Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Tim Harrison, Patsy Ellis and Mark Whittington.

Councillor Max Sawyer substituted for Councillor Patsy Ellis.

Councillor Penny Milnes disclosed an interest on application S25/1033 and would be speaking as District Ward Councillor only.

The minutes of the meeting held on 28 August 2025 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record.

Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development of up to 73 no. dwellings together with open space, landscaping, drainage, and associated works (all matters reserved except means of access)

Location: Land north of Wilsford Lane, Ancaster  

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

Proposal: Outline planning application for residential development of up to 73 no. dwellings together with open space, landscaping, drainage, and associated works (all matters reserved except means of access)

Location: Land north of Wilsford Lane, Ancaster  

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor                                      Cllr Ian Stokes

Planning Agent                                                   James Stone and Bill Lilley

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from Ancaster Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC)

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support

·       Comments received from Environment Agency

·       Comments received from Anglian Water

·       Comments received from Fire Authority

·       Comments received from LCC Minerals and Waste

·       Comments received from LCC Education

·       No comments received from North Kesteven District Council

·       Comments received from NHS England

·       Comments received from Witham Internal Drainage Board

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire

·       Comments received from SKDC Principal Urban Design Officer

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer

·       Comments received from Historic England

·       Comments received from Natural England

·       Comments received from Affordable Housing Officer

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

Ward Councillor raised a concern regarding the density of the application and road safety relating to a narrowing of the road on the approach to the development site. Concern was also raised regarding access to health care facilities in the village and comment made regarding the poor bus service.

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

·       Clarification was sought around the overall density of the proposed site.

The Planning agents confirmed the overall scheme proposed was 11.7 dwellings per hectare. The developable area alone was 30 dwellings per hectare. 

·       Whether the Applicant could guarantee to meet all 26 conditions proposed.

The Planning Agents had reviewed all conditions proposed and were satisfied all conditions could be met.

·       Whether the Appllciant’s could mitigate concerns raised by Anglian Water on the overflow of potential sewerage.

It was clarified Anglian Water had raised concern on dry weather flow, which was an administrative element of the consent. The effluent quality complying with the quality elements of the consent were not in question.

·       It was noted that Anglian Water had previously objected to an application for a site opposite when a previous submission was made half the size of the proposed application site.

Back in 2020, Anglian Water objected to a nearby development (Bellway) on the basis of lack of capacity, however, the Bellway development had gone ahead. The quality coming out of works would indicate that significant additional spare capacity in terms of effluent capacity.

·       How the Applicant’s would manage the site and open space was queried.

A site management company in perpetuity would manage the site and open indefinitely.

·       Clarification was sought on the plan. It was queried whether there was a decorative pond or an attenuation pond on site and the proposed depth of it.

The indicative plan showed the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

Proposal: Outline application for up to 4 detached dwellings. All matters reserved except access.

Location: Land West Of Doddington Lane, Stubton, NG23 5BX

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

(Councillor Penny Milnes removed herself from the Committee, due to speaking in objection to the application).

Proposal: Outline application for up to 4 detached dwellings. All matters reserved except access.

Location: Land West Of Doddington Lane, Stubton, NG23 5BX

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 Penny Milnes

Stubton Parish Council           Jackie Britten-Crooks

Submitting Agent                    Nick Grace – GraceMachin Planning & Property

Together with:

·       No comment received from Ward Councillor.

·       Comments received from Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Highways.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

The Parish Councillor spoke and stated historically the ridge and furrow had been protected and maintained by local farmers. They emphasized the content of the Neighbourhood Plan and landscape assessment referring to NE2.

The Ward Councillor stated that Stubton was a small village. The site was distinguished as being a non-designated heritage asset being an excellent example of ridge and furrow listed in the Lincolnshire historic environment record. An aerial photograph provided by the speaker illustrated the existing ridge and furrow.

The speaker stated that Stubton Neighbourhood plan and landscape character assessment indicated the importance of ridge and furrow to the setting of the village and importance of retaining a high quality environment.

