing submissions were
heard and the inquiry formally closed on 11 July.
4. Prior to the close of the inquiry a legal agreement under Section 106 (S106) of
the 1990 Act, as amended, was completed covering the provision of 33.5%
affordable housing and on site open space area(s) and their maintenance and
contributions towards off site open space, health care facilities, policing, the
fire service, civic amenity facilities, library and museum facilities, children’s and
young people’s service primary and secondary provision, bus stop and layby
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 2
improvements, and a cycleway. I have had regard to the Agreement in my
determination of the appeal.
5. The consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was
published on 25 July 2011 and the main parties were contacted by The
Planning Inspectorate for their views on whether it had any bearing on this
appeal. I have had regard to the responses received in my conclusions.
Main Issue
6. This is a failure to determine case. The Council would have refused the
development and 8 putative reasons were originally agreed by the committee.
Subsequently following the receipt of further advice, the Council resolved to
withdraw its objection on landscape grounds, although this objection was still
maintained at the inquiry by OAG.
7. The Council’s remaining objections relate to the site’s location in the
countryside, beyond the planned limits to development for Oakham identified in
the Rutland Local Plan 2001, outside areas allocated for development, and in a
defined Area of Particularly Attractive Countryside (APAC). Further its release
for housing would lead to an excess of housing land being available,
undermining the spatial vision and strategic objectives of the emerging Core
Strategy, and was unnecessary as a 5 year housing land supply could be
demonstrated. In addition there were reasons relating to the lack of
developers’ contributions towards necessary infrastructure and the need for
pre-determination archaeology investigations. However it was established at
the inquiry that the latter matters were capable of resolution by the completion
of a Section 106 Agreement and the imposition of appropriate conditions.
8. The main issue in this case is therefore whether the appeal scheme would
constitute acceptable development in the countryside and if not whether there
are any material considerations that would outweigh any harm that would arise
as a result of the development.
Reasons
Adopted and emerging policy
9. The development plan comprises the East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP)
(2009) and the Rutland Local Plan 1991 to 2006, adopted in July 2001 (LP).
Local Plan policies relevant to the consideration of this appeal have been saved
by direction of the Secretary of State and Section 38(6) applies until they are
replaced by the adoption of the Development Plan Documents (DPDs) in the
Rutland Local Development Framework. At the time of the inquiry the Rutland
Core Strategy Submission DPD (CS) was at an advanced stage in the process
towards adoption, with the Inspector finding the submitted CS to be sound,
subject to recommended changes. In its response on the consultation draft
NPPF, the Council confirmed that the CS was adopted on 11 July 2011 and its
policies carry the full force of Section 38(6) of the Act.
10. The LP made provision for housing in accord with the then Leicestershire
Replacement Structure Plan 1994 for the period 1991 to 2006. Through
policies SE1 and HO3 it identified the market towns of Oakham, along with
Uppingham, as areas for future growth. In accord with long standing national
policy, now set out in Planning Policy Statement 7 on Sustainable Development
in Rural Areas (PPS7), it also strictly controls new house building in the
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 3
countryside, away from established settlements or from areas allocated for
housing. The site of some 6 ha (gross) of agricultural land lies on the western
side of Uppingham Road on the south side of Oakham and around 800m from
the town centre. It is outside the planned limits of development of Oakham, as
defined in policy EN1 and on the LP Proposals Map, and therefore is in the
countryside where LP policy EN26 indicates permission will only be granted for
particular types of development, none of which apply here, and provided that
10 listed criteria A to J relating to impact are met.
11. The site is also in a locally defined APAC where LP policy EN28 resists
development unless it complies with policy EN26 and ‘does not adversely affect
the special character and appearance of the landscape’. That designation
derives from the then Structure Plan, based on a survey undertaken in 1990
and covering much of the southern and central parts of the County. The
applicant was critical of this local landscape designation as incompatible with
the advice in PPS7. However policy EN28 is not replaced by the CS and the
APAC designation is intended to be reviewed as part of the later work on the
Site Allocations and Development Control Policies DPD. That DPD is not
expected to be adopted until late 2013 at the earliest, and until then saved
policy EN28 remains part of the development plan. Thus the appeal proposal
does not comply with the saved policies of the extant LP.
12. Nor is there any support in the now adopted CS for the release of this site for
substantial housing development even though Oakham, along with Uppingham,
are identified as continuing to be the main centres for housing. Oakham is
within the Peterborough Housing Market Area of the EMRP where reference is
made to consolidating its role and having an important part to play in meeting
the area’s housing needs. The CS identifies Oakham as a key focus for new
development and the most sustainable location for substantial housing growth,
to provide for a significant portion of the EMRP housing requirement to 2026.
Policy CS8 provides for 70% of new housing (about 1,350 new dwellings to be
located in Oakham and Uppingham of which 80% will be in Oakham (about
1,100 dwellings or 69 per annum).
13. The strategic site search process which underpinned the CS was informed by a
Landscape Sensitivity and Capacity Study and a Directions of Growth appraisal
that assessed various potential directions for growth around the town. The
latter appraisal rejected a number of potential candidates for allocation as
strategic housing sites including an area of about 10ha to the south east of the
town of which the appeal site forms part. The north west of Oakham was
identified as the most sustainable direction for future growth and policy CS5
provides for a sustainable mixed use urban extension of about 1000 new
homes to be developed to the NW of the town. Paragraph 2.27 provides for
the remaining development (of about 100 dwellings) on other sites within the
town to be identified through the Site Allocations and Development Control
Policies DPD which will also consider any boundary modifications.
14. The appeal site remains beyond the development limits of the town and the CS
continues to impose strict control over greenfield development in the
countryside. It was accepted by the applicant that on the face of it the appeal
proposal conflicts with boundary specific policies in the extant LP and in the
now adopted CS policy for the town.
15. However it was argued that this technical breach of policy had to be seen, and
assessed, in the context of a lack of a 5 year housing land supply. In such
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 4
circumstances paragraph 71 of PPS3 on Housing advises that planning
applications for housing should be considered favourably, having regard to the
policies in the PPS including the considerations in paragraph 69. This approach
is consistent with the recent Ministerial statement on Planning for Growth which
expects local planning authorities to facilitate housing and ‘take into account
the need to maintain a flexible and responsive supply of land’.
The 5 year housing land supply
16. Considerable time was spent at the inquiry in examining the components of
land supply and the potential for various sites to come forward within the next
5 years. The housing requirement is set by the EMRP and CS policy CS9
provides for 3,000 new dwellings in Rutland over the period 2006/2026 (150
dwellings per annum). Completions for the period 2006/2010 are set out in
the Annual Monitoring Report 2009/10 and reasonable reliance can be placed
on the Council’s figure for completions in 2010/2011, taken from NHBC and
Building Control records. There is a 133 dwellings shortfall on completions
2006/2011 making a residual requirement for 2,383 additional new dwellings in
Rutland in the period to 2026.
17. The shortfall accounts for nearly a year’s supply and there were differing views
on how soon it should be made up; whether in the next 5 years (described as
the Sedgefield approach) or spread over the remaining plan period (the
residual approach). Both are mentioned in good practice examples in the DCLG
May 2009 document Land Supply Assessment Checks and past appeal decisions
do not indicate that Inspectors have particularly favoured one approach over
the other. The method and parameters chosen have to respond to the needs
and requirements of the area and it was agreed at the inquiry that there was
no one right answer.
18. The CS has been through its examination, the spatial strategy for the county
found to be sound and it has been adopted. Whilst there has been some
slippage, the Council is progressing work on its Site Allocations and
Development Control Policies DPD which will include a comparative analysis of
sites to contribute towards the 30% of new housing that policy CS9 intends to
be located outside Oakham and Uppingham. The 2010 Strategic Housing Land
Availability Assessment (SHLAA) identified a number of potential housing sites
within Rutland for an estimated 4,929 dwellings, considerably in excess of the
CS requirement. There is nothing to indicate that the shortfall could not be
made up over the plan period. There is reasonable justification for the
