Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors David Bellamy, Phil Gadd and Helen Crawford.

Councillor Tim Harrison declared an interest on Application S23/1240 due to living within close proximity to the site, he did not take part in debate or vote.

Councillor Charmaine Morgan highlighted that she had called-in Application S23/1240, however, she came to the meeting with an open mind.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2024 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 April 2024 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record.

The Assistant Director of Planning informed the Committee that the deadline for decision on the Mallard Pass application was due on 16 May 2024. Notification had been received that the Secretary of State had decided to reset the statutory deadline, a decision was anticipated to be made on or before the 13 June 2024.

Proposal: Erection of 250 dwellings with landscaping, open space and associated works

Location: Land on the north side of Somerby Hill (A52) / Bridge End Road, Grantham

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

Proposal: Erection of 250 dwellings with landscaping, open space and associated works

Location: Land on the north side of Somerby Hill (A52) / Bridge End Road, Grantham

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

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Londonthorpe & Harrowby Parish Council     Cllr Alan Bowling (Vice-Chairman)

Against                                                Malcolm Swinburn

Agent                                                  Richard West

Together with:

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management DPD, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and South Kesteven Local Plan Review 2021-2041.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       No comments received from Cadent gas.

·       Comments received from Grantham Active Travel Campaign.

·       No comments received from Grantham Civic Society.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Education).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Minerals).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from National Grid.

·       Comments received from National Highways.

·       No comments received from Natural England.

·       Comments received from NHS Lincolnshire ICB.

·       Comments received from London and Harrowby Without Parish Council.

·       Comments received from SKDC Planning Policy Officer – Affordable Housing.

·       Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

·       No comments received from SKDC Principal Urban Design Officer.

·       Comments received from SKDC Tree Consultee.

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

Whether there was evidence of need for accommodation for elderly individuals, as lack of single-storey dwellings was noted.

The age profile of South Kesteven had increased by 28% for the elderly population.

Clarification was sought around concerns of drainage and whether Anglian Water had addressed any concerns. 

Members queried the ‘natural spring’ that had been outlined by a Public Speaker.

The Planning Officer confirmed that a ‘natural spring’ had not been highlighted as part of any investigations or discussions of the site.

A query was raised regarding Highways and whether the Parish Council had made any proposals in terms of the speed limit.

It was confirmed that the original outline planning permission was approved, the application included a ‘ghost island turning’, however, this application proposed a standard T-junction, which Lincolnshire County Council Highways were satisfied with.

It was clarified that no matters on the appeal decision related to the access or any highways objection.

Whether the Public Speaker had any concerns of the proposed access on Somerby Hill. They confirmed their Highways concern was mainly around the build-up in traffic on South Parade, Grantham.

One Member queried why the Applicant did not consider the inclusion of single-storey bungalows.

The Agent confirmed that the proposed dwellings were accessible and adaptable meaning they met certain standards.

It was queried whether any safety issues had been identified with a deep attenuation basin proposed.

The Agent clarified that the basin would be protected with suitable boundary treatments and knee rails.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

Proposal: Reserved matters application for approval of details relating to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping in connection with outline residential development of up to 71 dwellings, vehicle access, public open space and associated infrastructure S19/1784

Location: Land east of Folkingham Road, Morton

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

Proposal: Reserved matters application for approval of details relating to layout, scale, appearance and landscaping in connection with outline residential development of up to 71 dwellings, vehicle access, public open space and associated infrastructure S19/1784

Location: Land east of Folkingham Road, Morton

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                  Sue Woolley (statement)

For                                                  Paul Slater (Balfour Beatty Homes)

Together with:

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

·       No comments received from Natural England.

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support.

·       Comments received from Affordable Housing Officer (SKDC).

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       No comments received  from Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Cllr Woolley.

·       Comments received from Conservation Officer (SKDC).

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Morton and Hanthorpe Parish Council.

(Councillor Tim Harrison re-joined the meeting at 14:25)

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Whether the Applicant had any concerns regarding the incursion onto the A15 road. It was queried whether the entry access would be inside the 30mph speed limit or not.

The Applicant confirmed that the 30mph zone would be extended North to ensure the entrance would be within that zone.

