Agenda item

                                                                                                                  (Enclosure)

Decision:

1)  That the publication for the receipt of representations relating to the Grantham Area Action Plan and Site Allocation and Policy Development Plan Documents (DPDs), attached to report number PLA909 as appendix A and B, and the changes to proposals, attached as appendix C, are approved.

2)  That subject to there being no representations which raise fundamental issues on soundness, the Grantham Area Action Plan and Site Allocation and Policies DPDs be submitted to the Secretary of State for independent examination.

3)  That authority is delegated to the Head of Development and Growth in consultation with the Economic Development Portfolio Holder to make any necessary changes to the DPDs associated with publication and subsequent processes.

4)  That representations received after the end of the six-week representation period are not accepted as duly made.

The Planning Policy Service Manager introduced the site allocation and policies, and Grantham area action plan development plan documents for publication and submission to the Secretary of State. She explained the presentation of these documents was the culmination of several years’ work. The proposals had regard to the levels of need (both housing and employment), identified within the Core Strategy. The Council had carried out extensive community engagement in preparing the documents.

If approved by Council, the documents would be published, giving anyone with concerns about the nature or wording of policies or individual sites, the opportunity to put forward their concerns. These would be considered by an independent Planning Inspector during the formal examination phase. The Inspector would be able to challenge site assessments. The Planning Policy Service Manager stated that in her professional opinion, she believed the process undertaken by the Council was robust and consistent and that the sites could be justified.

The Economic Development Portfolio Holder moved the recommendations in report PLA 909, stating the documents followed many years work, during which the Planning Policy Team considered specialist reports, feedback from parish councils and local communities and worked with a Members’ working group, to which all Councillors had been invited. The presentation given during a briefing for Members that explained the preparation of the documents was available to Councillors on request. She stated the documents would strengthen the case to ensure sustainable development in the district. The proposition was seconded.

An amendment to the motion was proposed and seconded:

“That we [the Council] defer any decisions regarding the Site Allocation and Policies and Grantham area action plan Development Plan documents publication and submission to the Secretary of State to allow time to review recent correspondence from the people of Stamford, and further detail regarding the development proposed in the north and south quadrants of Grantham. Other key issues also need to be addressed.”

Supporters of the proposal to defer expressed concerns about the site designated in Stamford and commented on the amount of correspondence received, which they felt demonstrated strong local feeling and opposition to the proposals. They suggested that other sites in Stamford would provide better access to infrastructure and would have less visual impact on the town, protecting its appeal and heritage. Officers explained that evidence demonstrated sites within the vicinity of the A1 were more attractive for potential development. There were also facilities on the western side of the town, which people from a development on that site could access.

Members opposing the amendment commented on the consultation that had taken place and that members of the public had a number of opportunities over several years to submit their views. In respect of proposed sites in Stamford, it was reported that Stamford Town Council was consulted and did agree the proposals. They also highlighted that, when the documents had been published, members of the public would have a further opportunity to make representations, which would be considered by the independent Planning Inspector. Concerns were also expressed that deferring a decision would mean the Council was unable to meet requirements established in the Core Strategy.

The Chairman re-read the amendment and prepared to move to a vote. There was a request for a recorded vote. However, failing to receive the support of ten Members as per Council Procedure rule 16.4, the request was refused. On being put to the vote, the amendment was lost.

The proposition as initially moved was debated. In response to a question on the implications for sites not allocated, officers explained that allocating sites established a general principle for the future development of that site, directing growth to locations it thought could most appropriately accommodate it. Applications could still be submitted for sites that had not been allocated. Allocating sites would allow refusal of applications not considered appropriate; they would not prevent the granting of applications that met criteria in development policies.

A question was also asked on development timescales in relation to the production of character assessments to identify heritage assets. Officers could not guarantee development would not begin before the list was completed. However, Members were reassured that buildings that were listed had statutory protections that would have to be taken into account.

General support was given to proposals for Grantham, however discussion ensued after it was suggested that provision should be made for a bypass in Stamford. The suggestion received support from several members.  The proposed level of development in Stamford would not achieve sufficient funding to build a bypass. In Grantham there had been a long-established desire to see a relief road, and there were economic reasons why it would be successful; it would be supported with monies from development. Lincolnshire County Council, as the highway authority had also stated that a relief road for Grantham was a priority.

Further reference was made to the level of correspondence sent to Councillors by residents from Stamford. One Member investigated some concerns about suitable infrastructure. The school that would be affected by the proposed site had capacity an additional hundred pupils with sufficient space to expand and the land to provide facilities. It was also suggested that with sensitive design and construction, the visual impact of any development could be minimised.

In summing up the proposal, the Economic Development Portfolio Holder answered a question on the development of brownfield sites. The majority of sites developed over the past five years, both for housing and employment, had been brownfield sites.

There was a request for a recorded vote. However, failing to receive the support of ten Members as per Council Procedure rule 16.4, the request was refused. The proposal was put to the vote and carried.

Councillors Selby and Morgan requested their votes against the motion be recorded.

16:01          Councillors Auger, Bryant, Dilks, Nalson, Parkin, Rowlands and Jacky Smith returned to the meeting.