Prayer and Justice Converge in Oakham, High Court Judge Dame Amanda Jane Tipples, DBE, KC, Presides Over Cases After County Service at Oakham Castle.

It was a morning that married civic duty and the rule of law in Rutland, as All Saints Church in Oakham and the historic Oakham Castle Court played host to a poignant Justice Service followed by formal court proceedings. The court sits every two years.

High Court Judge, Dame Amanda Jane Tipples, DBE, KC

The day began with a solemn procession of the Leicestershire and Rutland Justice Service from Oakham Castle to All Saints Church for the Justice Service for the County of Rutland. The service was attended by notable dignitaries, including High Court Judge, Dame Amanda Jane Tipples, DBE, KC, who was present alongside The High Sheriff of Rutland, Colonel (retired) Richard Chesterfield. Oakham Mayor Chris Nix. 

The service itself was a rich blend of spiritual and musical offerings. The officiating clergy included The Venerable John R Ellis CB RAF (Retired), Chaplain to the High Sheriff, The Rev Canon Jane Baxter, Rural Dean, and The Rev Canon Tim Alban Jones MBE, Vice Dean of Peterborough Cathedral.

Attendees were treated to music from organist Peter Davis, the striking sound of trumpeters Steven Walton and John Ellwood, and the combined voices of The Rutland Youth Choirs and the All Saint's Church Choir. The atmosphere was further enhanced by the traditional sounds of Piper Iain Hildreth.

Following the service, Judge Tipples presided over two cases that had been transferred from Leicestershire Crown Court, although neither defendant was present for the proceedings.

Case One: Bail Application for Declan Guess

The first case was a bail application for Declan Guess, a 24-year-old man charged with Stalking, and being in possession and distribution of indecent images of children (Cat. A, B and C). Mr. Guess is currently held on remand, having breached his anti-stalking order on September 24th of this year.

Mr. Guess’s family offered a £3,000 assurance in return for bail, with the initial plan being for him to reside at his grandmother's home. However, the court was informed just before the hearing that this accommodation may be unsuitable, as a child lives at the address.

The prosecution strongly opposed bail, citing fears that Mr. Guess, who contests the charges, would interfere with witnesses if released. The court also heard that Mr. Guess is currently being detained at a Leicester Hospital due to an illness that prevents him from eating and drinking, requiring him to be fed by straw.

The Judge ultimately adjourned the bail application to Leicester Crown Court on November 10th. This will allow Mr. Guess to resubmit his application at his pre-trial hearing and provides time for the prosecution to check the suitability of any proposed accommodation should bail be granted.

Case Two: Setting an Arraignment Date for Dominic Roberts

The second case involved setting an arraignment date for Dominic Roberts, who is charged with attempted aggravated burglary with knives and possession of a knife.

The prosecution’s psychiatrist had previously found Mr. Roberts fit to plead at Crown Court. However, the defence team applied for a second psychiatric report. The Judge ordered that Mr. Roberts would appear at Leicester Crown Court for arraignment on Friday, November 14th, 2025. This date was set to ensure there was sufficient time for the second psychiatric report to be produced.

Oakham and Rutland News extended thanks to Judge Amanda Tipples for agreeing to pose for photographs after the completion of the hearings.

Visiting High Sheriffs 

Rupert Mathews Police and Crime Commissioner 

for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland

High Sheriff of Rutland (left) Judge, Lord Lieutenant of Rutland 

and visiting High Sheriff.

Crucial Next Steps for Rutland's Local Government Future as LGR Proposals Emerge

Crucial Next Steps for Rutland's Local Government Future as LGR Proposals Emerge

Rutland is reaching a pivotal moment in the ongoing process of Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). A significant development has occurred with the publication of a detailed draft of the North, City, South LGR proposal. This plan, developed collaboratively by Leicestershire district and borough councils and Rutland County Council, is now ready for consideration by Councillors, to be compared against other options before the Government’s final submission deadline of 28 November 2025.

The North, City, South Proposal is Published

The newly published detailed draft of the North, City, South proposal offers a clear blueprint for one potential future structure. It stems from the Government’s Statutory Invitation dated 5 February 2025, which specifically regards Leicester, Leicestershire, and Rutland as an "invitation area."

Detailed Draft and Summary: A summary and the detailed draft of the proposal can be accessed here: www.northcitysouth.co.uk/draft-proposal.

Supporting FAQ: A comprehensive detailed FAQ that supports the proposal is also available here: www.northcitysouth.co.uk/faq.

Multiple Proposals Including Rutland

The North, City, South plan is just one of several proposals currently on the table that include Rutland. As a reminder, Rutland has been included in three interim proposals so far:

North, City, South proposal: Developed by Leicestershire district/borough councils and Rutland County Council (RCC).

Leicester City Council’s proposal: Suggests two unitary authorities: one incorporating Rutland with Leicestershire and the other being a City Council with an enlarged area.

South Kesteven and North Kesteven proposal: A plan to form a unitary authority with Rutland, North Kesteven, South Kesteven, and South Holland (Lincolnshire councils).

Furthermore, a fourth proposal including Rutland is anticipated to be published by Leicestershire County Council before the final submission deadline. RCC is actively assisting with the alternative LGR proposals being led by North and South Kesteven District Councils by providing necessary information.