Council’s adoption of the residual approach in this case which results in a
requirement for 795 new dwellings (159 X 5) for the 5 year period 2011/2016.
19. To contribute towards the 5 year housing land supply, PPS3 requires sites to be
deliverable, which means available now, suitable now and with a reasonable
prospect that housing will be delivered within 5 years. During the inquiry
agreement was reached between the main parties on the deliverability and
likely contribution from all but two of the sites identified as either
commitments, allocations without permission or SHLAA sites.
20. The Ashwell depot has an outstanding 2006 Council resolution to grant
permission for 47 dwellings. The Council as landowner is now proposing to
retain part of the depot and promote a reduced scheme of 35 units. There is
Housing Association interest which is subject to a funding bid and if
unsuccessful the evidence was that the Council would seek to market the site
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 5
on the open market. Although it has now been established that the site is in
Langham and not Ashwell parish, it remains the case that it is in the
countryside outside of any village where the CS continues the LP policy of
restraint. However in determining any new application, the planning history of
the site will be a relevant material consideration including the reasons given for
the Secretary of State’s decision at that time not to call in the application. I
find that, in PPS3 terms, the depot site is likely to come forward for housing
development in the short term and can be considered to be suitable, available
and achievable such as to contribute to the 5 year housing land supply.
21. There were major differences at the inquiry between the parties on the number
of units anticipated to be delivered at NW Oakham with the applicant
forecasting a slow start with only 125 units completed by 2016. The Council,
however, relied upon December 2010 information from Hawksmead, the
developer, which indicated submission of the first reserved matters application
once outline permission was granted with a view to delivery of the first 25
dwellings by Autumn 2012, followed by 75 dwellings per annum thereafter.
22. During the recess a further letter from Hawksmead confirmed that the S106
agreement was in an engrossed form and that the issue of the outline planning
permission would follow shortly. There are a significant number of direct or
indirect pre-commencement conditions that will need to be discharged,
however the developer expressed confidence in the early submission and
timely progress of the first reserved matters application to achieve a January
2012 start on site. The updated delivery programme indicates a slow build up
but with 125 dwellings anticipated to be built in the year 2015/2016 with the
delivery of 377 units by March 2016. The Council’s letter on the consultation
draft NPPF confirmed that the outline permission had been granted and the
reserved matters application for Phase One was expected shortly.
23. Evidence from the applicant was that no other site in Rutland has achieved
similar rates of delivery to those now proposed by Hawksmead. However by
reason of the size of the site, the substantial investment already in the overall
site infrastructure, and the likelihood of there being one or more development
partners, it is reasonable to assume that delivery rates on NW Oakham will be
significantly greater than those achieved historically in Rutland. The CS
Inspector concluded that there was a realistic prospect of the site delivering
some 75 dwellings per year. In terms of the 5 year supply NW Oakham will be
a major contributor and unlike the applicant’s pessimistic view which suggests
that it would only deliver 50 dwellings per annum in the last two years
2014/2016, the Council’s forecast of 250 units from the site by 2016 seems to
me to strike a reasonable balance whilst being realistic that there could be
some slippage in the development programme and a later start on site.
24. OAG’s calculations, provided on the last day of the inquiry and using
Hawksmead’s higher estimate of yield from NW Oakham, showed a very small
shortfall of 5 units on the 5 year housing land supply. However, on the
evidence before me, I have doubts as to whether such a high yield is realistic
and likely to be delivered in the early years. On the applicant’s figures there is
only a 3.3 years supply. In the report on the CS, the Inspector concluded that
given a reasonable prospect of NW Oakham delivering housing at the rate then
anticipated, the plan made provision for 5 years supply of deliverable housing
land. However on the basis of the detailed evidence presented two months
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 6
later to this inquiry, and its testing by cross examination, the Council’s witness
conceded that the supply for the period 2011/2016 would at most be 4.3 years.
25. In conclusion, there is less than a 5 years supply of deliverable sites and in
such circumstances, even if the shortfall is argued as being relatively modest,
paragraph 71 of PPS3 falls to be applied. Although this is not a situation where
the local plan can be said to be absent, silent or indeterminate or where
relevant policies are out of date, there is no indication in the consultation draft
of the NPPF that the Government has any intention to drop the requirement for
local planning authorities to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply. Indeed
it suggests that local planning authorities should identify a further 20% of
sites. In that regard the consultation draft NPPF consolidates and adds to
existing policy and is a material consideration to which I give some weight in
this case. Current policy in PPS3 advises the favourable consideration of
applications for housing where there is an absence of a 5 year supply having
regard to the requirements of paragraph 69. I now turn to address those
matters.
Quality and mix of housing
26. The application is in outline but the information provided indicates that the site
could be laid out to achieve a high quality of housing and a good mix of
accommodation. The scheme would provide a third of the units as affordable
housing, a higher proportion than is proposed at NW Oakham, which would
help to meet housing needs in the town and county. The site is 6ha overall and
the revised illustrative masterplan indicates a net developable area of 3.2ha
with areas of open space around the periphery of the site and replanting of the
windmill mound. The number of dwellings was reduced in response to officers’
concerns about the proposed design but would still make effective and efficient
use of the land, in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. I am
satisfied that the scheme would satisfy the objectives of CS policies on housing
density and mix (CS10), affordable housing (CS11) and good design (CS19).
Suitability of the site
27. The site is in a sustainable location within walking distance of the town centre
and is accessible to buses on Uppingham Road. The site can be serviced and
there are no flooding or drainage issues. The Statement of Common Ground
confirms that there are no outstanding issues between the main parties that
could not be resolved by the imposition of appropriate conditions or legal
obligations in respect of residential amenity, archaeology, noise, biodiversity,
ecology and traffic and highway safety. As such the scheme would comply with
CS policies CS18, CS20, CS21, CS22 and CS23. The S106 Agreement provides
for developer contributions towards necessary infrastructure required to serve
the development. Specific justification has been provided for each of the
contributions sought and I am satisfied that the obligations contained in the
Agreement are all necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms, directly relate to the development and fairly and reasonably relate in
scale and kind to the development and meet the requirements of the
Community Infrastructure Regulations and the policy tests of Circular 05/2005.
Landscape impact
28. The application is in outline with all matters other than access reserved but
with a suite of supporting information including a Landscape and Visual
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 7
Appraisal and a Design and Access Statement (DAS) with an Indicative Site
Layout Plan and Framework Plan, revised in December 2010 to address issues
raised by consultees and the Council.
29. The Council, having sought expert landscape advice from two independent
consultants, resolved to make no objection to the proposed development on
the grounds of landscape impact. An objection was pursued by OAG with the
presentation of expert evidence and many local people wrote and spoke at the
inquiry about what they saw as the potential adverse impact of housing here
on the character and setting of Oakham. The applicant also presented
evidence on landscape impact at the inquiry. I have considered the different
views expressed along with my own assessment of the impact of development
in coming to a conclusion on the site’s suitability for housing.
Background
30. The Council’s Countryside Design Guidance identifies the appeal site as being
within the Vale of Catmose, described as a ‘classic vale landscape of meadows
and fields’ with relatively little tree cover and relatively large fields ‘bounded by
low cut, often gappy, hawthorn hedges’. The objectives include the need to
safeguard the ‘setting of Oakham and open vale from conspicuous development
and a scatter of buildings’. The appeal site is bounded to the north by the
Upper River Gwash and its steeply incised and densely vegetated valley defines
this part of the boundary of the built up area. The site comprises the northern
part of a swathe of farmland to the south of Oakham which, along with
parkland designated as a Conservation Area to the east of Uppingham Road,
has been looked at in the past for its potential for the town’s future growth.
31. In her 1999 report, the Local Plan Inspector rejected the idea of development
