Campaigners are "utterly disgusted" at the approval of 62 homes on a greenfield site on the edge of Oakham.

The approval came as other schemes were either refused or deferred at a meeting of Rutland County Council's Planning and Licensing Committee on Tuesday night.

The anger follows a decision by the planning and licensing committee to approve the application from Mr Gareth Ball and Ms Amy Ball, plus Ben Ward of Rosconn Strategic Land, Stratford Upon Avon.

They sought to build 43 market and 19 affordable homes in a 3.38ha agricultural field off Braunston Road, as previously reported by Nub News.

Despite much local opposition, planners at Rutland County Council recommended councillors support the application, as also reported by Nub News.

They had argued in a report that technical issues over the scheme had now been settled and refusing permission would put the council's five year supply of housing in jeopardy and make the council vulnerable to proposals on other unplanned greenfield sites all over the County, especially around the larger settlements. These would be hard to resist under central government planning policies and could lead to unnecessary costs should the council refuse such applications.

However, after the meeting, a Facebook group set up by Scott Henderson and other residents commented: "As a result of the Councillors voting 6 to 4 to Approve development on the Braunston Road site last night, we can all kiss goodbye to this gorgeous view.

"Despite our best efforts and some detailed objection speeches from local resident Mr Boulton, Ward Councillor Nick Woodley and June Ellis from the Braunston Parish Council the vote did not go our way.

advertisement

"Not sure how many tuned into the debate but my take on proceedings -

"It wouldn't have mattered who talked and what was said because the 6 council members who voted to approve this development, appeared to do so, not based on any material planning matters or the validity of this site for development, but on fulfilling the council's lack of a robust 5 Year Land Supply House Quota. They even openly discussed this and the impact of not meeting this quota towards the end of the meeting!

"Despite the debate lasting over an hour it felt rushed, with Nick in particular both interrupted and cut short and other Councillors not able to speak at all, to squeeze in a vote with minutes to spare.

"Very disappointingly our combined 162 local resident submitted objections made absolutely no difference what so ever!

"There has been NO concessions made by the council or developer based on the Woodland Trust's recommendations.

"I'm not surprised at the outcome but I'm utterly disgusted by the reasoning!"

Coun Ian Razzell commented underneath: "For the record, I was and remain, opposed to this development as a Ward Councillor for Oakham South.

"However, I will now be doubling my efforts to ensure that vital infrastructure needed in Oakham South is delivered through levies raised by developments such as this."

advertisement

He added: "The important part was representing views of residents but now that switches to ensuring better infrastructure. I hope I can count on all residents to support that intent ðŸ'ðŸ»

"I'm going to be working very hard to achieve actual improvements. The sums of money that come from these developments is not huge but I strongly believe that residents should have the infrastructure needed to support developments."

Elsewhere at Tuesday night's meeting:

• 66 homes at Whissendine, which were recommended for refusal , was deferred.

• 75 homes at Ketton, which were recommended for refusal, was deferred.

• 6 affordable flats at Uppingham were refused as recommended.

• A wine bar in Oakham, which was recommended for approval, was deferred.