140 homes and school facilities at Land To The South East Of Brooke Road, Oakham

What was proposed

The application sought outline permission for up to 140 homes, amenity space, school parking land, outdoor play, wildlife areas, landscaping and infrastructure.

“Application: 2025/0480/MAO ITEM 2 Proposal: Outline planning application with all matters except access reserved, for the erection of up to 140 dwellings, amenity space, provision of land for a school car park, areas for outdoor play, wildlife area, landscaping and all associated infrastructure.”

“EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposal is made in outline with only access submitted for approval at this stage and all other matters reserved. The application seeks outline planning permission for the construction of up to 140 dwellings, amenity space, provision of land for a school car park, areas for outdoor play, wildlife area, landscaping and all associated infrastructure.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the site supported housing supply and they found no impacts that significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits, subject to safeguards.

“The Local Planning Authority is currently unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply due to changes to the method of calculation of housing need made by Government to the National Planning Policy Framework in December 2024. The National Planning Policy Framework states that in such circumstances, proposals should be approved unless the adverse impacts of a scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.”

“There are therefore no adverse impacts of the proposal that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits, specifically the contribution towards the provision of the required housing supply resulting from the calculation of housing need set out in the National Planning policy Framework.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, flooding, ecology, water, nature conservation, environment, health, archaeology and police consultees raised no objection subject to conditions or agreements, while Network Rail requested further information.

“Where a consultee has provided multiple comments, only the most recent response is recorded unless there remain any outstanding matters. LCC Ecology: The updated ecological documents are agreeable except for the need to address a discrepancy between the hedgerow length and number of units in the BNG report and the BNG metric. (Final comments are awaited on this matter as an updated report has been provided correcting the error). Conditions are recommended.”

“RCC Forestry Officer: objection on the basis of the loss of tree at Brooke Road/Welland Way junction. On the basis that this element of the scheme has been deleted there remains no outstanding objection from the Forestry Officer. Anglian Water: No objection, subject to conditions. LLFA: No objection, subject to conditions. Network Rail: Further information requested, conditions requested. Public Protection: No objection.”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents objected to traffic and level-crossing safety, infrastructure, flooding, environmental harm, construction impacts, policy conflicts and loss of countryside character.

“Planning History and Policy Conflicts • Site has been rejected multiple times (2008, 2010, 2020, 2024) due to highway safety. • Not included in the Local Plan; contradicts policies on landscape character and pollution control. • Oakham South Action Group (OSAG) challenges the validity of traffic assessments used by developers. • Concerns over lack of consultation with Network Rail and local stakeholders.”

“Community and Character • Development would undermine the rural character and visual appeal of Oakham. • Loss of countryside views and green spaces valued by residents. • Affordable housing promises viewed with scepticism due to past developer backtracking. • Strong local opposition, with hundreds of objections submitted.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector raised concerns about road and level-crossing capacity, while the agent relied on traffic evidence, highways’ position and the tilted planning balance.

Members’ debate

Members questioned the traffic and level-crossing evidence and considered whether further information should be obtained before deciding the application.

“Committee members expressed discomfort with the available data on traffic and level crossing capacity, debated the adequacy of technical evidence, and considered deferral for further information.”

“It was proposed by Councillor A West and seconded that the application be deferred until further data from Network Rail on projected crossing closure times for the next 20”

Minutes

The votes

Members rejected a deferral motion, rejected approval, and then carried a refusal motion with five votes in favour and three abstentions.

“Upon being put to the vote, with three votes in favour, four against and one abstention, the motion was not carried.”

“Upon being put to the vote, with five votes in favour and three abstentions, the motion was carried.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused because of highway safety and traffic flow concerns relating to safety at the level crossing.

“- Highway Safety and Traffic Flow - Safety at the level crossing…”

“It was proposed by Councillor R Payne and seconded that the application be refused on the above grounds.”

Minutes