either side of the Uppingham Road, concluding that development of the 5.8ha
site to the west (almost identical in size to the appeal site) would be ‘very
intrusive and visually detrimental to the existing rural character of the area and
the setting of and approach to Oakham and to the wider landscape of the Vale
of Catmose’. The LP at paragraph 2.154, in the preamble to policy EN26,
addresses itself particularly to this area, noting the ‘soft and attractive edge’ to
the south and east of Oakham as an example of where land adjacent to a
settlement is important to its setting and character.
32. More recently, however, the November 2008 Joint SHLAA, looking at the
potential of land around Oakham for housing as part of the evidence base for
the emerging LDF, identified the appeal site, described as 5.7ha of land west of
Uppingham Road, as available, viable and deliverable with infrastructural
capacity, subject to mitigation. The site was again assessed for its suitability
for development as part of a larger 9.8ha area of land to the west of
Uppingham Road (Site 2D) in David Tyldesley Associates (DTA) Landscape
Sensitivity and Capacity Study (May 2010), a strategic exercise intended to
help guide the direction of future growth in the CS.
33. The Study confirmed the landscape constraints on development around
Oakham with large areas to the west, north and south east of the town having
high landscape sensitivity with low landscape capacity. Site 2D was assessed
as being of moderate overall landscape sensitivity and medium overall
landscape capacity and recommended as a priority site to be considered as a
direction for growth, albeit ranked below NW Oakham. Whilst it was
acknowledged as being within an APAC, key factors included its ‘typical,
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 8
unremarkable landscape character with few, if any, landscape
features/elements that could not be replaced’. The Study also concluded that
‘some extension southward along Uppingham Road, in the northern half of the
site, would be relatively well associated with the town despite lying beyond
existing southern limits defined by built development and mature vegetation’
and that ‘structural mitigation planting separating the northern and southern
halves of the site would help to integrate the northern half into its landscape
setting on the southern approach to the town’.
34. The July 2010 Directions for Growth appraisal rejected growth to the south east
of Oakham as a preferred option, finding several key advantages to the land
NW of Oakham. However this rejection was on the basis of the larger Site 2D
which grouped together with other more prominent sites to the east between
the by-pass and the railway, was dismissed as being a ‘relatively exposed
location with impacts on the attractive woodland setting of the town from the
south east’. References in the reasons for rejection to the impact on Catmose
Park and the Oakham Conservation Area and proximity to Rutland Water
clearly have more to do with the other sites than to the appeal site and the
land west of Uppingham Road.
35. In addition to DTA’s strategic landscape assessment which identified some
potential for acceptable development on the appeal site, as the northern part of
Site 2D, officers in advising members of the Council also sought specific advice
on the landscape impact of the appeal scheme initially from DTA and then a
second opinion from Robert Doughty Consultancy (RDC). Both concluded that
a landscape reason for refusal could not be supported.
36. Whilst commenting that less built development and more open space within the
scheme might be more appropriate, DTA concluded that the site had the
capacity to accommodate the proposed development without significant
adverse visual impact and that the retention of existing vegetation and
proposed structural planting would help filter views into the site ‘where
development would be prominent but not uncharacteristically conspicuous’.
RDC similarly agreed with the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal that a
sensitively designed and well laid out development, with appropriate landscape
mitigation, would successfully be assimilated into the wider countryside.
Impact of the appeal scheme
37. Viewing opportunities of development on the site are limited. From houses in
The Vale and Bowling Green Close, even in the winter months views of the new
houses would be filtered by the trees alongside the River Gwash. Planting is
proposed behind Catmose Lodge and an acceptable separation distance could
be achieved. From the wider surrounding rural landscape views are restricted
to Uppingham Road, Brooke Road and public rights of way. Uppingham Road
is a main approach into the town. The northern fields rise from the river to a
slight brow with the southern field facing towards the open countryside and
there has been some recent planting along the southern boundary to reinforce
the ‘gappy’ hedge. Although the dense river corridor vegetation provides a
distinctive break between the town and countryside, there is a scatter of built
development on either side of the road south of the river, including Catmose
Lodge and the cottages opposite, and when travelling south it is only when
beyond these that the landscape starts to open up and only when south of the
A6003 bypass that a rural countryside character prevails.
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 9
38. The scheme proposes a broad public open space corridor fronting Uppingham
Road, maintaining an open green frontage on the approach to town, whilst the
weak southern boundary would to be reinforced with structural woodland
planting, to reflect the current character of the edge to the built up area.
Whilst it is accepted that it would take time for this to become established, the
provision of boundary planting to screen views of the development is consistent
with saved LP policy EN17 which requires adequate landscaping as an integral
part of any layout, particularly where development would abut or be in open
countryside, and which I saw has been provided elsewhere in Oakham where
new housing has been built or is proposed close to the bypass.
39. Once established, the structural planting along the southern boundary would
screen the majority of the new housing in views from the approach along
Uppingham Road. The built development would generally sit below the brow of
the site and would not extend development any further south along Uppingham
Road than currently exists and the existing focal view north towards the spire
of All Saints Church would be maintained. From the public right of way
crossing the conservation area on the east side of Uppingham Road there are
some views across the appeal site. However from what I saw on my visit I do
not consider that these long views towards the hills would be materially
diminished by the appeal development. The railway runs along the western
boundary of the site but given the existing development on Brooke Road to the
west, passengers would already be aware that they were approaching the town
and further development to their east would have limited impact.
40. There are elevated views of the site from the south west from places along
Brooke Road and along the Rutland Round from where, in the early years, the
development would appear as a raw and rather isolated outpost of housing,
detached from the urban area of Oakham, with development extending beyond
the current soft green boundary. However in that regard it would not look
dissimilar to the harsh open edge of development around Brooke Road
stretching up the hill out of the town. These viewpoints are around a kilometre
away from where the site would be seen within the larger scale context of the
southern extent of the town and well vegetated backdrop reducing the
significance of the impact. With the establishment and maturing of the
planting within and around the site, the development’s impact over time would
further soften and the housing would be assimilated into the townscape.
41. I am mindful of the views of those representing OAG and of local residents who
know and love the area. However I do not find that the appeal site when
assessed on its own fulfils any strategic role in the wider countryside or in
establishing the setting of Oakham. It has a strong relationship with the
existing settlement boundary and is influenced by existing development along
its northern and eastern boundaries. In concluding on landscape impact, I am
of the same view as the applicant’s designer and the landscape experts who
advised the Council that a sensitively designed and well laid out development,
with appropriate landscape mitigation, would be successfully assimilated into
the wider countryside and the appeal development would provide an acceptable
transition between town and countryside. There is nothing to indicate that the
advice of DTA that the highest design principles should be incorporated into the
development could not be secured by the imposition of appropriate conditions.
42. Accordingly as I have concluded that the proposal would not adversely affect
the special character and appearance of the landscape, it would comply with
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 10
saved LP policy EN28 and, in terms of impacts, would not be in conflict with
parts D), E), F), H) and J) of LP policy EN26. It would also satisfy the
objectives of CS policy CS19 and PPS1 and PPS3 to promote good design and
deliver high quality housing in suitable locations.
The spatial vision for the area
43. Paragraph 69 of PPS3 requires in determining planning applications that regard
is had to ensuring that development is in line with planning for housing
objectives, reflecting the need and demand for housing in, and the spatial
vision for, the area and does not undermine wider policy objectives.
44. The spatial strategy for Rutland has been very recently adopted. The CS
Inspector in finding the strategy sound expressly endorsed the proposed
direction of growth to the NW of the town beyond the LP planned limits of
development and the continuation of the restrictive approach to housing
