Agenda item

Application S14/2169

Minutes:

 

Proposal:   Application for outline planning permission to develop the site as a mixed-use urban extension comprising: up to 3,700 dwellings including sheltered housing for the elderly and extra care accommodation in Class C2. Up to 110,000 sq m of employment space within use classes B1, B2 and B8. B1 30%, B2 35%, B8 35%. Educational facilities including a primary school and a secondary school. A local centre up to 8,000sq m including use classes A1 shops, A2 financial and professional offices, A3 restaurant, A4 public house, A5 takeaway, B1 police room, D1 health centre and creche, D2 community hall and gym. Associated open space, playing fields and changing rooms, children’s play areas, allotments, woodlands, wildlife habitat areas and sustainable urban drainage system. Roads, footpaths, cycleways, car and cycle parking. Utility services including electricity substations and pumping stations (ALL MATTERS RESERVED)

 

Location:   Land south of Grantham

 

Decision:   That the approval of the application be delegated to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee in consultation with the Head of Development Management and the Director for Growth and the Cabinet Members with responsibility for growth, housing and finance for the reasons set out in the case officer’s report and subject to:

 

i)       The conditions set out in Appendix 5 of the case officer’s report and amended during the meeting (the final wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management following consultation with the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee)

 

ii)      Completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the requirements set out in Appendix 4 to the case officer’s report within a period not exceeding 6 months of the date of this meeting and the Head of Development Management, after consultation with the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee, considers that there are no extenuating circumstances which would justify an extension (or further extension) of time, the Head of Growth be authorised to refuse the application on the basis that the necessary infrastructure or community contributions essential to make the development acceptable have not been forthcoming

 

Noting comments made during the public speaking session by:

 

 

 

Londonthorpe & Harrowby Without Parish Council

Peter Armstrong (Clerk)

For

Andrew Russell-Wilks

Applicant/Applicant’s Agent

William Lee

 

Together with:

 

  • Comments from the SKDC Environmental Statement Assessment Consultant
  • Comments from the SKDC Landscape Consultant
  • No objection and comments from the Woodland Trust
  • No objection and comments from Historic England
  • No objection from Heritage Lincolnshire subject to appropriate mitigation
  • No objection from the SKDC Conservation Officer
  • No objection and comments from the National Trust
  • Comments and no objection from the Environment Agency subject to appropriate conditions
  • No objection from Anglian Water subject to conditions
  • No objection from the Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board
  • Comments and no objection from Lincolnshire County Council Highways subject to conditions and requirements to be incorporated within the Section 106 Agreement
  • Comments from Highways England
  • Comments from the traffic consultant commissioned by SKDC
  • Comments from the SKDC Air Quality Consultant
  • Comments from the SKDC Noise Consultant
  • Comments from Natural England
  • Comments from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
  • No objection from the SKDC Ecology Consultant subject to appropriate mitigation measures
  • No objection from NHS England subject to a contribution o mitigate the impact of the development on primary care facilities
  • No objection from Lincolnshire County Council Education subject to provision within the Section 106 Agreement for a serviced site for an all-through school
  • Comments from Sport England
  • Comments of the SKDC Urban Design Consultant
  • No objection from Lincolnshire County Council libraries and heritage subject to a financial contribution for libraries and heritage facilities
  • Support and comments from Lincolnshire County Council Planning Services
  • No objection from SKDC Neighbourhoods subject to a financial contribution for CCTV provision, maintenance and monitoring
  • Comments from the SKDC Affordable Housing Officer regarding preferences for affordable housing provision to be delivered in conjunction with the development
  • Comments regarding required mitigation measures from the Defence Infrastructure Organisation
  • No objections in principle from Network Rail subject to a Section 106 contribution to improve facilities at Grantham railway station
  • No objection and comments from Lincolnshire Police
  • An objection and comments from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue
  • Comments from the Lincolnshire County Council Footpaths Officer
  • Concerns raised by Londonthorpe and Harrowby Without Parish Council
  • Comments from Old Somerby Parish Council
  • Support and comments from Grantham Civic Society
  • No objection from Peterborough City Council
  • No objection from Newark and Sherwood District Council
  • No objection from North Kesteven District Council
  • No objection from Rutland County Council
  • No objection from Melton Borough Council
  • Community involvement events run by the applicant prior to the submission of the application
  • No comments from Lincolnshire County Council Minerals Planning
  • Submission requirements for the Housing Infrastructure Fund
  • Garden village principles
  • 57 representations received as a result of public consultation
  • Provisions within the National Planning Policy Framework and the South Kesteven Core Strategy and supplementary planning documents
  • The emerging local plan and the whole plan viability study 2017
  • Site visit observations
  • Comments made by members at the meeting
  • The additional information report from the meeting held on 18 July 2017 when the principle of the application was considered
  • Comments made during the public speaking session on 18 July 2017 when the principle of the application was considered
  • Comments made by members on 18 July 2017 when the principle of the application was considered and officer comments thereon
  • Actions taken since the meeting held on 18 July 2017

