Agenda item

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 Council and Highways, and it was not required within SKDC’s Transport Strategy. The agent declined to comment on the financial wellbeing of the applicant.

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

-       It was queried and confirmed that the implications of judicial review would be the costs of defending the decision, the costs of the applicant, and the committee would be required to reconsider the decision.

-       A member believed that referring to the Secretary of State was due process and it was confirmed that were the decision to be called-in by the Secretary of State then there would be the opportunity to present further evidence.

-       There was some support for holding a public forum to give residents the opportunity to engage and understand the process. The Chairman agreed to discuss the matter with the Cabinet Member for Planning.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED 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 did not call-in the application, the Assistant Director – Planning and Growth was authorised to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

(1)The removal of the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way Link Road bridge would significantly and demonstrably undermine permeability and active travel connectivity between the site and the surrounding area, without a suitable alternative point of connection. This would result in harm to the permeability of the development and the attractiveness and safety of active travel options, contrary to the principles of Building for a Healthy Life, and as a result conflicts with Policy DE1 and ID2 of the adopted Local Plan, the adopted Design Guidelines SPD and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The material considerations in this case, including the public benefits associated with the delivery of housing, would not outweigh the identified harms and the conflict with the Development Plan.

(2) The Applicant has failed to enter in a planning obligation to secure the necessary affordable housing, open space, healthcare, education and highways contributions required to mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure, as required by Policy ID1, H2, OS1 and ID2 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036

(3) The time limit for the submission of reserved matters has lapsed and all reserved matters relating to the development have been granted under the outline planning permission. As such, the Section 73 permission is incapable of implementation.