Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Charmaine Morgan, Paul Wood and Vanessa Smith.

Councillor Max Sawyer substituted for Councillor Vanessa Smith.

Councillor Tim Harrison disclosed a personal interest agenda item 7, he would not participate in the debate or vote and would leave the Chamber for this application.

Councillors Tim Harrison and Patsy Ellis queried whether they had an interest in agenda item 8, due to the application being within or adjacent to their Wards,

The Chairman clarified agenda item 8 was not a planning application and was a lawful development certificate. The Councillors were advised they were able to remain present for agenda item 8.

The Vice - Chairman made the following statement:

‘With regards to items 8 and 9 of the Agenda, I make a declaration on behalf of all members that whilst it is acknowledged that the applicant is the Council, this will not affect how members of the planning committee determine the application. All members have been trained and will determine the applications in accordance with their planning training and with an open mind. Any member who does not feel they are open minded to determine the applications should make a declaration to that effect and not vote on the application.’

The minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2025 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record.

(The Committee adjourned for a 2 minute break, due to a technical issue).

Proposal: Proposed Office and Production Building

Location: Land Off Hards Lane, Frognall

Recommendation: That the application is approved conditionally

Proposal: Proposed Office and Production Building

Location: Land Off Hards Lane, Frognall

Recommendation: That the application is approved conditionally

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Cabinet Member for Planning                               Councillor Phil Dilks

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC)

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support

·       Comments received from Welland & Deepings IDB

·       Comments received from Environment Agency

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire

·       Comments received from Deeping St James Parish Council

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

·       Concern was raised on design and landscaping, further information was requested.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed a two-metre strip of landscaping had been proposed, along the frontage of the site. It was clarified existing trees were on the verge more forward of the application site boundary. A requirement of a condition for details to be submitted for landscaping was proposed within the Officer report.

·       A query was raised on where water and drainage would be discharged.

It was clarified that at the rear of the site was Frognall Drain where drainage would empty into the drain at a rate agreeable with the drainage board. Prior to being discharged to the drain, any water and drainage would be stored and released from the underground tanks on site.

·       Whether solar panels and UV charging points were conditioned.

A condition was proposed that required the Applicant to demonstrate what sustainable techniques they wish to provide to address climate change.

·       Whether the Applicants were retaining their other existing sites.

The Senior Planning Officer noted the submission was not clear as to whether the Applicants would retain other sites or run this proposed site parallel and then relocate to the adjacent site.

·       Whether any discussions had taken place on scope or voluntary opportunity for biodiversity net gain measures such as habitats.

It was confirmed there was limited opportunity due to the footprint of the building occupying the majority of the site. There was a nine-metre easement to the back of the site, which would act as a contribution towards biodiversity net gain.

Final Decision:

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to APPROVE the application conditionally:

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 Plan Proposed Dwg. No. 02D

ii.              Ground Floor Plan – Proposed -Dwg. No. 03A

iii.             First Floor Office – Second Floor Office -Proposed Dwg. No. 06B

iv.            Elevations Proposed – Dwg. No. 04A

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

                     Reason: To define the permission and for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Proposal: Proposed Industrial Park

Location: Frognall Livery, Village Streets, Hards Lane, Frognall

Recommendation: That the application is approved conditionally

Proposal: Proposed Industrial Park

Location: Frognall Livery, Village Streets, Hards Lane, Frognall

Recommendation: That the application is approved conditionally

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection Services (SKDC)

·       Comments received from LCC Highways & SuDS Support

·       Comments received from Welland & Deepings IDB

·       Comments received from Environment Agency

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire

·       Comments received from Deeping St James Parish Council

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

·       One Member was disappointed at the lack of pedestrian and cyclist provision could have provided a link from the site to Frognall.

·       Concern was raised around biodiversity net gain. Policy EN2 of the Local Plan required a net gain, however, evidence of net gain from this proposal had been deferred and not received.  

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed the application was several years old and had been submitted prior to the new requirements of biodiversity net gain. The application was exempt from any requirement to demonstrate the 10% BNG net gain. There was a nine-metre easement at the rear of the site which would remain as a wildflower meadow.

·       Concern was raised on the increase of HGV and traffic movements due to the adjacent site and the number of units on this proposed site.

·       A query was raised on whether an impact assessment had taken place on the wider road network rather than the incoming and access for the site.

The Highway Authority had assessed the application and had reviewed entrance, access and the wider road network. They had not raised any objections with the application. 

Final Decision:

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to APPROVE the application, subject to the following 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 Plan, Location Plan, Street Scene – Proposed – Drawing No. 01E

ii.              Units 1-5 Ground Floor – Elevations  Proposed Drawing No. 02C

iii.             Units 6-10 Ground Floor – Elevations – Proposed Drawing No. 05A

iv.            Units 11-13 Ground Floor - Elevations – Proposed Drawing No. 03C

v.              Units 14-17 Ground Floor - Elevations – Proposed Drawing No. 04A

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

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

Pre-commencement

3        No development (including any site clearance/preparation works) shall be carried out until a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. Details shall provide the following, which shall be adhered to throughout the period of development:

a) the parking of vehicles of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Proposal: Weston Marsh to East Leicestershire Grid Upgrade stage 1 consultation

Recommendation: That the Committee endorse the draft response to the National Grid and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response.

