Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Charmaine Morgan, Vanessa Smith, Paul Fellows, Sarah Trotter, Gloria Johnson and Harrish Bisnauthsing.

The Cabinet Member for Planning sent his apologies for this meeting.

Councillor Max Sawyer substituted for Councillor Vanessa Smith.

The Chairman declared an interest on behalf of all Committee Members on application S24/0539 due to the Council being the landowner. All Members had been trained and would determine the application accordingly, notwithstanding the Council’s interest. Members would not need to make a further declaration unless they had anything further to declare, in respect of the application.

Councillor Tim Harrison declared an interest on applications S24/0795 and S24/0940. He did not participate in the debate or votes for these applications.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 July 2024 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record.  

Proposal: Construction of new retail unit and associated car parking, access and servicing on an existing redundant overflow car park

Location: Vacu Lug Traction Tyres Ltd, Gonerby Road, Grantham

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

 Proposal: Construction of new retail unit and associated car parking, access and servicing on an existing redundant overflow car park

Location:Vacu Lug Traction Tyres Ltd, Gonerby Road, Grantham

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

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillors                    Paul Martin and Paul Stokes

Against                                               David Mardle

Agent                                                  Emma Lancaster

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Tree Officer.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from Great Gonerby Parish Council.

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       A previously refused application on the same site.

Application S0307/2235 was a previous application on the same site that was refused.

·       Whether there was a speed camera on the same road as the application site.

The Ward Councillor confirmed there was a speed camera going downhill towards the Arnoldfield area.

·       Whether there was a pedestrian crossing adjacent to the entrance of the site, which was within close proximity to the school.

·       Concern was raised on cars turning right into the site down the hill, it was queried whether a survey had been carried out.

It was confirmed that the application was accompanied by a Transport Technical Note which had been produced by a qualified technical highway consultant, where speed surveys and traffic counts had taken place.

·       Whether any weight could be given to the new Government in relation to possible changes in the NPPF.

The Assistant Director of Planning stated that a consultation on the NPPF was currently taking place, and the possible changes could not be given weight at this stage. However, there hhad been Written Ministerial Statements published, which outlined the forthcoming direction for policy, and these were a material planning consideration but could be given limited weight at this stage.

The Highways Authority had not stated that there would be a severe impact on this application and had no evidence to support their suggestions.

The Chairman outlined paragraph 115 of the NPPF:

‘Developments should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if there would be a unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impact on the road network would be severe.’

During questions to Officers, Members commented on:

Issues around highway safety

·       Whether a highway impact would need to be severe for Lincolnshire Couty Council to recommend a refusal on safety grounds. It was queried as to how Officers had come to the decision of approval of the application.

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that Lincolnshire County Council had not stated a severe impact. They had merely raised concern that the application was detrimental to highway safety. Their concerns had been interpreted around the level of provision of parking for the factory itself. Lincolnshire County Council felt there was no guarantee that customers would go into the site and use the parking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Proposal: Change of use and alterations to form 2no. dwellings and erection of 4no. dwellings to replace demolished unsafe structures

Location: Rear of 35 Watergate, Grantham, Lincolnshire

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

Proposal: Change of use and alterations to form 2no. dwellings and erection of 4no. dwellings to replace demolished unsafe structures

Location: Rear of 35 Watergate, Grantham, Lincolnshire

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

To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT listed building consent, subject to conditions.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor                       Tim Harrison

Against                                                 Michael Ellison

On behalf of the Applicant                    D Chantry, Kerrchan Limited

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC).

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from SKDC Historic Buildings Advisor.

(Councillor Tim Harrison did not participate in the debate or vote for this item).

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Whether the scheme seemed acceptable.

The Public Speaker highlighted that proposed windows would have an outlook of a blank wall.

·       How the Public Speaker would address objections made within the report.

·       What percentage of the original brickwork and pantiles would be suitable for re-use.

It was confirmed the old building was involved in a fire. All bricks and materials that were suitable to re-use had been obtained to manufacture.

During questions to Officers, Members commented on:

·       Clarification was sought around the previous use of the building.

The Officer clarified that the building was previously used as a public house and was utilised as employment/commercial use. It was not used as a residential property.

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that the Burgage plot was an original medieval planning form for the plot. It was important that the Committee recognised and respected the existence of the Burgage plot.

·       It was requested that amenity issues were summarised.

Issues raised were principally in relation to the south of the development being in close proximity to The Priory and their associated garden area on overlooking and loss of privacy.

·       Whether Polices an Conservation Area requirements permitted to allow new build on a Burgage plot.

·       If there was a biodiversity net gain with the proposed property. 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the plan was to reinstate through the loss of the building, whereby the Burgage plot was identified as the long linear nature of the built form, which sat behind the host property fronting onto Watergate.

·       One Member raised concern regarding parking and a ‘U’ turn to turn around or reverse back down the linear road.

There was a long liner access to the site and the parking provision would be predominantly along the northern boundary of the site. Members were reminded the Town Centre location which was acceptable for deliveries and emergency services.

In the absence of an objection from the Highway Authority, access and exit of the site must be in forward gear, otherwise Highways would have expressed concerns to refuse on safety grounds.

