Showing posts with label Rutland Community Dismayed as Disabled Day Centre Plans are Rejected by Rutland County Council Planning Officer. Alicia Kearns MP demands the council rethinks its decission. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rutland Community Dismayed as Disabled Day Centre Plans are Rejected by Rutland County Council Planning Officer. Alicia Kearns MP demands the council rethinks its decission. Show all posts

Monday, July 15, 2024

Rutland Community Dismayed as Disabled Day Centre Plans are Rejected by Rutland County Council Planning Officer. Alicia Kearns MP demands the council rethinks its decission.

Rutland Community Dismayed as Disabled Day Centre Plans Rejected

Local residents and advocates for the disabled community have expressed deep disappointment after Rutland County Council rejected a planning application for a new day centre in Oakham. The proposed facility, to be operated by Support And Connections, aimed to provide vital services for adults with disabilities.

Support And Connections has a proven track record of delivering exceptional care, as evidenced by their successful operations in Melton. Alicia Kearns MP who visited their prospective Oakham site, was enthusiastic about the potential benefits the centre would bring to the Rutland community. She praised the organisation's work in Melton and highlighted the urgent need for such services in the county.

The proposed day centre at Tungsten Park was expected to create new jobs and enhance the quality of life for disabled individuals by providing them with opportunities to develop independence and confidence. However, despite the clear community need and potential economic benefits, Rutland County Council's planning department has opted to deny the application.

Alicia, along with many others, is determined to challenge this decision. She believes that attracting a provider of Support And Connections' calibre is a rare opportunity for Rutland and that the council should wholeheartedly support the project. 

The rejection of this planning application has ignited a passionate debate about the council's commitment to supporting vulnerable members of the community. As the situation unfolds, the local community will be watching closely to see if Rutland County Council will reconsider its stance and give the green light to this much-needed facility.




Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Town & Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015

REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION

Applicant Name and Address Agent Name and Address

Mr Paul Hunt

Unit 3D

Tungsten Park

Panniers Way

Barleythorpe

Rutland

LE15 7XA


Date of Validation Application Number:

17 May 2024 2024/0560/FUL

REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION for the following reasons:

1 As a key employment site within Oakham, there is a greater need to safeguard such sites in

accordance with criterion c) of Policy CS13 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011). The unit has an

existing employment use and it is considered that there is limited ability for the proposed use to provide

such economic benefits as to satisfy criterion c). It is considered that insufficient information has been

submitted to show that the proposed use although providing community benefits would outweigh the

loss of the employment use floor space. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Policy

CS13 of the Rutland Core Strategy (2011) and Section 6 of the NPPF (2023).


2 The proposed change of use of part of the ground floor of the unit with the lack of natural light or

windows in the building and no access to a safe outdoor space will lead to unacceptable conditions for

the users of the building and will create an oppressive environment. Furthermore, the proposed

dropping off and collecting of a large number of people with a learning disability at the centre of an

industrial area is considered to be inappropriate, and detrimental to the safety of the users of the

building. It is considered therefore that the proposal is contrary to Policy CS19 of the Rutland Core

Strategy (2011), Policy SP15 of the Site Allocations and Policies DPD (2014) and Section 12 of the

NPPF (2023).

PROPOSAL: Change of use of part of ground floor of unit from offices/storage/industrial to use as a day

centre for disabled adults and conductive education provision for children.


LOCATION: Unit 3D Tungsten Park Panniers Way Barleythorpe Rutland LE15 7XA


INFORMATIVES:

Proactive Statement – This decision has been reached taking into account paragraph 38 of the National

Planning Policy Framework.

Decision Date: 12 July 2024

Proper Officer of the Council

REFUSAL OF PLANNING PERMISSION


IMPORTANT NOTES

1. Please quote your application reference number (2024/0560/FUL) in all relevant

correspondence.

2. Appeals to the Secretary of State

 If you are aggrieved by the decision of your Local Planning Authority to refuse

permission for the proposed development or to grant it subject to conditions, then

you can appeal to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities

under Section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

 If you want to appeal, then you must do so using a form which you can obtain from

The Planning Inspectorate, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Bristol, BS1 6PN.

Tel No: 0303 444 5000 https://www.gov.uk/appeal-planning-decision The Planning

Inspectorate have an online appeal service which you can use to make your appeal.

You can find the service through the Appeals area of the Planning Portal

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/planning/appeals

 Appeals must be made within six months from the date of this decision notice.

 The Secretary of State can allow a longer period for giving notice of an appeal, but

he will not normally be prepared to use this power unless there are special

circumstances which excuse the delay in giving notice of appeal.

 The Secretary of State need not consider an appeal if it seems to him that having

regard to Sections 70 and 72(i) of the Act, to the provisions of the development order

and to any directions given under the order, the Local Planning Authority could not

have granted planning permission for the proposed development or could not have

granted it without the conditions it imposed.