·       It was queried whether the pond would be able to cope with high amounts of rainfall.

The Applicant’s engineers had assured them that the site had been designed on a 100-year flood risk basis. It was further confirmed that all dwellings proposed would have solar panels.

·       What form of heating systems was proposed for the dwellings.

It was clarified that condensing gas boilers would be used for larger properties and combi boilers may be installed into the smaller properties.

The Assistant Director for Planning reminded the Committee that the application was reserved matters and the principle of development had been agreed.

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       That the Parish Council had raised concerns of foul water drainage.

The Planning Officer highlighted that foul water drainage had previously been approved in a condition relating to the outline planning permission.

Members were pleased with the access and footpath from the development.

It was queried whether a key view across to the church had been included within the layout of the site.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the development included a central road through the centre of the development, whereby a view of the church would be seen. It was added that the informal space to the north-east to the site would also provide a view of the church. 

·       Concern was raised on the southern boundary up to the high street and whether there was scope around the inclusion of a safety feature, due to an incline in the footpath.

It was noted that any safety feature would restrict vehicular access that needed to be retained at the site entrance. Highways had stated that a safety feature would not be a requirement for the development access.

It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

Proposal: Erection of Class B2 / B8 (Food Processing Facility) with associated loading and service yard, following demolition of existing warehouse facility

Location: Easton Properties Limited, Burton Lane, Easton

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

Proposal: Erection of Class B2 / B8 (Food Processing Facility) with associated loading and service yard, following demolition of existing warehouse facility

Location: Easton Properties Limited, Burton Lane, Easton

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         David Bellamy (Statement)

Applicant:                               Sam Cordery

Together with:

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management DPD, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023), National Planning Policy Framework (September 2023).

·       No comments received from Gardens Trust.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Minerals).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from Ministry of Defence.

·       Comments received from National Highways.

·       Comments received from Stoke Rochford & Easton Parish Council.

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Whether the lighting in and around the proposed building would be the same as the previous building.

The Applicant outlined previous issues of lighting during the construction of another building. The building proposed would have similar lighting treatment in keeping with the current or previous building.

·       Whether the packaging on site would mean a lower financial cost to the company.

The company were operational and received food products in raw form and would be transported into the adjacent coldstore for packaging, which would reduce overall costs and carbon emissions.

·       Clarification was sought on whether the proposed building would be 10 metres shorter than the other building already on site and whether the external colour scheme would remain the same as the smaller building.

The proposed facility was 22 metres in height and the storage building stood at 45 metres. The same colour scheme would be utilised on the external façade of the building.

·       Whether the roof space had the capacity for solar panels.

The Applicant confirmed that solar panels had not been included within the application due to insurance purposes with fire safety reasons. The possibility of solar panels would be explored.

·       Whether parking and traffic provisions would cater for the additional members of staff.

The original application included a large car park under a previous operator. The car park proposed was oversized and the previous operator had an overestimation of staff, therefore, the car park would cater for additional staff members. A shuttle bus would also run to and from the site into the centre of Grantham and surrounding villages. 

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       Whether the Applicant had engaged with the Green Investment in Greater Lincolnshire as suggested within comments made by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

The Planning Officer confirmed that the comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust were based around biodiversity net gain, which was not applicable to the application due to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

Proposal: Retention of mobile home as a temporary workers dwelling

Location: Orchard Corner Farm, Drift Lane, Barkston, Lincolnshire

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

Proposal: Retention of mobile home as a temporary workers dwelling

Location: Orchard Corner Farm, Drift Lane, Barkston, Lincolnshire

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

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Against               Steve Elnor

Applicant            Charlotte Majors

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support.

·       Comments received from Agricultural Consultant.

·       No comments received from Barkston Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Councillor Ian Stokes.

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       Members requested the needs of the alpacas and why they required 24-hour care.

The Applicant confirmed that alpacas were stoic animals and tended to not make it known if they were to become unwell. Issues around birthing and premature births of alpacas meant that a member of staff would need to be on site.

·       It was queried whether the business had been moved from a previous site, as the choice of site seemed unpractical.

