Agenda and minutes

(The Committee adjourned for 15 minutes so Members had the opportunity to read the late items paper).

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Paul Fellows, Harrish Bisnauthsing, David Bellamy, Paul Wood and Steven Cunnington.

Councillor Charmaine Morgan substituted for Councillor David Bellamy.

Councillor Penny Milnes declared an interest on application S26/0237 as she was speaking as Ward Councillor. She would sit off the Committee for this application.

The Chairman made the following statement in relation to S26/0681:

‘I make the declaration on behalf of all members that whilst acknowledging that the Agent is an SKDC employee, this would not affect how members of the Planning Committee determine the application. All members have been trained and will determine the application in accordance with their training and with an open mind’. Any members who do not feel that they are open minded to determine the application, should make a declaration to that effect and not vote on the application’.

Councillor Charmaine Morgan declared an interest as a member of Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust for application S26/0237. She would remain open minded on this application.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 June 2026 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record.

Proposal: Outline planning application for a residential development with all matters reserved except for access

Location: Land adjacent Heatherway House, Fenton Road, Stubton, NG23 5DB

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Proposal: Outline planning application for a residential development with all matters reserved except for access

Location: Land adjacent Heatherway House, Fenton Road, Stubton, NG23 5DB

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor                Councillor Penny Milnes

Stubton Parish Council                 Sam Kirk

Against                                         Jeremy Flint

                                                     Thomas Gill

On behalf of the Applicant            Mike Sibthorp

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Stubton Neighbourhood Plan and Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document.

·       No comments received from LCC Highways.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from Parish Council.

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

·       The District Councillor felt the application posed a dilemma with tilted balance.

·       That an accumulation of impacts can be collectively destructive to a small rural community.

·       Concerns were raised around backhanding extending obtrusively into open countryside, impact on Stubton Hall and park, habitats, sustainability, landscape setting and character of the area.

·       The Member commented on recent approval of developments within the area and that a total of 14 houses had been approved. The village had absorbed over 25% more houses in a short period of time.

·       The Member suggested the application be refused under The Local Plan (DE1, EN6, EN1,EN2, the Stubton Neighbourhood Plan, the NPPF (5, 12, 15 and 16).

·       Concern was raised around the character and wildlife of the area alongside the protected species of great crested newts. It was also felt the village was a tranquil place to live.

·       Stubton Parish Council had submitted they do not support the proposal.

·       It was felt the application was environmentally unsuitable. Stubton had around 77 homes with 12 recently approved and 5 more proposed for this application. The report confirmed a 28% increase in a short period. It was noted there was no shop, school or public transport within the village.

·       It was felt that drainage was unsafe, and Anglian Water had formally objected stating that Stubton Water Recycling Centre cannot accept additional flow and that connection would risk pollution.

·       That the application provided no community benefit, removes pasture lands and threatens protected species.

·       Concern was raised on impact to neighbouring residents on the outlook, privacy, tranquillity and the quite rural setting of the village.

·       Further concern was raised on access to the site, which could cause harm due to several existing accesses within close proximity. There were no footpaths and pedestrians would have limited protection and may have to walk along the road.

·       The Agent clarified the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the character of the village.

·       That the Officer report highlighted that whilst the prevailing type of development in the village was linear in style, there were also example of back land development, including St Martins Close.

·       It was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.

Proposal: Erection of 18no. fixed self-storage units

Location: Secure Self Storage (a1) Ltd, Great North Road, Colsterworth, Lincolnshire, NG33 5JJ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Proposal: Erection of 18no. fixed self-storage units

Location: Secure Self Storage (a1) Ltd, Great North Road, Colsterworth, Lincolnshire, NG33 5JJ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor             Councillor David Bellamy (Statement)            

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Colsterworth Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council Highways and Sustainable Drainage.

·       Comments received from National Highways.

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue

The following comments were made by public speakers:

·       Concern was raised around hours of operation and visiting times to the site. It was felt these should be restricted to daytime.

·       That a field to the south of the proposed site was an allocate site given planning permission in 2019 for residential properties.

·       That the amenity of residents future and present was paramount.

·       The Parish Council were concerned around noise and light causing disturbance at night, which could cause a fear of crime.

During questions to officers and debate, the following comments were made:

·       Whether security and the sites proximity to the A1 could be considered.

The Development Management Planner confirmed the boundary treatment, and security gates would remain on site. Users of the site would be given an access code to gain entry to the site. This was the same arrangement as previously.