Key Council Decisions and Upcoming Dates

A crucial debate and vote are scheduled for Thursday 20 November 2025.

Full Council Debate and Vote: RCC's Full Council will hold a debate and a non-binding indicative vote on the various proposals.

Cabinet Decision: An RCC Cabinet decision on which proposal to endorse will not be taken until after the Full Council proceedings.

To ensure an informed discussion, RCC hopes to have detailed drafts of all different LGR proposals that include Rutland by the 20 November meeting, although this depends on timely sharing from the other councils involved. RCC will share these drafts as soon as they become available.

The agenda and reports for the Full Council meeting will be published on Wednesday 12 November 2025 and can be viewed here: www.rutland.gov.uk/meetings.

The Path to a Final Decision

Following the final Government submission deadline of 28 November 2025, the timeline for a definitive outcome is:

Early 2026: The UK Government is expected to hold a public consultation around the submitted LGR proposals.

Summer 2026: The Government is expected to take a final decision on the future structure of the new unitary authorities.

This period marks a critical phase where residents should follow developments closely and prepare to engage in the upcoming public consultation.

Victory for Oakham Residents as Rutland County Council Rejects 140-Home Brooke Road Development Over Critical Road Safety Fears

Victory for Oakham Residents as Rutland County Council Rejects 140-Home Brooke Road Development Over Critical Road Safety Fears.

Video to follow:

Rutland County Council has delivered a significant victory to local residents by rejecting an outline planning application for the erection of up to 140 new dwellings on land to the south-east of Brooke Road, Oakham. The Council's decision was based on overriding concerns regarding road safety and the resulting impact on the local highway network.

The rejection is welcome news to the Oakham South Action Group (OSAG), who have been steadfastly expressing their objections for some time. The Group gave a very detailed deputation against the application and had provided the council with extensive reports to support their case.

Level Crossing at Heart of Congestion Fears

The primary issue underpinning the Council’s decision is the existing and escalating traffic congestion around the nearby level crossing, an issue campaigners argued the new development would inevitably exacerbate.

The application site is located approximately 350 meters from the Brooke Road level crossing. Campaigners highlighted that traffic problems have increased significantly since other housing developments had been completed in the area, leading to gridlock at peak times.

Crucially, the crossing is currently closed for around 25 minutes every hour, a time that is reportedly set to increase according to the objectors. Concerns submitted to the council suggested delays could reach "up to 40 minutes per hour," worsening congestion and compromising access for emergency vehicles.

Council Overrules Officer Recommendation

The Council's decision to refuse permission was a notable departure from the officer’s report prepared for the application (2025/0480/MAO). The report had concluded that the proposal, subject to conditions, should be approved. The Local Highways Authority had previously indicated that there was "capacity for the traffic levels proposed" and therefore "no objections... in terms of impact on highway safety".

However, the Council ultimately sided with the local community, recognising the severe adverse impact the additional 140 dwellings would have on an already fragile and congested local road network, particularly given the frequent and lengthy closure of the level crossing.

Controversial Ketton Housing Plan Approved by Rutland County Council Despite Strong Local Objections

Controversial Ketton Housing Plan Approved by Rutland County Council Despite Strong Local Objections

Video to follow:

Rutland County Council has controversially approved a major residential development for 41 new dwellings on land off Manor Green in Ketton. The decision to grant planning permission, application 2025/0267/MAF, was made despite a high number of objections from local residents and a formal objection from the Ketton Parish Council.

The application is a resubmission of an earlier, comparable proposal (2022/0066/MAF) that had been refused by the Council and subsequently dismissed at appeal by a Planning Inspector.

Objections Centered on Highways and Rural Character

The local opposition was significant, with the Ketton Parish Council leading the objections on multiple grounds. The main points of concern included the development being on a greenfield site, outside the village's planned development limits, and the loss of valued green space.

Crucially, the Parish Council raised specific concerns about highway safety, citing issues with pedestrian footfall, access, existing parking pressures, and the increased creation of traffic that the development would generate.

Housing Shortfall Tips the Balance

The key to the application's current approval—despite the earlier appeal dismissal—was a fundamental shift in the planning balance.

The initial application was refused in June 2023 on the grounds that it conflicted with the development plan because the Council could demonstrate a housing land supply in excess of 5 years. However, following the publication of the updated National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in December 2024, Rutland County Council can no longer demonstrate the required five-year housing land supply.

This shortfall immediately engaged the 'tilted balance' outlined in paragraph 11(d) of the NPPF, which creates a presumption in favour of granting permission for sustainable development.

The Council's officers noted that the lack of a five-year supply "tilts the balance in favour of an approval". This procedural change meant that existing local policies against the development were considered "out-of-date," making it highly difficult to refuse permission without strong, demonstrable adverse impacts. The ultimate decision to approve, subject to conditions, was therefore driven by the need to urgently address the housing numbers shortfall and the consequential risk of losing a costly appeal to the developer under the tilted balance rules.

While acknowledging the high number of objections, the approval allows for the provision of 41 homes, including a commitment to 37% affordable housing (15 dwellings), open space, and ecological enhancements, which were deemed significant benefits that outweighed the local harm under the new planning rules.