Proposal: Weston Marsh to East Leicestershire Grid Upgrade stage 1 consultation

Recommendation:That the Committee endorse the draft response to the National Grid and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Councillors                                        Councillor David Bellamy

                                                                     Councillor Richard Dixon- Warren

Together with:

·       Provisions within National Policy Statements South Kesteven Local Plan and NPPF

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on the following:

·       Clarification over whether the Public Speaker felt as if the pylons should be underground or a reduced amount rather than 50-metre lattice pylons.

It was noted that there were several areas of ancient woodland, close to the area of the proposed pylons and that all should be protected.

·       Whether the main objection was to the wires being overhead.

Objections related to the wires being overhead, when wires underground would be preferred. Another objection was that 44 renewable grid connections could facilitate further development, including solar farms.

·       Whether the Public Speaker felt the application would impact the history and heritage of the area. It was queried whether any work had been undertaken to identity actual impact upon the history and heritage on the site.

·       It was queried how many hectares of agricultural land would be taken by the proposal.

It was confirmed the exact route of the pylons had not yet been decided.

It was confirmed that some constituents within Aveland Ward had voted against the proposal at Parish meetings.

·       Whether feedback from residents outlined any concerns of health and wellbeing.

The Public Speaker highlighted that several concerns raised were due to health and wellbeing. Reports had been reviewed online regarding potential health hazards from pylons, however, pylons had not been scientifically proven to cause health risk.

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

·       One Member requested any concerns raised by the Public Speakers be included within the final response.

·       It was felt that an assumption had been made on the increased number of solar farms due to substations being on site.

The Development Management & Enforcement Manager clarified there was one substation within South Kesteven, which was near Corby Glen. However, the concern raised was with the proposed 44 new renewable energy connecting points and what this meant for the local area. 

The final response would include a note to request further information in this respect.

It was clarified that a formal pre-application consultation would take place in 2026. If the proposal be accepted for examination in 2028, there would be several opportunities to engage in the process as Local Planning Authority.

The following questions were raised in relation to the introduction section of the report:

·       Where would the grid connections be and what purpose would they serve?

·       What repercussions for the area may occur in relation to the substation at Corby Glen?

·       How much area needed for solar and wind to produce wattage required?

·       What radius around the substation would be vulnerable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Proposal: Replacement of existing glass shop front with black painted aluminium frame and glazing

Location: 6 High Street, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 6PN

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

Proposal: Replacement of existing glass shop front with black painted aluminium frame and glazing

Location: 6 High Street, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 6PN

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

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Council

·       Comments received from LCC Highways and SuDs

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer

·       Comments received from Historic England

(Councillor Tim Harrison left the Chamber, due to a personal interest in this application).

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

·       Members felt the application would be an improvement to the existing building.

Final Decision:

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth 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. Location Plan – received 25/04/25

          ii. Site Plan – dwg no. 205 CP02 – received 25/04/25

          iii. Proposed Ground Floor Plan – dwg no. 205 CP03 – received 25/04/25

          iv. Internal Elevations – dwg no. 205.WD 07 F – received 24/07/25

          v. Updated Proposed Front Elevation – dwg no. 205.PS01A – received 24/07/25

Before the Development is Occupied

3        Before any part of the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the external elevations shall have been completed using only the materials stated in the planning application forms, design and access statement (received 25/04/25) and approved drawings 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.

4        Before any part of the development hereby permitted is brought into use, the joinery shall be implemented as shown in the submitted joinery details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved joinery details are as follows:

          i. Glazing and Joinery Plan – received 29/07/25

          ii. Commercial Framing System (prepared by Kestral Aluminium Systems) – received 29/07/25

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development, and preserve the character and setting of heritage assets in accordance with Policy DE1 and EN6 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Proposal: Use of the existing basketball court as a skate park

Location: Wyndham Park, Avenue Road, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT the Lawful Development Certificate

Proposal: Use of the existing basketball court as a skate park

Location: Wyndham Park, Avenue Road, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT the Lawful Development Certificate

Together with:

·       Provisions within The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015

(Councillor Tim Harrison returned to the Chamber).

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

·       Clarification was sought as to why current usage of the site could not be considered.

The application was for a Lawful Development Certificate for the proposed use. The Officer had assessed the use as a skateboard park against the permitted development rights and therefore, the existing use was not being assessed as part of the application.

·       Whether the basketball court could remain and whether the skateboard park could be installed adjacent to the basketball court.

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth clarified the Certificate was for whether a planning permission was needed for the creation of a skateboard park as proposed. The Certificate was a legal test when looking at the general permitted development order. It was not the responsibility of the Committee to decide whether the Applicant should progress with the proposal.

Due to the height of the proposal, it did not require permission or change of use due to the use of open space activities being covered within the permitted development rights.

·       One Member noted that the site had been a skateboard park in the past.

Final Decision:

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT the Lawful Development Certificate.

Proposal: Single storey rear extension

Location: 28 Canberra Crescent, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9RD

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT the prior notification

Proposal: Single storey rear extension

Location: 28 Canberra Crescent, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9RD

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT the prior notification

Together with:

·       Provisions within The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended)

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

·       A query was raised on why the application was not a planning permission for an extension to an existing property.

The Senior Planning Officer clarified under the general permitted development order, a larger home extension (larger than 4-6 metres from the rear) would be a householder application, however, if there were no objections to the application, it would be dealt with via prior notification.

Final Decision:

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

There were none.

The Vice-Chairman closed the meeting at 15:20.