development in the countryside beyond the settlement boundary. Oakham is
identified in policy CS3 as the Main Town and in policy CS4 as the key focus for
new development. Whilst that is intended to be mostly on land allocated to the
north west of the town, the town is considered to be the most sustainable
location to accommodate significant levels of growth and policy CS9 identifies a
requirement for at least 1,930 dwellings in the County of which about 1,100
are to be at Oakham.
45. PPS1 confirms the importance of the plan led system; the certainty and
predictability that it provides as central to planning; and its key role in
integrating sustainable development objectives. It was argued that allowing
housing in a location expressly rejected by the Council, local people and CS
Inspector would significantly undermine a major element of the strategy, the
process which endorsed it and the confidence of local people in it.
46. The Government is committed to the principle of localism. It is also committed
to promoting sustainable economic growth and paragraph 11 of the
consultation draft NPPF sets out the Government’s view that ‘there is no
necessary contradiction between increased levels of development and
protecting and enhancing the environment’. It remains Government policy that
spatial planning should ensure that the necessary land is available at the right
time and in the right place to deliver the new housing required (PPS12
paragraph 2.4). Despite the work by the Council in progressing its CS to
adoption and the conclusions of the CS Inspector, it had to accept at the
inquiry that it did not have a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land.
47. The appeal site is at Oakham, identified as the most sustainable location in the
CS. Its development for 96 units would be entirely consistent with the spatial
strategy and vision for Rutland and whilst it would be the other side of town to
the sustainable urban extension, there is no evidence that it would undermine
policy CS5. It is not of a size that would have needed to be considered in the
CS as a strategic site. There is nothing to indicate that the strategic allocation
at NW Oakham would not go ahead if the appeal proposal were to be allowed
or that it would impact on or delay its delivery.
48. The CS at paragraph 2.27 refers to the sustainable urban extension of around
1,000 dwellings but ‘with the remaining development (about 100 dwellings) on
other sites around the town to be identified through a Site Allocations and
Development Control Policies DPD.’ The Hawksmead scheme for 1,096 units at
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 11
NW Oakham would take up all of the requirement for Oakham. However the
CS Inspector confirmed that the housing figures should be treated as minima
and could be exceeded.
49. The Council has already accepted in allocating NW Oakham that a breach of the
LP planned limits of development is inevitable if the EMRP housing numbers are
to be met. There would be no offence to policy CS9, or to the spatial strategy,
if 1,200 and not 1,100 dwellings were to be provided at Oakham where the
release of additional land is needed now to address an identified shortfall and
ensure a continuous 5 year supply of deliverable sites available for housing.
This is even more critical where, contrary to PPS3, the Council has not
identified a further supply of specific, developable sites for years 6-10 and the
CS Inspector acknowledged it was difficult to carry out any meaningful analysis
of housing supply beyond 5 years. It may be, as the Council suggested in its
response on the consultation draft of the NPPF, that the 15 year phasing of NW
Oakham could be adjusted if delivery against overall expectation were found to
be falling behind but that does not address the current shortfall.
50. Work on the identification of other sites, at or outside Oakham, for the Site
Allocations and Development Control Policies DPD is only just getting underway
with the DPD not expected to be adopted until late 2013. Thus it could be
nearly 2 years before there is any meaningful plan-led response to the current
housing shortfall. The suggestion that an additional concentration of housing
at Oakham as proposed by the appeal scheme would somehow undermine the
strategic objectives of the CS to accommodate a small scale level of growth at
other settlements, further down the hierarchy, was not supported by any
substantive evidence that this might occur or what harm would result.
51. Reflecting the principles of ‘Plan, Monitor, Manage’, Chapter 6 of the CS on
implementation and monitoring considers the response if there is any
significant shortfall against the housing trajectory with the Council proposing in
those circumstances to bring forward sustainable alternative sites ‘via the site
specific DPDs and/or the development control process’. Given the anticipated
adoption date of the Site Allocations and Development Control DPD, it follows
that the CS envisages that a deficit in the 5 year supply can be addressed
through development control decisions on proposals like the one subject to this
appeal.
52. The appeal proposal would provide additional high quality housing with a mix of
both market and affordable homes, on a suitable site and in a sustainable
location, identified in the LP and CS as offering a good range of community
facilities and with access to jobs, key services and infrastructure. It would
offer an improved choice of new housing and greater flexibility in the local
housing market via early delivery and would be in line with the planning for
housing policy objectives set out in PPS3 and reflect the need and demand for
housing in Rutland in accord with policies CS5 and CS9.
53. I conclude that the proposed development would not conflict with the spatial
strategy for Rutland set out in policy CS2, particularly a) to c). It would be
consistent with the settlement hierarchy in policy CS3 and the spatial vision in
policy CS4 that identifies Oakham as the key focus for new development and
which, if there is a need to release further land, should be looked at first as the
most sustainable location. As the release of the appeal site outside the LP
planned limits of development is to address the identified shortfall in housing
delivery, it would comply with LP policy EN26 A).
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 12
Overall conclusion
54. There are long standing policy objections to the release of this site outside the
planned limits of development for housing. The recently adopted CS strategy
also excludes the site from development. However in that the Council has now
acknowledged a shortfall in the 5 year housing land supply as a result of poor
past performance, the strategy is failing to deliver. In such circumstances it is
Government policy that favourable consideration should be given to planning
applications for housing, subject to the policies in PPS3 and the considerations
in paragraph 69. The appeal scheme would use the land effectively and
efficiently, achieving high quality housing and a good mix of market and
affordable homes. Whilst it might look rather raw in the early years, the
establishment of major structural planting around and within the development
would ensure its impact on the landscape would be acceptable.
55. The provision of additional housing on the appeal site would not harm or
undermine the spatial vision and strategic objectives of the CS to develop
vibrant and prosperous market towns and diverse and thriving villages. To
delay addressing the housing shortfall, pending an assessment of future
housing sites as part of the Site Allocations and Development Control Policies
DPD, would not reflect the principles of ‘Plan, Monitor, Manage’, risk the
shortfall worsening and would not accord with the Government’s objective to
increase significantly the delivery of new homes. I heard nothing to suggest
that the site is not capable of early delivery with the covenant in the S106
Agreement deferring payment of the financial contribution towards primary
education provision, an incentive for it to be completed within 5 years.
Considering all these factors I find in this case that the balance weighs in
favour of the grant of permission.
Conditions
56. Draft conditions were prepared by the Council and discussed at the inquiry. I
have considered them having regard to the advice in Circular 11/95. In
addition to the standard reserved matters conditions, to ensure a satisfactory
form of development on the site in broad accord with the revised DAS and
Masterplan it is reasonable and necessary to impose conditions to require the
submission and approval of a detailed Design Code for the development, for
the submission of samples of materials and to require final floor levels to be
agreed. The DAS refers to the eco-credentials of the scheme. It was agreed
that a condition requiring the achievement of Code for Sustainable Homes 4
would appropriately address the scheme’s contribution to mitigating the impact
of climate change.
57. Conditions dealing with landscaping, landscape management, materials, tree
and hedge retention and protection are reasonable and necessary to ensure the
assimilation of the development into the landscape. They adequately cover
details of the layout, landscaping and management of the open space,
recreational and children’s play areas and there is no need for separate
conditions dealing with those matters. With the proximity of the railway, noise
measures to protect the future occupants should be agreed and implemented.
In the interests of highway safety, conditions are also needed to cover the
gradient, width and visibility splays of the main estate road and the provision
of parking and turning areas.
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 13
58. The site is next to the River Gwash and to prevent the increased risk of
flooding and to improve and protect water quality, it is necessary, relevant and
reasonable to require the prior submission and approval of a surface water
drainage scheme for the site. The site also lies in an area of archaeological