·       Clarification was sought around why the site was seeking planning permission, if it’s previous use was a storage site.

It was confirmed the storage structures being proposed to build were operational development and would be block work built with steel cladding.

·       One Member sought clarification around a housing estate to the south of the site, the housing estate was not shown on the plans within the reports.

The ordinance survey that the Planning department based their mapping on for reports had not been updated and therefore, did not include this residential development. The Committee were shown visual plans of the housing development. There was already sound mitigation between the housing development and the proposed site, due to noise from the A1.

·       It was suggested whether hours of operation, noise and access could be conditioned, given the residential development nearby.

The site had an existing lawful development certificate which confirms its existing lawful use meaning it was unrestricted as a self-store site, with 24/7 operation. The site had been a lawful storage site since 2002, where the outline planning application would have previously assessed noise mitigation.

·       One Member felt the proposed site would encroach onto the residential development running parallel.

·       A query was raised on whether there would be a traffic management plan put into place and whether this would provide any safety mechanism for users re-joining the A1.

It was clarified the traffic management plan was for the duration of construction only. Upon completion of the development, National Highways had not requested a permanent traffic management plan. 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

Proposal: Change of use of farmyard including demolition of modern farm buildings, conversion of traditional barn to form 1no.dwelling and erection of 4no. residential dwellings with associated infrastructure, erection of detached garages and improvements to existing driveway.

Location: Manor Farm, Town Street, Westborough, NG23 5HQ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Proposal: Change of use of farmyard including demolition of modern farm buildings, conversion of traditional barn to form 1no.dwelling and erection of 4no. residential dwellings with associated infrastructure, erection of detached garages and improvements to existing driveway

Location: Manor Farm, Town Street, Westborough, NG23 5HQ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Agent                                              Anthony Northcote – Town Planning (Statement)

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Supplementary Planning Document.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water Services.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer (SKDC).

·       Comments received from Environment Agency.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council - Highways & SuDS.

·       Comments received from Tree Officer (SKDC).

·       Comments received from Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board.

·       Comments received from Westborough Parish Council.

The following comments were made by the public speaker:

·       The dairy farming operation will cease with the current milk contract coming to an end on the 31 December 2026. The dairy operation is not viable when the price being offered for production in only around three-quarters of the actual cost of production. The farmyard

will then be completely surplus to requirements.

·       In the final proposed layout, the total amount of buildings and hardstanding on the site reduces by over 13% from 4,342m2 as the farmyard to 3,767m2 with the development.

·       Furthermore, in the final proposed layout, the buildings and associated roofscape on the site reduces by over 43% from 2,058m2 as the farmyard to 1,167m2 with the development. 

·       The layout retains the orchard as a communal focal point and would result in a net gain in biodiversity of 13.60% of habitat units and 281.32% in hedgerow units which would be provided on-site.

·       The proposal will bring the traditional brick barn back into beneficial use, it proposes to recreate part of the historic L shaped layout. 

·       The overall layout is low-density and is well-spaced out reflecting the character of Westborough. The layout has followed the concept of replacing the five modern farm buildings with four dwellings in the same broad areas thereby keeping the established farmyard layout.

·       The layout introduces dedicated car parking for the adjacent bungalow Linford, owned by the applicant which currently has no off-street parking.

·       The important green space and the important tree along Town Street are retained and not adversely affected by the proposed development.

·       The easternmost farm buildings are outside the Conservation Area and in the proposed layout plots 3 and 4 lie outside the Conservation Area.

·       The proposal would deliver much needed housing which would contribute towards the 5-year demonstrable housing land supply. The NPPF in paragraph 73 is clear that small and medium sized sites can make an important contribution and looks for Councils to look for 10% of their housing sites to be under 1 hectare in size. 

During questions to officers and debate, the following comments were made:

·       A query was raised on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

Proposal: Remove conservatory and construct single storey extension to form bedroom and shower room for disabled occupant

Location: 151 Harrowby Lane, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9LY

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Proposal: Remove conservatory and construct single storey extension to form bedroom and shower room for disabled occupant

Location: 151 Harrowby Lane, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9LY

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Council.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS).

(Councillor Charmaine Morgan declared she was a Member of Grantham Town Council, however, she remained open minded).

