Parish Council Minutes 25th July 2018

          Greetham Parish Council Minutes July 25th 2018

Greetham Community Centre @7.30 pm

Members :  Mr Edward (KE);Mrs J. Denyer (Vice- Chair); Mr P. Hitchcox (PH); Mr D. Hodson (DH); Mrs A. Jenkins (AJ); Dr R. Oakes (RO).

Nick Begy (Ward Member)

In attendance: 25 members of the public


Apologies for absence




Disclosure of interests in items on the agenda and dispensations granted




Planning – all planning applications can be accessed on the RCC website



Land on north side of Oakham Road. Erection of 8 new semi-detached dwellings for Housing Association.


Land on north side of Oakham Road. Erection of 8 new semi detached

dwellings for Housing Association.

Comment status: Objection

  1. Does not conform to Rutland County Council Core Strategy Development Plan Document, 11th July 2011 as the proposed development is outside the “Planned Limits of Development”. Policy CS4
  2. Does not conform to Greetham Neighbourhood Plan as the proposed development is outside the “Planned Limits of Development”. Policy HD1
  3. There is not a “Housing Needs Assessment document” supplied in support of more “Affordable Housing”. Recent developments / plans fulfil Greetham’s requirements.
  4. Trees have been felled on the site recently without the appropriate legal permissions. This has led to a loss of wild life which needs to be regained. It is understood that a legal case most probably will be pursued in respect of this matter. No development should be permitted pending the outcome of this matter.  (See email from RCC Planning Enforcement Officer)
  5. Local residents have raised concerns about being overlooked, boundary disputes and rights of way. Correspondence has been sent to RCC regarding these matters which need to be thoroughly investigated.
  6. The site is on the bank of the North Brook. In recent years, and in this year, there have been several flooding incidents in Greetham. The Parish Council is very concerned that nothing should be done to exacerbate the situation. GPC request a flood risk report as this proposed development is so closely aligned to two recently completed developments. We believe that there is inadequate space on the site to provide measures to ensure that additional rainwater run off does not make the situation worse. GPC believe there is inadequate provision for soak away. There also need to be measures to prevent the pollution of the river. The planning application gives no information as to how this could be achieved. No clear notification of the exact size is given. GPC are concerned that the ‘drop off’ in level will be an issue.
  7. The development provides for only one parking space per household. Given that the proposed properties have 2 to 3 bedrooms the Parish Council believes this to be inadequate. As there is no other parking space in the area it will result in significant issues with parking in unsuitable and potentially unsafe places.
  8. The Application form is incomplete and contains several errors. For example, Section 17 states there will be no gain or loss in residential units. (There is a gain of 20 bedrooms). Section 16 states “No” to the question” Are there trees or hedges on the land ----”. This is incorrect. DEFRA are currently investigating the illegal removal of trees. Section 12 states that the development is not within 20 metres of a watercourse, whereas it is. Section 12 states “No” to the question “Will the proposal increase the risk (of flooding) elsewhere? GPC strongly feel that it will.(Reference Section 6)
  9. No information has been supplied as to whether or not the foul water system will cope with the additional demand. GPC are concerned that the existing system is already overstretched as evidenced by 3 incidents in the village where foul flooding has occurred.
  10. Effect on wild life. GPC believes this development will have an adverse impact on nature conservation interests and bio diversity opportunities.


14, Great Lane

Detached timber garage and widen vehicular access

Comment status : Objection

  1. Inadequate details have been supplied with this application to be able to make an informed judgement on it possible.  I.e. the precise location of the garage, the height of it and width of the drive where it adjoins the highway are not specified. There are trees which will have to be removed, but the application states this is not the case.

Without this information, it is not possible to address concerns which neighbours have regarding the impact on street parking (which is a major issue in the village), and the impact which the development may inflict on adjoining properties

GPC await the submission of a new plan in order to submit an effective comment.


Ram Jam Inn. Demolition of existing Ram Jam Inn and redevelopment of site to provide 2 drive thru units (Class A3/A5) and one drive to unit (Class A1/A3) with associated landscaping and parking.


Comment status : Objection

  1. The Parish Council believes it is important to preserve the historic land mark building on the site, as was proposed in a previous application. The building was completely renovated in the 1990’s and should be independently assessed for suitability for conversion. This is an iconic landmark for Greetham and the retention of both the building and its name are essential. GPC will request a Listed Building status/ Preservation Order/ Noted building.
  2. Whilst the Parish Council is not opposed to the commercial development of the site, it believes that the proposed development is entirely wrong. The A1 locally is very regularly the scene of serious accidents. This happens almost every week. It is inevitable that a fast food outlet with no obvious provision for eating on site will lead to a situation where motorists are eating and drinking whilst driving, so potentially increasing the number of accidents. It will also greatly exacerbate the issue of litter, both on the A1 and in Rutland.
  3. The proposal indicates that the Petrol Filling Station entrance and exits can be used by traffic accessing the facility. These do not meet an appropriate standard for the inevitable increase in traffic. They are too short and have inadequate splayed views. Traffic threading its way through the Petrol Filling Station is likely to be delayed, with the possibility of a traffic queue backing up onto the main carriageway of the A1.
  4. The Parish Council is concerned about the increased flow in the foul sewer which is already experiencing issues which directly affect residents in Greetham village. Sewage from Stretton is already processed at Greetham. Incidents of foul sewage floods have occurred in the last 12 months.
  5. The Traffic Flow document is inaccurate. It fails to include a fatal accident on the B668 A1 Off-Slip Road which occurred in the last 5 years and one on the garage forecourt. Its conclusions are therefore flawed.
  6. The Parish Council dispute the consultation process, it was shambolic and flawed. Display information on the development was not available at the village meeting as it was delayed. The report does not reflect the comments made by village attendees on the day.
  7. On the site where coach parking and 66 parking spaces are allocated there is an avenue of trees which have a Tree Preservation Order. These are not identified on the plan

All comments to be posted on RCC website

Proposed: KE

Seconded: JD

Carried unanimously