interest with the likelihood of buried archaeological remains surviving in good
condition. There is also interest in the substantial earthwork mound in the
centre of the site. Conditions recommended by Leicestershire County Council
are necessary to safeguard any important archaeological remains potentially
present on the site that would be significantly damaged by the development.
59. The ecological appraisal submitted with the application indicated the presence
of badgers in the local area with some evidence of foraging activity on the site
and a lower status outlier sett. There is specific protection of badgers under
the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 and a licence from Natural England would
need to be in place prior to any works on site. Given that control, the onus is
on the applicants to ensure that full regard is had to badgers in both the design
and implementation of the scheme and there is no need to impose a condition
requiring further survey work. Similarly I am not imposing conditions that the
Council agreed at the inquiry would be more appropriately imposed on any
reserved matters approval. I have amended the wording of some conditions to
reflect that of the Model Conditions annexed to Circular 11/95.
Overall conclusion
60. I have taken into account all other matters raised, including the views of local
residents and other interested parties, in reaching this decision. However I find
none to be of such weight as to override my conclusions, for the reasons given
above, that the appeal should be allowed and outline planning permission
granted.
Mary O’Rourke
Inspector
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 14
Annex A
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Brian Ash QC Queens Counsel, instructed by Melvyn Blyth,
Planning Solicitor to the Economic Growth Team,
Legal Services, Town Hall, Peterborough PE1
1HG
He called
Sharon Baker BA(Hons)
MA MRTPI
Senior Planning Officer
Nicholas Hodgett DipTP
MRTPI
Principal Planning Officer
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Jeremy Cahill Queens Counsel, instructed by John Edmonds,
Solicitor, Marrons, 1 Meridian South, Meridian
Business Park, Leicester LE19 1WY
He called
Phil Rech BA BPhil LD
CMLI
fper Environment and Design Ltd
Richard Dunnett
BA(Hons) MRTPI
Marrons
Alasdair Jones BA(Hons)
MRTPI
Marrons
Not Called
Brian Plumb BSc(Hons)
CEng MICE MIHT
Waterman Boreham Ltd
(his proof was submitted as written evidence)
FOR THE OAKHAM ACTION GROUP:
Satnam Choongh Of Counsel, instructed by Stuart Andrews,
Solicitor, Eversheds LLP 115 Colmore Row,
Birmingham B3 3AL
He called
Guy Longley BSc(Hons)
DipTP DipUD MRTPI
Pegasus Planning Group
Clive Self MA DipLA
CMLI
Managing Director CSa Environmental Planning
INTERESTED PERSONS:
Michael Lambert MRTPI Leicestershire Police
Colin McDavid Resident
Judy Geer Resident
Cory Cavell-Taylor Resident
Mark Taylor Resident
Rob Bowley Resident and Chair Oakham Allotments Society
Ryan Henry Resident
Patricia Montgomery Resident
Martin Brooks Town councillor and resident
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 15
DOCUMENTS HANDED IN AT THE INQUIRY
1 Statement of Common Ground signed and dated 24.5.11
2 Statement by Michael Lambert representing Leicestershire Police
3 Appeal decision APP/T2405/A/10/2131699 submitted by Mr
Lambert
4 Mr Dunnett’s letter of 14.9.10 to the CC setting out draft heads of
terms for the S106 agreement
5 Letter of objection of 5.5.11 from WYG on behalf of Mr D Gibson
submitted by the CC
6 Mrs Geer’s statement to the inquiry with Inspector’s
contemporaneous notes of additional points made
7 Mr Cavell-Taylor’s statement to the inquiry with Inspector’s
contemporaneous notes of additional points made
8 Mr Bowley’s statement to the inquiry
9 Certified copy of the Section 106 Agreement dated 30 June 2011
10 Letter from Hawksmead Ltd dated 8 July 2011 to PINS
COUNCIL DOCUMENTS HANDED IN AT THE INQUIRY
CC1 Opening statement
CC2 Supporting letter from Ward Councillors Plews and Munton
CC3 Draft conditions (dated 26 May)
CC4 Bundle of documents submitted by Mrs Baker - email from CC
Estate Surveyor dated 23.5.11, internal memorandum of
18.5.11 and schedule showing timelines for disposals of
Barleythorpe Hall, Ashwell Depot and The Parks site and
Tresham site
CC5 Email of 26.5.11 from CC Head of Asset Management to Mrs
Baker updating progress on The Parks redevelopment
CC6 GO East Midlands’ letter of 1.11.2006 about the Ashwell Depot
CC7 Draft conditions for the Hawksmead site (OUT/2009/1306) (as
at 27.5.11) and minutes of Development Control and Licensing
Committee 5.4.11 with position update on the Hawksmead site
CC8 Proposed amendment to the Rutland Local Plan Proposals Map
showing proposed extension to the Planned Limits of
Development to include the sustainable urban extension (policy
CS5)
CC9 Plan provided at the inquiry to show The Parks site and the
residual site B: land north of the Memorial Hospital
CC10 Internal memo of 25.5.11 from CC Children and Young People’s
Services providing additional education information
CC11 The Inspector’s Report on the Examination into the Rutland Core
Strategy DPD dated 26 May 2011 but sent to the Inspector and
the other parties by electronic link in an email from the Council
dated 8 June 2011
CC12 Email exchange between the Council and Marrons in relation to
Ashwell depot.
CC13 Letter from Freeth Cartwright LLP of 8.7.11 confirming
completion of the S106 Agreement for the Hawksmead
development at NW Oakham
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 16
CC14 Exchange of correspondence between Marrons and the County
Council in respect of the Inspector’s report on the Core Strategy
and including a letter from Marrons to The Planning Inspectorate
of 6.7.11
CC15 Report of the Strategic Director of Places to the Council on
11.7.11 recommending the adoption of the Rutland Core
Strategy
CC16 Closing submissions on behalf of the County Council (with
Inspector’s handwritten notes of points made orally)
CC17 RCC letter dated 9.8.11 on the consultation draft NPPF
APPLICANTS’ DOCUMENTS HANDED IN AT THE INQUIRY
APP1 Opening submissions
APP2 Extracts from Mr Longley’s proof relating to Manor Farm,
Bessacarr for Persimmon Homes (South Yorkshire) Ltd
APP3 Traffic assessment of Cricket Lawns by Brian Plumb 16.5.11
APP4 Amendments to Mr Jones’ proof (pages substituted in proof)
APP5 Schedule of S106 contributions
APP6 Land south of Oakham to east and west of Uppingham Road
APP7 Update to Mr Dunnett’s proof and Consent Order relating to
applicant’s claim for Judicial Review
APP8 Mr Jones’ schedule of housing sites comparing applicant’s and
CC’s assessments of likely delivery numbers and time
APP9 Fpcr ecological surveys 2011 – results summary May 2011
APP10 Leicestershire CC’s letter of 23.5.11 relating to archaeological
considerations
APP11 Draft S106 agreement
APP12 Rutland CC Local Development Scheme 2009-2012 Revised
June 2009
APP13 Note prepared by applicant to summarise Mrs Baker’s
evidence on the component sites of forward housing supply
APP14 Sites subject to disagreement between the parties
APP15 Email of 12.5.11 from David Tyldesley Associates
APP16 A. Components of supply 2010-2015 and years’ supply by
Sedgefield and residual methods
B. Components of supply 2011-2016 and years’ supply by
Sedgefield and residual methods
APP17 Officers’ report to Rutland CC Development Control and
Licensing Committee 6.4.11 on outline application by
Hawksmead Ltd, Land north of Oakham
APP18 Letter from Marrons dated 22 June 2011 re the affordable
housing provisions in the S106 and enclosing a copy of the
draft S106 Agreement
APP19 Closing submissions on behalf of Jeakins Weir and addendum
(with Inspector’s handwritten notes of points made orally)
APP20 Marrons’ letter dated 15.8.11 on the consultation draft NPPF
OAKHAM ACTION GROUP DOCUMENTS HANDED IN AT THE INQUIRY
OAG1 Opening submissions
OAG2 Oakham Action Constitution
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 17
OAG3 Schedule of components of housing land supply with
Inspector’s handwritten corrections made by Mr Longley in
evidence.
OAG4 Note on household projections submitted by Mr Longley
OAG5 Appeal decision APP/Z2830/A/10/2124685 submitted by Mr
Longley
OAG6 Secretary of State’s decision letter relating to land at Binhamy
Farm, Stratton Road, Bude
OAG7 Secretary of State’s decision letter relating to land east of
Marriott Road/Anvil Close/Forge Fields and South of Hind
Heath Road, Sandbach, Cheshire and the Inspector’s report
OAG8 Closing submissions on behalf of the Oakham Action Group
(with Inspector’s handwritten notes of points made orally)
PLANS
A Application drawings:
4284-SK-02 showing application site edged red
4284-SK-02 Illustrative Masterplan December 2010
4284-L-01 Rev C Framework Plan
210076/05 Rev A Proposed Access Arrangement
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 18
Annex B
Schedule of Conditions
1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans Nos 4284-SK-02, 4284-L-01 Rev C and
210076/05 Rev A but only in respect of those matters not reserved for
later approval.
2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the
local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this
permission.
3) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years
from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be
approved.
4) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter
called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the local planning authority before any development begins
and the development shall be carried out as approved.
5) The submission of the reserved matters application(s) shall broadly
accord with the details shown in the revised Design and Access
Statement December 2010 and the revised Illustrative Masterplan 4284-
SK-02 dated December 2010.
6) No development shall take place until a Design Code for the site has been
submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. It shall
substantially accord with the revised Design and Access Statement
December 2010. Any amendment shall also be submitted to and
