Agenda and minutes
PDF 150 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, St. Peter's Hill, Grantham. NG31 6PZ
Contact: Email: Democracy@southkesteven.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Register of attendance and apologies for absence
Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Harrish Bisnauthsing, Councillor John Cottier, Councillor Paul Fellows and Councillor Paul Wood.
Apologies were received from the Alliance SK group.
Councillor Robert Reid substituted for Councillor John Cottier.
Councillor Richard Cleaver substituted for Councillor Harrish Bisnauthsing.
|
|
|
Disclosure of interests
Members are asked to disclose any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting Additional documents: Minutes: No interests were disclosed.
|
|
|
Minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2023
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 12 January 2023were proposed, seconded, and AGREED as a correct record. |
|
Proposal: Two-storey classroom extensions to existing science block and additional external staircases. Location: Stamford School, St. Paul’s Street, Stamford, PE9 2BE Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Two-storey classroom extensions to existing science block and additional external staircases.
Location: Stamford School, St. Paul’s Street, Stamford, PE9 2BE
Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission subject to conditions
Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:
Against: Peter Scott Damon Spearpoint
On behalf of the Applicant: Dean White (Bursar and Clerk to the Governor at Stamford Endowed schools)
Together with:
· Provisions within the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document and Stamford Neighbourhood 2016-2036. · No comments received from Anglian Water. · No comments received from Cadent Gas. · Comments received from Stamford Civic Society. · Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer. · Comments received from Stamford Town Council. · Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection. · Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.
During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:
· It was queried as to whether a modern building could be altered within a Conservation Area. The DM Manager highlighted that any buildings or land within a Conservation Area require the Local Authorities special attention to the desirability of preserving the character or appearance of the area. · Concern was raised around climate change and the quantity of trees being felled and the difficulties faced when re-plating trees. · It was noted that the existing building was built prior to the Conservation Area being put into place. One Member felt that the proposal did not coincide with the Conservation Area or Stamford Neighbourhood Plan and comments received from the Stamford Civic Society. · Assurance was sought that provision for the materials due to be used to clad the extension would require approval by Officers. It was queried as to whether the existing buildings had an extension previous after the Conservation Area was put into place. The DM Manager confirmed that all parts of the existing building were constructed at the same time.
It was highlighted that condition 3 required samples of materials would need to be submitted and approved by the Council. Condition 9 outlined that the soft landscaping scheme would also need to be submitted and approved by the Council.
· It was further queried as to whether Officers would assess the colour of timber used for the extension prior to work commencing. The DM Manager assured the Committee that an appropriate consultation would take place around landscaping details to parties that had made representations. · One Member expressed their disappointment that the application did not include an overall plan to improve the whole aesthetics and visibility of the existing building. · Whether Stamford Town Council had raised any concerns in relation to the application. Stamford Town Council had made no objections subject to neighbouring amenity being respected. · A query was raised on what implications against the benefits were in place if there was harm to the Conservation Area. · Concern was raised around landscaping and whether conditions could be combined, and state specific materials used for living wall elevations.
It was confirmed that any harm to the Conservation Area would be considered by ... view the full minutes text for item 65. |
|
|
Application S22/1828
Proposal: Siting of residential log cabin structure to be occupied in connection with petting farm use Location: Tiny Steps Petting Farm, Park Wood Road, Thurlby, PE10 0EL Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to REFUSE planning permission Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Siting of residential log cabin structure to be occupied in connection with petting farm use
Location: Tiny Steps Petting Farm, Park Wood Road, Thurlby, PE10 0EL
Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to REFUSE planning permission
Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:
District Ward Councillor: Councillor Barry Dobson Against: Lisa Day For: Justin Stubbs (RSPCA Inspector) Carol Corliss Marie Findlay Applicant: Tracey Hall
Together with:
· Provisions within the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Thurlby Neighbourhood Development Plan, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Practice Guidance. · No comments received from Forestry Commission. · No comments received from Historic England. · Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council) Highways and SuDS). · No comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection. · Comments received from Thurlby Parish Council. · Comments received from Kernon Agricultural Consultants (Full Report at Appendix 1).