They also stated that the ridge and furrow was undisturbed pasture with improved soil quality and water management on heavy clay. They stated the biodiversity of the site is unique.

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

·       Whether Stubton had a wide range of amenities for the amount of residents who live there.

The Ward Councillor confirmed Stubton was classed as a small village due to having a small village hall.

·       Clarification was sought around local support; however, the report did not outline any evidence of local support.

The submitting agent clarified that the report included ‘9 letters of comment’ submitted within the application, with 7 in favour and none against the application.

·       Whether the Applicant had considered other areas for this development wouldn’t affect a non-designated site and heritage. 

It was confirmed that no other sites had been explored as this was the only site purchased by the landowner within the village.

In relation to heritage, Stubton had several large areas of ridge and furrow. The decision making needed to be based upon the need to supply housing balanced against the harm of the small area of ridge and furrow among larger areas around Stubton.

·       Biodiversity net gain was discussed from the proposal. It was noted that the site currently had ancient meadows which were some of the most biodiverse in the country. Clarification was sought how the removal of ancient meadows would increase biodiversity.

The submitting agent had worked with an ecologist and a PEA (Preliminary Ecological Proposal) had been undertaken and a biodiversity metric had been prepared based upon an index profession study of the site. There would also be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

Proposal: Erection of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility and carbon capture, improvement of existing and part creation of new access track, landscaping and other associated infrastructure

Location: Development East of Sewstern Industrial Estate, South of Sewstern Road, Gunby

Recommendation: To review the updated evidence submitted as part of the appeal and the position in defending the appeal

(Councillor David Bellamy removed himself from the Committee, due to speaking in objection to the application).

Proposal: Erection of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility and carbon capture, improvement of existing and part creation of new access track, landscaping and other associated infrastructure

Location: Development East of Sewstern Industrial Estate, South of Sewstern Road, Gunby

Recommendation: To review the updated evidence submitted as part of the appeal and the position in defending the appeal

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor:                                             Councillor David Bellamy

Colsterworth, Stainby and Gunby Parish Council              Rebecca Chatterton

Against:                                         Vanessa Tombs (Community Action Group)

                                                                                  Gary Toogood

                                                                                   Janine Liladhar

The Ward Councillor commented on the scale of the development and whether it was appropriate development in open countryside. He stated it may not comply with policies E7 and SP5. He challenged the rural location in open countryside of the industrial site.

The Parish council representative stated the parish council view is that the reasons for refusal have not changed and asked the committee to keep to the decision to refuse. There was a challenge to the highways evidence provided by the applicant and LCC Highways. A concern was raised regarding the cumulative increased HGV traffic in the area in harvest time. The decision to locate the site in its rural position was challenged and consequential impact on the amenity of residents of the villages including dust and noise.

A speaker from BLOCK Action Group also stated that the site is incorrect for an industrial site and has called for Rule 6 status at the Public Enquiry and stated the officer report lacked analysis. LCC Highways report considers capacity and safety and other impacts had not been included. Leicestershire Highways had not identified a change in the highways report. New data collected when the B676 was closed to traffic. An independent expert had identified reasons for refusal. It is felt concerns raised regarding the impact on amenity and biodiversity had not been addressed. BLOCK considered that the new proposal did not overcome the original reasons for refusal.

Another public speaker had a farming background. He stated the significant use of crops for energy production would impact on food security. The application would extend the industrial area into the countryside, contrary to DE1 and EN1. He stated he was a retired member of the Institute of Highways Engineers and qualified Road Safety Auditor and raised the lack of a Road Safety plan. He also challenged the data collection. He queried the noise survey which did not cover the access road noise which could reach 90decibels and is above standard. Poor road surface conditions would also impact on the noise levels.

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

·       A query was raised on whether the traffic plan had been scuritnised by any members of the community.

The representative of Colsterworth, Stainby and Gunby Parish Council               confirmed a community group called ‘BLOCK’ and the Parish Council had been working together to provide a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

There were none.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 17:26.