approved by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried
out in accordance with the Design Code. The Design Code shall address
the following issues:
• Architectural and sustainable construction principles;
• Character areas;
• Lifetime homes standards;
• Street types and street materials;
• Development block types and principles;
• Car parking principles;
• Cycling provision;
• Pedestrian and cycle links to adjoining land;
• Public transport routes;
• Boundary treatments;
• Buffer strips between the housing, railway, River Gwash and Uppingham
Road;
• Building types;
• Building heights;
• Building materials;
• Sustainable urban drainage systems;
• Public open spaces;
• Lighting strategy;
• Provision for refuse and recyling;
• Implementation.
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 19
7) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used
in the construction of the external surfaces of the buildings hereby
permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details.
8) No development, including site works, shall begin until a landscaping
scheme, to include those details specified below, has been submitted to
and agreed in writing by the local planning authority:
a) The treatment proposed for all ground surfaces, including hard areas;
b) Full details of tree planting;
c) Planting schedules, noting the species, sizes, numbers and densities of
plants;
d) Finished levels or contours;
e) Details of boundary treatments
f) Any structures to be erected or constructed;
g) Functional services above and below ground; and
h) All existing trees, hedges and other landscape features, indicating clearly
those to be removed.
9) All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with
the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the
occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the
programme agreed with the local planning authority.
10) The landscaping scheme shall be fully completed, in accordance with the
details agreed under the terms of condition 8) above, in the first planting
and seeding seasons following the first occupation of any part of the
development or in accordance with a programme previously agreed in
writing by the local planning authority. Any trees or plants removed,
dying, being severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased, within 5
years of planting shall be replaced in the following planting season by
trees or plants of a size and species similar to those originally required to
be planted.
11) A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives,
management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape
areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be
submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to the
occupation of the development or any phase of the development,
whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape
management plan shall be carried out as approved.
12) The hedges located within and on the boundary of the application site,
other than those approved to be removed as part of the landscaping
scheme to be submitted for approval under condition 8) above, shall be
retained and maintained at a height no lower than 1.5 metres. Any part
of the hedge removed, dying, being severely damaged or becoming
seriously diseased shall be replaced, with hedge plants of such size and
species as previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority,
within one year of the date of any such loss for a period of 5 years from
the date development begins.
13) No development, including site works, shall take place until the hedges
shown to be retained on the approved landscaping plan have been
protected, in a manner previously agreed in writing by the local planning
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 20
authority. The hedge shall be protected in the agreed manner for the
duration of building operations on the application site.
14) The existing trees on the boundaries of the site and within the site, as
indicated on Figure 2 of the Tree Assessment Report Revision A August
2010 submitted with the application, with the exception of Tree T7, shall
be retained and shall not be felled, lopped, topped or uprooted without
the previous written agreement of the local planning authority, under the
terms of the landscaping conditions above or subsequently given in
writing by the local planning authority. Any trees removed, dying, being
severely damaged or becoming seriously diseased shall be replaced with
trees of such size and species as previously agreed in writing by the local
planning authority within one year of the date of any such loss, for a
period of 5 years from the date development begins.
15) No development, including site works, shall take place until each tree
shown to be retained on the approved plan has been protected, in a
manner previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority, and
in accordance with BS 5837:2005. Each tree shall be protected in the
agreed manner for the duration of building operations on the application
site. Within the areas agreed to be protected, the existing ground level
shall be neither raised nor lowered, and no materials or temporary
building or surplus soil of any kind shall be placed or stored thereon. If
any trenches for services are required in the protected areas, they shall
be excavated and back-filled by hand and any tree roots encountered
with a diameter of 5cm or more shall be left unsevered.
16) The reserved matters applications shall include full details of existing and
proposed levels, including ground levels, finished floor levels of all
buildings and sections across the site, these sections to extend to land
and buildings adjoining the application site.
17) Construction work shall not begin until a scheme for protecting the
proposed houses from noise from the railway has been submitted and
approved in writing by the local planning authority; all works which form
part of the scheme shall be completed before the houses are occupied
and shall be retained in perpetuity.
18) No development shall take place until a programme of archaeological
work including a Written Scheme of Investigation has been submitted to
and approved by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include
an assessment of significance and research questions; and:
• The programme and methodology of site investigation and recording
• The programme for post investigation assessment
• Provision to be made for analysis of the site investigation and recording
• Provision to be made for publication and dissemination of the analysis and
records of the site investigation
• Provision to be made for archive deposition of the analysis and records of
the site investigation
• Nomination of a competent person or persons/organisation to undertake the
works set out within the Written Scheme of Investigation.
19) No development shall take place other than in accordance with the
Written Scheme of Investigation approved under condition 18).
20) The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and
post investigation assessment has been completed in accordance with the
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 21
programme set out in the Written Scheme of Investigation approved
under condition 18) and the provision made for analysis, publication and
dissemination of results and archive deposition has been secured.
21) The dwellings shall achieve Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
No dwelling shall be occupied until a final Code Certificate has been
issued for it certifying that Code Level 4 has been achieved.
22) The gradient of any road or access drive shall not exceed 1 in 20 for the
first 5 metres measured into the site from the highway boundary.
23) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995, or any order revoking and
re-enacting that Order, with or without modifications, no vehicular access
gates shall be erected at any time unless they are set back a minimum
distance of 5 metres behind the highway boundary and hung so as to
open inwards only.
24) No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied or used
until visibility splays of 2.4 metres by 120 metres have been provided on
the highway boundary on Uppingham Road, on both sides of the access
and the areas have been laid out and surfaced in a manner previously
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
25) No dwelling shall be occupied until such time as provision has been made
within the development for the turning of delivery/ refuse/ service/
emergency vehicles.
26) No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until
a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved
in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall
be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall
provide for:
i) the location and details of the access to be used during the
construction period
ii) parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors
iii) loading and unloading of plant and materials
iv) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development
v) wheel washing facilities
vi) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during
construction
vii) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition
and construction works
27) The details of the layout submitted in accord with condition 4) shall
provide for a minimum width of 5.5m for the main access road and
4.25m for any private shared drives.
28) Any vehicular access drive shall be surfaced with a hard bound but
porous material (not loose aggregate) for a distance of at least 5 metres
behind the highway boundary in accordance with details submitted to and
approved by the local planning authority.
29) No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme
for the site, incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an
assessment of the hydrological and hydro-geological context of the
Appeal Decision APP/A2470/A/10/2143475
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk 22
development, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in
accordance with the approved details before the development is
completed.