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions:

Time Limit for Commencement

The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: In order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

          Approved Plans

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

(a)  Application Form – Received 10/07/2025

(b)  Location Plan – Drg No. DFG/151HARROWBY/07 – Received 20/04/26

(c)  Block Plan – Received 20/04/26

(d)  Existing & Proposed Layout Plan – Drg No. DFG/151HARROWBY/01A – Received 20/04/26

(e)  Floor, Roof & Wall Details Plan – Drg No. DFG/151HARROWBY/06 – Received 20/04/26

(f)    Proposed Floor Layout Plan – Drg No. DFG/151HARROWBY/02A – Received 20/04/26

(g)  Proposed Elevation Plan – Drg No. DFG/151HARROWBY/04 – Received 20/04/26

(h)  Proposed Section AA Plan – Drg No. DFG/151HARROWBY/05 – Received 20/04/26

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

3)                Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied/brought into use, all external finishes shall have been completed to match in material, colour, style, bonding and texture those of the existing building.

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

(The Committee adjourned at 12:10 and was due to reconvene at 13:00).

Proposal: Outline application for a residential development (7 dwellings) with all matters reserved except for access

Location: Constables Field, Belton Lane, Manthorpe, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Proposal: Outline application for a residential development (7 dwellings) with all matters reserved except for access

Location: Constables Field, Belton Lane, Manthorpe, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

Prior to questions to officers and debate, the Chairman reminded the committee that only members present at the previous consideration of the application were eligible to vote on the matter. The following members were eligible to vote, Councillors Pam Byrd, Helen Crawford, Gloria Johnson, Penny Milnes, Charmaine Morgan, Sarah Trotter and Max Sawyer.

During questions to officers and debate, the following comments were made:

-       It was commended that the developer had listened to the committee’s feedback and the revised application had improved pedestrian access.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions:

Time Limit for Commencement

1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three

years from the date of this permission or two years from the approval of the last of the reserved matters, whichever is the latter.

Reason: In order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

2 Details of the reserved matters set out below shall have been submitted to the Local

Planning Authority for approval within three years from the date of this permission: i. scale

ii. appearance

iii. landscaping iv. Layout

Approval of all reserved matters shall have been obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and in order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

Approved Plans

3 The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the

following list of approved plans:

i. Site Location Plan received 15 August 2025

ii. Access as shown on Illustrative Block Plan re. MSP.2033/002 received 19 May

2026

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

Prior to Commencement

4 Before the development hereby permitted is commenced, plans showing the existing

and proposed land levels of the site including site sections, spot heights, contours and the finished floor levels of all buildings with reference to neighbouring properties shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and in accordance with Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

5 The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP)], prepared in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Gain Plan and including: 

a) a non-technical summary; 

(b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

Proposal: Section 73 application to remove Condition 21 (Pennine Way Bridge) and vary Condition 36 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S08/1231 to remove the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way bridge

Location: Poplar Farm, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to refer the application to the Secretary of State with a resolution to REFUSE planning permission; and

In the event that the Secretary of State does not call-in the application, the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth is authorised to REFUSE planning permission.

Proposal: Section 73 application to remove Condition 21 (Pennine Way Bridge) and vary Condition 36 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S08/1231 to remove the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way bridge

Location: Poplar Farm, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth to refer the application to the Secretary of State with a resolution to REFUSE planning permission; and In the event that the Secretary of State does not call-in the application, the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth is authorised to REFUSE planning permission.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor                                  Cllr Matt Bailey

 Cllr Gareth Knight

                                                                       Cllr Paul Martin

Against                                                           Dr James Henshall

On behalf of Applicant                                 Stuart Bizley (SMB Property Consultancy Ltd)

Prior to questions to officers and debate, the Chairman reminded the committee that only members present at the previous consideration of the application were eligible to vote on the matter. The following members were eligible to vote, Councillors Pam Byrd, Helen Crawford, Gloria Johnson, and Penny Milnes.

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

-       A speaker disputed the necessity to refer the matter to the Secretary of State were the planning permission to be refused.

-       A speaker suggested that the letter released by the developer responding to the decision previously made by the committee that the bridge was still necessary, was just a smokescreen to avoid building the bridge. He also highlighted that the letter contradicted the financial position of the developer that was presented during the March Planning Committee meeting.

-       It was argued that there had been a lack of transparency for residents throughout the application process and that a potential contested appeal would negatively impact the community. With this in mind, they suggested holding a public meeting with officers in attendance.

-       Were it to become necessary to re-negotiate the Section 106 agreement, a speaker suggested including the Norfolk Homes Express Provision Clause, introducing a backstop date halting all further property sales across the site if the deadline is breached, and requiring the developer to place the estimated bridge construction costs into a bond account or parent company. The speaker argued that the clause should allow step-in rights for SKDC to access these funds should the bridge not be built by the deadline.