During questions to the Public Speakers, Members commented on:
· How the RSPCA Inspector would value the animal welfare. The RSPCA Inspector had visited the site 10 times in the last year and the animal welfare was striving to improve and advice was continuing to be sought. · Whether the Applicant had future plans to utilise the proposed log cabin for holiday lets or purely for staff use. The Applicant confirmed that the proposed log cabin would merely be used work/classroom and for animal welfare overnight stay purposes. · It was noted that the Applicant was requested to submit any further evidence that may alter the conclusions of the independent assessment. Further evidence stated that the log cabin would be able to offer overnight B&B accommodation. The Applicant provided respite care for disabled individuals and wished for them to stay in the proposed log cabin occasionally. · It was queried as to why the Applicant had not submitted the use of B&B accommodation at the first stage of the application. It was confirmed that the external consultant deemed the information not relevant at the time. · Whether the breeding of animals would take place one time of year or over different times of the year. The Applicant highlighted that some animals could breed all year round, it was dependant on the type of animal.
The Assistant Director of Planning reminded the Committee that the application was merely for a residential occupation dwelling to be sited on land and did not undermine the operation of the petting farm. The layout plans outlined a 4 bedroomed dwelling with a living room and kitchen area. There had been no mention of the dwelling being a functional building to allow the Applicant to provide educational facilities, which would be subject to a different application.
During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:
· It was noted that a temporary caravan or mobile home could sit within the application site during breeding seasons, which would not require the same permission. The assessor deemed that the applicant lived sufficiently near to the site. · Whether the structure proposal of the log cabin was not intrusive ... view the full minutes text for item 66. |
|
Proposal: Outline application for redevelopment of site for mixed use development comprising of Class C3(a) (Residential) and Class E(c)(ii) (Office) (Appearance, Layout and Scale for Approval) Location: Ross Thain & Co LTD, Belton Street, Stamford Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Outline application for redevelopment of site for mixed use development comprising of Class C3(a) (Residential) and Class E(c)(ii) (Office) (Appearance, Layout and Scale for Approval)
Location: Ross Thain & Co LTD, Belton Street, Stamford
Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement
Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:
Against: Kevin Flynn Applicant: Nathan Fitton
Together with:
· Provisions within the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Stamford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036, Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document. · Comments received from Anglian Water. · No comments received from Cadent Gas. · Comments received from Environment Agency. · No comments received from Gardens Trust. · Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire. · No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Education). · Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS). · Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Minerals). · Comments received from Lincolnshire Police Crime Prevention Officer. · Comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue. · Comments received from NHS Lincolnshire. · Comments received from Stamford Town Council. · No comments received from SKDC Affordable Housing Officer. · Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer. · Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection. · Comments received from SKDC Principal Urban Design Officer.
During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:
· Whether the car parking spaces outlined in the site plan were for the use of the residential units. The applicant confirmed that the parking spaces within the courtyard were exclusively for the apartments. · It was queried as to where workers from the office accommodation would park. The applicant noted that workers at the office accommodation would be local and therefore would not necessarily need to travel to work via car. If workers were to travel by car, Wharf Road, Stamford car park was adjacent to the site. · The number of car parking spaces assigned to each unit. The apartments had one space per unit allocated. Originally, each property had an allocated parking space on Gas Street, Stamford as a form of off-street parking. Highways provided comments that they could not support lay-by parking along Gas Street, Stamford and the parking spaces would be made available to members of the public. The applicant had suggested permit parking alongside public parking.
During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:
· It was noted that the 21 full-time people already working on site had access to on-site parking. There may be a requirement for up to an additional 46 parking spaces to accommodate the office accommodation. LCC had only commented on Highways for the residential side of the parking. · Concern was raised that there were not enough parking spaces for residents, up to 46 additional parking spaces would be required from office accommodation, which equated to 20% of the full capacity of Wharf Road car park. · Whether any traffic would be generated once the office accommodation was occupied. · It was noted that Lincolnshire County Council Highways had requested ... view the full minutes text for item 67. |
|
|
Any other business, which the Chairman, by reason of special circumstances, decides is urgent
Additional documents: Minutes: There was none. |
|
|
Close of meeting
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman closed the meeting at 16:02. |