Oakham Action, Jeakins Weir, Rutland County Council, Mrs O’Rourke, The Planning Inspectorate

Hello all

Notification has been received from The Planning Inspectorate that the adjourned inquiry into the 

Appeal by Jeakins Weir Ltd – Site at Land West of Uppingham Road, Oakham  

- Reference APP/A2470/A/10/2143475/NWF 

will resume at 11.00am on Monday 11^th July 2011 for 1 day. 

 

The Venue will be The Council Chamber, Rutland CC Offices, Catmose,  Oakham.

The progress of the case can be viewed on the internet on search page: 

http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/casesearch.asp 

under the above reference.

The Core Strategy Inspector’s report is also available on the Rutland County Council site –  

www.rutland.gov.uk/corestrategy.

This report recommends that the development to the north of Oakham will cover the five year housing requirement without the need to identify further strategic housing sites.

Mrs O’Rourke will be able to take this into account in reaching her decision after the hearing on 11^th July.    

I hope you will be able to attend on that day.

Regards

Judy

Jeakins Weir Limited, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Public Inquiry, Uppingham Road, Oakham, Rutland, Planning

Jeakins Weir Limited, Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Public Inquiry, Uppingham Road, Oakham, Rutland, Planning.

Planning ref: OUT/2010/0954

Appeal Ref APP/A2470/A/10/2143475/NWF

In a accordance with the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

An Appeal by Jeakins Weir Ltd will take place.

Jeakins Weir Limited, applied for the following: Erection of circa 96 No. dwellings and associated works including provision of access onto Uppingham Road Oakham,Rutland on land west of Uppingham Road Oakham Rutland.

An Inspector has been appointed by the Secretary of State under paragraph 1(1) of schedule 6 the the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to determine the above by of a Public Inquiry.

The date and time of the Inquiry are as follows:

Date 24/05/2011

Time: 10.00am

Venue: EEF Training Centre, Main Road, Barleythorpe, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 7ED.

The public may attend at the Inspector's discretion, you may be allowed to give your views orally, provided that you are there when the Inquiry opens.

Statements submitted by the parties can be inspected at Rutland County Council Offices at Catmose during normal office hours.

Should you wish to receive a copy of the appeal decision, you should write to request one from the Inspectorate at: The Planning Inspectorate, 3/01 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol, BS1 6OPN. Please quote their Ref no. APP/A2470/A/10/2143475/NWF

Facilities are available for people with disabilities. Please Contact James Frieland on 01572 758288 if you would like more information about the facilities available.

All other enquiries:

Rutland County Council
Catmose
Oakham
Rutland
LE15 6HP

Tel: 01572 722 577

Fax: 01572 758 373

Email: planning@rutland.gov.uk

DX: 28340 Oakham

Jeakins Weir, Uppingham Road Development, Oakham Action, Rutland Radio, News

Some of you may have heard the item about the Uppingham Road Development  on Rutland Radio a couple of days ago, saying that the Jeakins Weir development should not be refused since Rutland County Council has two reports stating that there would be no visual impact from the development to the west of the Uppingham Road.  .    

This is not quite true as, from my information,  the reports quoted ‘minimal impact’ and ‘moderate impact’ respectively.

We should be having our side of the story broadcast tomorrow morning as Oakham Action has had a report  from a reputable Chartered Landscape Architect stating that the development would have significant visual impact, so listen in to Rutland Radio !

Regards

Judy

Uppingham Road Development Oakham Town Council and Oakham Action

At the last meeting of Oakham Town Council, members were asked to reconsider their comments relating to the proposed Uppinham Road development .

This was due to non-determination by Rutland County Council. The planning inspector will consider Jeakins Weir's appeal.

If Oakham Town Council spent less time bullying and looking after our town, they would have noticed there had been a change to consider. The proposed number of homes planed had been considerably dropped to 95.

The public were aware of this large reduction in numbers. Why was the council not aware of this?

Oakham Action and other members of the public were aware of this changes many days before the meeting.

This is another example of how out of touch the Town Couuncil is! 

Why did the Clerk not point this out to members, he is paid enough to do so.

Some of the Councillor are so busy bullying, they missed a very important change and made comments about the development as if there was no change.

Oakham Town Council is an expensive ineffective waste of money.

All those ex Councillors who blamed me for the ex mayors illness are you mad? she said it was cervical cancer, how could I have caused that illness?

Oakham Action Says:

You will be pleased to hear that yesterday evening the Development Control Committee of Rutland County Council  voted by majority to refuse the application to build 96 houses on land to the west of Uppingham Road.

We are all very pleased with the result and thank you all for your support.

Unfortunately this is not the end of the matter, since the developer has lodged an appeal for non-determination with the Planning Inspectorate.   This means that the Inspector has the final decision on this application.    The Inspector will receive copies of all the objection letters and other correspondence, but if you wish to add any further planning objections you can write to the Inspector before 22^nd February 2011.   The hearing will be sometime in May and we will keep you informed in case there is need for further representations by Oakham Action.

Once again many thanks for your support and particularly to those who attended the meeting yesterday.

Regards

Judy

Rutland County Council, Planning application, OUT/2010/0954, Jeakins Weir, Oakham Action

Richard Swift

Chairperson

WWW.OakhamAction.co.uk

Date: 04/02/2011

Rutland County Councillors

Dear County Councillor

Re Planning application OUT/2010/0954 Jeakins Weir

With reference to the above application, as Chair Person of ‘Oakham Action’ representing a large number of residents of Oakham and surrounding villages, I would like you be aware of the key points raised in objections to this application before it goes forward to the Planning Committee on Tuesday 8 February.

I have detailed below a summary of the points raised in over 350 letters of objection to the application.

I am aware that the council has recommended that the application is refused, and you can be assured that the Oakham Action Group will support the council in robustly rejecting this proposal.

Yours sincerely

Richard Swift

Richard Swift

Chair Person – Oakham Action

Detailed below are a summary of the points raised by members of the public in their 350 letters of objection

These letters were sent to the Planning Officer before the deadline of 23^rd October 2010 relating to the Application by Jeakins Weir to build 112 houses on land to the west of Uppingham Road.

Application No. OUT/2010/0954

The location of the site has not been included in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy final draft document August 2010 which has now been sent to the Secretary of State.

Landscape

1. One of the policy statements for Rutland was the preservation of the rural nature of Rutland

2. Over development of Oakham will discourage tourists as they come for the natural beauty of the area and the historic market town.

3. The present South elevation of Oakham is a particularly attractive and at present unspoiled approach to the older part of a market town. It is the only remaining completely rural aspect left on all the approaches to Oakham

4. The southern approach to Oakham would be destroyed. It is currently a picturesque and inviting landscape entrance to Oakham.

5. The site is part of green landscape protecting Oakham. A significant amount of green landscape has gone already and it is vital that we should protect for us and future generations if Oakham is to retain its character as a small attractive country town.

6. Granting of planning permission on this site would inevitably open up land on the South of Oakham to future development and would set precedent.

7. Views from the footpaths, roads and from Brooke Hill need to be protected.

8. The proposed screening on the southern boundary of the site would be made up of native trees. These are normally deciduous and therefore for six months of the year would present very little screening and the housing would be in full view from the Uppingham Road and higher land around.

9. The proposed building is on greenfield, agricultural land. New buildings should make the best use of previously developed land in accordance with national planning policies.