-       A different speaker argued that the report did not present a balanced view as the officer reports in March and May had indicated the bridge was desirable but not necessary. The speaker highlighted that there had been objections to the reduction in Section 106 contributions and that connectability was not prejudiced by not building the bridge.

During questions to public speakers, the following comments were made:

-       The Assistant Director – Planning and Growth confirmed that failure to refer a refusal of the application to the Secretary of State would risk Judicial Review.

-       The applicant’s agent argued that the bridge was no longer necessary given the change in traffic, the concurring views of Lincolnshire County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

Proposal: Submission of details pursuant to Requirement 6 – (Detailed design approval) for Phase 2 Main Construction Works in relation to The Mallard Pass Solar Farm Order 2024 No. 796

Location: Mallard Pass Solar Farm

Recommendation:That the Committee endorse the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response and determine the Requirement 6 submission

Councillor Max Sawyer declared that he was pre-determined about the application and left the chamber.

Proposal: Submission of details pursuant to Requirement 6 – (Detailed design approval) for Phase 2 Main Construction Works in relation to The Mallard Pass Solar Farm Order 2024 No. 796

Location: Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd

Recommendation: That the Committee endorse the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response and determine the Requirement 6 submission.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor               Cllr Vanessa Smith (Statement)

Against                                         Sue Holloway (Mallard Pass Action Group)

Applicant                                      Catherine Martin (Answer questions only)

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

-       Whilst recognising the importance of renewable energy, one speaker argued that proposals caused a flood risk and great disruption by diverting construction traffic along the A15 between Deeping and Bourne during potential works.

-       It was suggested that technological improvements over time should result in a smaller solar footprint on the site.

-       A speaker argued that the detail publicly available about the application plans was insufficient. 

During questions to public speakers, Members commented on the following:

-       It was confirmed that the applicant was reviewing the use of technologically new solar panels and had liaised with the parish council about the concerns of local residents.

During questions to officers and debate, the following comments were made:

-       It was suggested that any proposals should be suitable to allow for wild animals on the site and consideration should be given to sheep grazing on the site.

-       At the request of a member, it was confirmed that comments would be sought from a Lincolnshire Crime Officer about the proposals.

-       Given there were no proposals to include battery storage anywhere on the site the fire risk was deemed to be lower, however, the Planning Officer agreed to consider whether feedback from the Fire & Rescue Service would be necessary.

-       A member reiterated concerns that the proposals would impact local flood risk, drainage, and surface water run-off.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED that the Committee endorsed the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd

and delegated authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in

consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response and determine the Requirement 6 submission, in keeping with the comments expressed during questions to officers and debate:

‘SKDC Planning Committee note that, for the purposes of Requirement 6, the submitted Phase 2 detailed design is considered to accord with the approved design guidance and parameter limits secured through the Mallard Pass Solar Farm DCO. The submitted information provides sufficient detail in relation to layout, scale, levels, materials, access arrangements and associated infrastructure, and acknowledge that the principle, extent and overall generating capacity of the development are matters already established through the DCO process. However, formal approval should remain dependent on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To present the Council’s performance against the Corporate Plan 2024-2027 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) within the remit of this Committee for Quarter Four 2025/26.

Councillor Max Sawyer returned to the chamber.

The Corporate Plan 2024-2027: Key Performance Indicators Report - End-Year (Q4) 2025/26 was presented by the Policy Officer.

Appendix A presented the overall performance against the two actions being

presented in the session. Commentary by the responsible officer was provided for each action. Performance was summarised using a RAG system as follows: 

-       One of the actions was rated Green. These were actions which were on or above target as planned. 

-       Zero actions were rated as Amber, these were those off target by less than 10% or where milestone achievement was delayed but with resolution in place to be achieved within a reasonable timeframe. 

-       One action was rated as Red. These were actions that were significantly below target.

During discussions, the following comments were made:

-       More detail was requested about HOUS10 which was rated as red (below target). It was confirmed that this would be further encapsulated with the upcoming authority monitoring report and a housing supply document would be circulated to the committee. ACTION

-       Officers did not have details to hand about a national comparison regarding the Council’s five year housing land supply but noted that stock data was subject to fluctuation and many authorities were in the same position following the change in calculation methodology in 2024.

The Corporate Plan 2024-2027: Key Performance Indicators Report - End-Year (Q4) 2025/26 was noted by the committee.

There were none.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 14:52.