 

During debate Members talked about the sequencing of the development and the trigger points for different aspects of the local centre. Members gave examples of developments in other parts of the country where elements of community infrastructure were delivered prior to housing and how it served to attract residents. Members were mindful of building a community and wanted to ensure that facilities were in place to support the evolution of the garden village community from the earliest possible point.

 

Members referred to Elsea Park in Bourne and the way community infrastructure had developed and was developing there. Comments also recognised the significance of the Spitalgate Heath scheme as one of 14 garden villages announced by the Government in 2017. Questions were asked, and clarification given, about the impact of the proposed development on drainage, access to services, air quality and traffic congestion on existing residents living in the vicinity of the site as well as residents who would live in the proposed development. Committee members noted the sequencing of highway works in respect of the development.

 

There was some discussion around the level of affordable housing proposed for the site, which was below the 35% required by the adopted Local Plan and the 30% required by the emerging Local Plan. Given the anticipated life of the development, building overage clauses into the Section 106 Agreement would provide a mechanism through which the scheme could become more policy compliant over-time. It was possible that a successful bid to the Housing Infrastructure Fund could help release additional affordable housing units on site.

 

As the wording of conditions and terms of the Section 106 Agreement needed to be finalised, Members were keen to ensure that ongoing monitoring arrangements were in place.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the approval of the application be delegated to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee in consultation with the Head of Development Management and the Director for Growth and the Cabinet Members with responsibility for growth, housing and finance for the reasons set out in the case officer’s report and subject to:

 

i)        The conditions set out in Appendix 5 of the case officer’s report (the final wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management following consultation with the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee)

 

ii)       Completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the requirements set out in Appendix 4 to the case officer’s report within a period not exceeding 6 months of the date of this meeting and the Head of Development Management, after consultation with the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee, considers that there are no extenuating circumstances which would justify an extension (or further extension) of time, the Head of Growth be authorised to refuse the application on the basis that the necessary infrastructure or community contributions essential to make the development acceptable have not been forthcoming.

 

15:36 – Councillor Baxter left the meeting and did not return

 

An amendment was proposed that reflected the Committee’s priority to build a community, which would see the insertion of new conditions (25a and 26a):

 

25a     No more than 500 residential units shall be occupied until development of a shop and community hall has been commenced

 

26a     No more than 1,000 residential units shall be occupied until development of a shop and community hall has been completed and is available for use

 

A vote was taken on the amendment, which was carried.

 

16:04 – As the meeting had been in progress for 3 hours, the Chairman asked for Members’ consent to continue. Members agreed.

 

A further amendment to conditions 25 and 26 was proposed, requiring that the service centre should be completed before any residential units were occupied. This was not seconded.

 

A vote was taken and it was AGREED:

 

That the approval of the application be delegated to the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee in consultation with the Head of Development Management and the Director for Growth and the Cabinet Members with responsibility for growth, housing and finance for the reasons set out in the case officer’s report and subject to:

 

i)           The conditions set out in Appendix 5 of the case officer’s report and the additions noted above (the final wording being delegated to the Head of Development Management following consultation with the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee)

 

ii)          Completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the requirements set out in Appendix 4 to the case officer’s report within a period not exceeding 6 months of the date of this meeting and the Head of Development Management, after consultation with the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Development Management Committee, considers that there are no extenuating circumstances which would justify an extension (or further extension) of time, the Head of Growth be authorised to refuse the application on the basis that the necessary infrastructure or community contributions essential to make the development acceptable have not been forthcoming


Supporting documents: