A protest against a Jeakins Weir housing development proposed for Braunston Road took place outside Oakham's Victoria Hall yesterday, 13 December 2022.

Read more and see pictures from the protest here.

Jeakins Weir Ltd appealed Rutland County Council's decision to refuse 100 homes on land north of Braunston Road, Oakham.

At the first day of the appeal on Tuesday 13 December, a group of seven protesters braved temperatures of -4C as councillors, residents and representatives of both parties arrived at Victoria Hall in Oakham.

Scott Henderson, one of the protesters, said: "We are here to try and prevent an unwanted, un-needed and uncontrolled private development that Jeakins Weir want to build on the outskirts of Oakham.

"Oakham is currently being bombarded with new housing developments, and because there is a lack of a robust Local Plan in place it's essentially been a 'feeding frenzy' for developers on very unsuitable sites not only here at Braunston Road, which is one of the most unsuitable green field sites, but also throughout Rutland."

Another protester, Mrs Harvey, whose property overlooks the proposed site said: "These are not houses for Oakham people, but for opportunist buyers from outside the county of Rutland who will buy them and then rent them back to the people of Oakham because we cannot afford to buy them ourselves."

Ms Isabella Tafur and audience.

Barrister, Isabella Tafur, on behalf of Jeakins Weir, said the properties are very much needed in Oakham, something that even the county council agrees with, and that they will provide up to 30 per cent affordable housing and open spaces with green infrastructure including children's play areas.

Maxine Simmons, on behalf of Rutland County Council, said the council's position is that more than 240 objections have been received from locals who are against the destruction of a piece of green belt land that has historically been deemed an area of local beauty, and consequently has not been considered for development of any kind.

Inspector Graham Wraight, appointed by the Secretary of State, heard from several members of the county council as well as the town council, all of whom are agreed that this development should not take place, and that the original decision of the planning committee of Rutland County Council in April to refuse this application was the correct one.

Inspector Graham Wraight.

The legal team for Jeakins Weir argued that the infrastructure this development would provide is much needed in Oakham, and that there are more than sufficient public services including health, medical, dental, and school places for the number of expected people who would live in the Braunston Road properties.

Ms Tafur also argued that the council has not realised its housing building numbers as prescribed by itsir own Local Plan which requires local authorities to build a set number of new houses within a five-year period.

But Cllr Edward Baines (Con; Braunston and Martinsthorpe) said: "The council has at least 483 more houses in development in Oakham within the very latest update of the Local Plan, which is well above the government requirement. I cannot understand why Ms Tafur does not know about this when it has been in the public domain on the council's website since November."

Ms Tafur argued: "It is unfair for these 'new' planning numbers – which we were not made aware of – to be introduced into this appeal as mitigating circumstances for the council to rely upon."

However, Cllr Paul Ainsley (Ind; Oakham North West) said: "It is extraordinary to see the raft of proposed new developments in and around the Oakham area, when the current public services infrastructure cannot not cope with the existing demands, let alone those of 100 plus more houses.

"There are currently 1,818 houses projected for development in and around the Oakham area – if we add this proposed site from Jeakins Weir to those which already exist, where are all these people going to send their children, where will they get dental and other health services?"

Wanting fully impartial opinion, Inspector Wraight also allowed statements from members of the packed public gallery, many of whom disagreed with Ms Tafur's argument that local services were 'undersubscribed', including dentists, school places and leisure infrastructure.

"What leisure infrastructure?", called one member of the public. "We have no leisure centres, no cinemas, nowhere for our children to go – you are talking about provisions that simply don't exist."

Mr Tafur responded by saying: "I live to see a debate on figures that are up to date, and I will not respond further to outcries from the public gallery which are at best, inappropriate."

Following a break for lunch, Inspector Wraight explained that he would like to visit the Braunston Road site for himself, bringing all the interested parties along.

He was invited by several residents of Warn Crescent to come into their homes and view the site from their houses which back onto the proposed development area as it would give him a good overall vista.

The Jeakins Weir party.

Outside Victoria Hall, Sammy Munton, who is against the development, said: "Rutland and Oakham has a strong record of housing development. Over the past five years we have grown significantly scoring 156% on the housing delivery test in the last year… the population of Rutland was shown to have increased 9.7% in the last census.

"Unfortunately, because of the withdrawal of the last Local Plan, opportunistic development in poorly chosen sites has been an issue cross the county… the truth is that this is not a good site for development, it was evaluated and discounted in the last Local Plan and suffers from a variety of issues.

"I speak on behalf of a large group of local residents when I say that a tilted balance should be applied, the appeal should be dismissed and the site can go on to evaluation as part of the new Local Plan processed together with other potential strategic sites."

Following the site visit, Mr Wraight concluded proceedings by stating that all the matters would now be taken under consideration by him, and while it would be in the interests of all parties concerned that a determination be made as soon as possible, it would be early in the New Year before he makes his final decision.