·       Members queried whether the houses could be reversed on the site, where windows could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Proposal: Loft conversion, dormer windows and external alterations

Location: 46 Casterton Road, Stamford

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

Proposal: Loft conversion, dormer windows and external alterations

Location: 46 Casterton Road, Stamford

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

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor                  Harrish Bisnauthsing (statement)

Against                                            Kenneth Mills

Applicant                                         Elisabeth Belisle/Neil Needham

Together with:

·       SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Stamford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036, Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework.

·       Comments received from Stamford Town Council.

·       No comments received Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS).

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

(Councillor Tim Harrison returned to the meeting).

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Whether the neighbour would be satisfied if the roof height was reduced.

The neighbours main concerns were around the visual impact of the windows on the West frontage that would overlook their front garden.

·       Whether the neighbours front garden was their main amenity area.

It was confirmed the neighbours main amenity area was their front garden, especially during summer months.

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       Whether the application was within the Conservation Area.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the application was not within the Conservation Area and the closest point of the Stamford Conservation Area was 100 metres away down from Casterton Road.

·       Whether a property on Casterton Road had a precedent for approving modernisation permission due to a recent demolition and replacement of a property. 

It was noted that High Lodge along Casterton Road had been demolished and replaced. This property was within the Stamford Conservation Area. There were established examples on Casterton Road for these types of developments.

·       Clarification was sought around the land behind the proposed development, as it was slightly raised. Properties behind the proposed development were higher up due to the site incline.

The Planning Officer noted that the property had steps leading up to the front door and along the back garden. There was a steep slope all the way up to Radcliffe Road, where two-storey dwelling elevated over both plots on Casterton Road.

·       Confirmation was requested of the 45 degree angle diagram from the window in terms of overlooking.

The window distance to the neighbours front garden was around 10-11 metres. The distance and the angle from the proposed first floor bedroom window had been conditioned to be obscure glazed.

·       Whether the angle from the balcony windows complied with the 45 degree rule.

The bifold balcony window would comply with the 45 degree rule. It was proposed that these windows were increased in height, meaning there may be a perception of overlooking.

The Assistant Director of Planning reminded Members there was a degree of overlooking from the street into the neighbours front garden. The overlooking harm would need to be compared with the existing situation to the proposed.

·       Clarification was sought around the windows by the balustrade and whether the windows were full length.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the windows by the balustrade were proposed as floor to ceiling. It was clarified the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Proposal: Change of use and conversion of former bank building (Use Class E(c)(i) to ancillary public reception and function rooms for the adjacent hotel, The Angel and Royal (Use Class C1).

Location: No.6 High Street Grantham NG31 6PN

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

Proposal: Change of use and conversion of former bank building (Use Class E(c)(i) to ancillary public reception and function rooms for the adjacent hotel, The Angel and Royal (Use Class C1).

Location: No.6 High Street Grantham NG31 6PN

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

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Applicant                                       Dean Harrison

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council Highways.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

·       Comments from the Local MP.

(The Committee adjourned for 5 minutes).

(Councillor Tim Harrison left the meeting at 16:05 and did not return).

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting until the end of business).

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that a late representation had been received from a local MP on whether the proposal included any disabled access.

During debate, Members commented on:

·       Members were pleased with the proposed plans for the frontage of the building, in keeping with the High Street.

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning 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.

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

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

i) Site Location Plan, drawing ref. 205 CP01A (received 21/05/24)

ii) Proposed Site Plan, drawing ref. 205 CP02 (received 10/05/24)

iii) Proposed Basement Plan, drawing ref. 205 CP06A (received 22/05/24)

iv) Proposed Ground Floor Plan, drawing ref. 205 CP03 (received 10/05/24)

v) Proposed First Floor Plan, drawing ref. 205 CP04 (received 10/05/24)

vi) Proposed Second Floor Plan, drawing ref. 205 CP05 (received 10/05/24)

vii) Proposed Elevations, drawing ref. 205 CP07 (received 10/05/24)

viii) Proposed Long Section, drawing ref. 205 CP08 (received 10/05/24)

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

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

Proposal: Conversion of three redundant ground floor ancillary rooms to guest bedroom with ensuite

Location: 15 Swinegate, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 6RJ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT listed building consent, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Conversion of three redundant ground floor ancillary rooms to guest bedroom with ensuite

Location: 15 Swinegate, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 6RJ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT listed building consent, subject to conditions.

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven and National Planning Policy Framework

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT listed building consent, subject to conditions:

Time Limit for Commencement

1. The works hereby consented shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this consent.

Reason: In order to ensure that the works are commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Sections 18 and 74 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).

Approved Plans

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

i.         206 P01 – Location & Site Plan received 31 May 2024

ii.        206 P02A – Proposed Ground Floor Plan [received 31 May 2024]

ii         206 P03 – Proposed South & East Elevation [received 31 May 2024]

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

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

Before the Development is Occupied

3)  Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied/brought into use, the external elevations shall have been completed using only the materials stated in the planning application forms unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

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

There were none.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 16:30.