Development Control and Licensing Committee
Date: Tuesday 14 October 2014
Time: 6.00 pm
Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham
2014/0258/FUL
Hawksmead Ltd
Land west of Lands End Way, Oakham
New retail unit (Class A1) with
associated vehicular & pedestrian
access, car parking, landscaping &
servicing.
Recommendation REFUSAL
Date: Tuesday 14 October 2014
Time: 6.00 pm
Venue: Council Chamber, Catmose, Oakham
2014/0258/FUL
Hawksmead Ltd
Land west of Lands End Way, Oakham
New retail unit (Class A1) with
associated vehicular & pedestrian
access, car parking, landscaping &
servicing.
Recommendation REFUSAL
for the following reasons;
1. The application site is part of a larger area of land allocated and safeguarded for
employment-related development (Use classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes) Order,1987 (as amended)) in Policy CS13(d) of the Adopted
Core Strategy (July 2011) and EM2/1 of the Adopted Rutland Local Plan (July 2001). It
is also in a prime location by the Oakham Bypass (A606: Burley Park Way), adjacent to
the main highway access into the allocated area. The proposed use for retail
development (Use Class A1) would detrimentally reduce both the quantity and quality of
employment land supply within Rutland. The loss of part of this strategic site, especially
in such a prime location, would inhibit the development of the wider employment site for
future economic development and job creation within the area allocated for such
development within Policies EM2/1 and CS13(d). Given this, the current application is
contrary to saved Policies EM2 and EM11 of the Rutland Local Plan (2001) and Policies
CS2(h) and CS13(d) of the Adopted Core Strategy (July 2011).
2. The proposal would have an impact upon linked trips to Oakham Town Centre, and as
such would be required to make contributions towards a County Council led planned
programme of investment in the town centre to mitigate the agreed impact of the
development on the town centre. These developer contributions have not been finalised
through a Section 106 agreement, and the proposal is thereby contrary to policy CS2,
CS8, CS17, and CS18 of the adopted Rutland Core Strategy and the guidance in the
adopted Supplementary