10. It is important that this area should remain a green field buffer between the town and the Nature Reserve at Egleton. The development would have a negative impact on the important breeding site for migratory birds and would be detrimental to the future growth of tourism related to these unique wildlife habitats.

11. The development would adversely affect a designated Area of Particularly attractive Countryside which is of major importance to the setting of the town.

12. The developer’s report states that there would be little impact from the site for the houses in The Vale and Bowling Green Close as they would add some extra trees to screen. This also suffers from the lack of leaves in the winter – for 6 months of the year – when the screen is ineffective.

Housing

1. With over 1000 houses in the Barleythorpe development by Hawksmead, no other housing developments should be needed in Oakham. ( This has now been approved)

2. The developer claims that Rutlanders support the building of eco-friendly homes on this site as a result of their survey last year. This survey question was very general – most people would like to be seen as ‘green’ and would answer yes if asked ‘Do you think it is important for Oakham to be able to offer low energy environmentally friendly homes’. This does not mean they want them built here or now.

Transport

1. Increase in traffic congestion in Oakham Town. Considering measures taken to reduce congestion in recent years, this development is counterproductive.

2. Traffic using Cricket Lawns as a rat run and shortcut to the west of town will be increased and the queues at the Brooke Road crossing, already congested , would be impossible without further expense on road improvements.

3. 112 houses would generate more than 200 domestic vehicles, not to mention delivery vans and tradesmen. These would have to enter and leave a busy Uppingham Road and will present a significant hazard to southbound traffic on the Uppingham Road just emerging from a hidden dip.

4. Overloading of town car parking facilities and parking on residential streets.

5. The proposed footpath through the allotments is presumably an attempt to gain some form of access precedent. The current allotments would be more open to vandalism and the exit onto the Brooke Road is dangerous.

Wildlife

1. The northern boundary around the stream is of huge ecological importance as a wildlife corridor and contains a large variety of birds and mammals which should not be disturbed. This would happen if this part of the site were a recreational area.

2. The route of the Upper Arm of the River Gwash is a Green Corridor which needs to be protected.

Trees

1. The site contains many trees which need to be preserved. The developer proposes to cut down a number which he claims to be diseased. Any new replanted trees would take 15-20 years to reach maturity.

Archaeology

1. There is a heritage windmill mound on the site and it is an important archaeological site of public hangings with an association with Gibbet Gate.

shown at the south end of town on John Speeds map of Oakham 1610.

2. The site of the gallows is shown on John Ogilby’s map of 1675 to be located on

the land to the west of the Uppingham Road.

Infrastructure

1. There will be overloading of the Oakham Medical practice, which is currently under pressure.

2. There will be overloading of dentists and schools to cover increased demand.

3. The development would add to light pollution in the area

4. The lack of jobs in the area will encourage commuters and a dormitory town.

Richard Swift

Chairperson

WWW.OakhamAction.co.uk

Date: 04/02/2011

Rutland County Councillors

Dear County Councillor

Re Planning application OUT/2010/0954 Jeakins Weir

With reference to the above application, as Chair Person of ‘Oakham Action’ representing a large number of residents of Oakham and surrounding villages, I would like you be aware of the key points raised in objections to this application before it goes forward to the Planning Committee on Tuesday 8 February.

I have detailed below a summary of the points raised in over 350 letters of objection to the application.

I am aware that the council has recommended that the application is refused, and you can be assured that the Oakham Action Group will support the council in robustly rejecting this proposal.

Yours sincerely

Richard Swift

Richard Swift

Chair Person – Oakham Action

Detailed below are a summary of the points raised by members of the public in their 350 letters of objection

These letters were sent to the Planning Officer before the deadline of 23^rd October 2010 relating to the Application by Jeakins Weir to build 112 houses on land to the west of Uppingham Road.

Application No. OUT/2010/0954

The location of the site has not been included in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy final draft document August 2010 which has now been sent to the Secretary of State.

Landscape

1. One of the policy statements for Rutland was the preservation of the rural nature of Rutland

2. Over development of Oakham will discourage tourists as they come for the natural beauty of the area and the historic market town.

3. The present South elevation of Oakham is a particularly attractive and at present unspoiled approach to the older part of a market town. It is the only remaining completely rural aspect left on all the approaches to Oakham

4. The southern approach to Oakham would be destroyed. It is currently a picturesque and inviting landscape entrance to Oakham.

5. The site is part of green landscape protecting Oakham. A significant amount of green landscape has gone already and it is vital that we should protect for us and future generations if Oakham is to retain its character as a small attractive country town.

6. Granting of planning permission on this site would inevitably open up land on the South of Oakham to future development and would set precedent.

7. Views from the footpaths, roads and from Brooke Hill need to be protected.

8. The proposed screening on the southern boundary of the site would be made up of native trees. These are normally deciduous and therefore for six months of the year would present very little screening and the housing would be in full view from the Uppingham Road and higher land around.

9. The proposed building is on greenfield, agricultural land. New buildings should make the best use of previously developed land in accordance with national planning policies.

10. It is important that this area should remain a green field buffer between the town and the Nature Reserve at Egleton. The development would have a negative impact on the important breeding site for migratory birds and would be detrimental to the future growth of tourism related to these unique wildlife habitats.

11. The development would adversely affect a designated Area of Particularly attractive Countryside which is of major importance to the setting of the town.

12. The developer’s report states that there would be little impact from the site for the houses in The Vale and Bowling Green Close as they would add some extra trees to screen. This also suffers from the lack of leaves in the winter – for 6 months of the year – when the screen is ineffective.

Housing

1. With over 1000 houses in the Barleythorpe development by Hawksmead, no other housing developments should be needed in Oakham. ( This has now been approved)

2. The developer claims that Rutlanders support the building of eco-friendly homes on this site as a result of their survey last year. This survey question was very general – most people would like to be seen as ‘green’ and would answer yes if asked ‘Do you think it is important for Oakham to be able to offer low energy environmentally friendly homes’. This does not mean they want them built here or now.

Transport

1. Increase in traffic congestion in Oakham Town. Considering measures taken to reduce congestion in recent years, this development is counterproductive.

2. Traffic using Cricket Lawns as a rat run and shortcut to the west of town will be increased and the queues at the Brooke Road crossing, already congested , would be impossible without further expense on road improvements.

3. 112 houses would generate more than 200 domestic vehicles, not to mention delivery vans and tradesmen. These would have to enter and leave a busy Uppingham Road and will present a significant hazard to southbound traffic on the Uppingham Road just emerging from a hidden dip.

4. Overloading of town car parking facilities and parking on residential streets.

5. The proposed footpath through the allotments is presumably an attempt to gain some form of access precedent. The current allotments would be more open to vandalism and the exit onto the Brooke Road is dangerous.

Wildlife

1. The northern boundary around the stream is of huge ecological importance as a wildlife corridor and contains a large variety of birds and mammals which should not be disturbed. This would happen if this part of the site were a recreational area.

2. The route of the Upper Arm of the River Gwash is a Green Corridor which needs to be protected.

Trees

1. The site contains many trees which need to be preserved. The developer proposes to cut down a number which he claims to be diseased. Any new replanted trees would take 15-20 years to reach maturity.

Archaeology

1. There is a heritage windmill mound on the site and it is an important archaeological site of public hangings with an association with Gibbet Gate.

shown at the south end of town on John Speeds map of Oakham 1610.

2. The site of the gallows is shown on John Ogilby’s map of 1675 to be located on

the land to the west of the Uppingham Road.

Infrastructure

1. There will be overloading of the Oakham Medical practice, which is currently under pressure.

2. There will be overloading of dentists and schools to cover increased demand.

3. The development would add to light pollution in the area

4. The lack of jobs in the area will encourage commuters and a dormitory town.