The business had moved from a previous site, due to the proposed site being larger in acre size.

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting to 17:30)

·       Concern was raised on site selection and poor site access.

The Applicant selected the site due to size. The site was purchased with the access and the alpacas would be walked rather than transported in a vehicle.

·       It was queried whether other security measures had been explored, such as CCTV.

The Applicant clarified they would feel uncomfortable with CCTV measures due to the size of the field.

The Assistant Director of Planning clarified that dwellings in the open countryside were not always automatically accepted by policy, however, an exception was given for agricultural workers. A full business case and justification of function needs would be assessed to ensure the sustainability of the business. A temporary permission was recommended in order to establish the agricultural need.

The access to the site was a civil matter and would be dealt with separately to the planning process.

·       It was queried whether a sheltered storage was required on site for the storage of hay.

The Applicant confirmed a barn was on site where hay could be stored. It was further confirmed that alpacas did not require shelter and could live outside all year round.

·       One Member queried whether the business would detrimentally be affected, if the application was not approved.

The Application clarified that the business would not be able to continue, if the application was not approved.

·       Whether the caravan itself had any services in terms of electricity, water and waste water.

The caravan had water and electricity at present and waste water was currently recycled. The caravan within the proposal would remain the same.

·       Concern was raised on how general waste would be collected and how the Applicant’s received any mail.

The Applicant confirmed that general waste was currently either recycled or taken to the local recycling centre. All mail was forwarded  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of up to 6 dwellings with associated access and infrastructure

Location: 30 East Street, Rippingale, PE10 0SS

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

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of up to 6 dwellings with associated access and infrastructure

Location: 30 East Street, Rippingale, PE10 0SS

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                     Richard Dixon-Warren

Rippingale Parish Council                 Chris Charlton

Against                                              Steve Harrison

Applicant’s agent                               Nick Harding

Together with:

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Rippingale Neighbourhood Development Plan 2023-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and South Kesteven Local Plan Review 2021-2041 (Regulation 18 Draft).

·       No comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       Comments received from Rippingale Parish Council.

·       No comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

·       How the neighborhood plan balanced out the need for housing in the area.

It was noted that significant community objection should be given weight to. 

·       Whether the provisions for bungalows for the retired community were  acceptable.

The District Councillor stated that the percentage of bungalows in Rippingale seemed higher than average at present, and the need for further bungalows was questioned.

The Planning Officer clarified that previous refusal was based on insufficient evidence of housing need; however, a housing needs assessment had since been submitted.

·       One Member queried the collection of waste for the proposed bungalows.

The Applicant confirmed that there was sufficient space for a waste freighter, and this would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

·       Whether there were any visitor parking spaces proposed.

The Applicant confirmed that visitor parking would be in place for single storey dwellings and 4-5 visitor parking spaces would be explored. The layout for parking would need to be approved at reserved matters, however, the Applicant was satisfied to accept a condition for visitor parking spaces.

·       Concern was raised on the bungalows proposed. It was queried whether the Applicant would have any objection into changing the bungalows into family homes.

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       It was noted that there were a high number of bungalows already for sale within close proximity to the site.

The Planning Officer informed the Committee that policy required sources of evidence for housing need which had been provided.

·       Members discussed the balance between the neighborhood plan, proven local housing need and the lack of support from the community. The Local Plan had provided evidence of a local need.

It was confirmed that Officers were satisfied with the evidence of need provided.

·       Members highlighted the housing need for residents on the Council’s housing register.

·       Concern was raised that the proposed development was an edge of settlement scheme.

·       Concern was raised on whether the proposal conflicted with policy SP4 of the Local Plan and policy HD2 of the Neighborhood Plan.

·       Members raised further concerns around the public consultation of the application.

One  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary condition 4 (Noise Management Plan/No of dogs) of S20/0479 (use of land for doggy day care centre, erection of building, driveway and hardstanding) variation is to increase number of dogs allowed on site at any one time from 20 to 40

Location: Poplars Farm, High Street, Carlby, PE9 4LX

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

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to DEFER this application in its entirety to be discussed at the next meeting of Planning Committee on 30 May 2024.

There were none.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 17:35.