Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Pam Byrd, Sarah Trotter, Paul Fellows, Helen Crawford, Harrish Bisnauthsing, Patsy Ellis and Mark Whittington.

Councillor Max Sawyer substituted for Councillor Harrish Bisnauthsing.

Councillor Vanessa Smith declared an interest in S25/1082 and S25/1083 as she previously worked at the site during its ownership by NWAFT (Northwest Anglia Foundation Trust). Whilst she remains an employee as a Doctor of NWAFT the building has subsequently been sold to the Applicant. She came to the Committee with an open and transparent mind.

Councillor Tim Harrison sought clarification around application S25/1301. A relative’s building merchant had previous involvement within the application, however, this application only related to an obscure glazed window rather than any building works.

The Applicant for S25/1301 clarified that the relative of Councillor Tim Harrison did not have any involvement with the application, he therefore remained on the Committee.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23 October 2025 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record.

One Member noted a clerical error of page numbering on the agenda.

Proposal: Section 73 application for the removal of Condition 4 (Obscure glazing) following planning permission S25/0588

Location: TheConifers, School Lane, Old Somerby, Lincolnshire, NG33 4AQ

Recommendation:To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission

Proposal: Section 73 application for the removal of Condition 4 (Obscure glazing) following planning permission S25/0588

Location: The Conifers, School Lane, Old Somerby, Lincolnshire, NG33 4AQ

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Applicant                                                Anita Selby

Together with:

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework.

·       Comments received from Old Somerby Parish Council.

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

The following comments were made by the public speaker:

-       That a Code of Conduct complaint had been submitted following the Planning Committee meeting in June 2025 in relation to a member of the Committee, however, it was still under review. The Public Speaker felt the application would not be given fair consideration.

(The Committee adjourned for 5 minutes, to take legal advice).

The Chairman confirmed a live Code of Conduct case was with the Monitoring Officer. In the interests of fairness and transparency, the member of the Committee concerned would not participate in the debate or vote for this item. The member concerned had not been informed of the compliant prior to the meeting. This was not a reflection of whether or not that member was guilty of any breaches of the Code of Conduct. The Member concerned left the Chamber.

-       That prior to the Committee site visit, the neighbour had cut down their eucalyptus tree during nesting season.

-       The fence had been reduced in height, making one section 5ft 8. It was noted the fence could be extended to 6ft 5.

-       The Parish Council were supportive of the Application.

-       A previous Chief Planning Officer of the Council had endorsed the comments.

-       The Applicant provided photographs and stated the neighbours garden could not be seen, therefore, felt there was not a privacy issue.

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

-       A query was raised on whether the window was currently clear glass or obscure.

The Principle Development Management Planner clarified the photograph shown by the Applicant was of a clear glass window. The Committee were notified the condition was currently in breach due to the window being clear glass, rather than obscure.

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

-       One Member felt the matter should be referred to Enforcement, due to the breach of condition.

The Chairman highlighted that she had attended the Site Visit and stood on the floor inside the built extension. It was possible to view the seating area of the neighbours through the space provided for the side window. She explained that the garden room had been added to the bungalow on the ground floor and extended along the neighbour’s garden.

Final decision

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

(1)  It is the Local Planning Authority’s assessment that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

Proposal: Hybrid Application for Full Planning Permission for the conversion of the infirmary and casualty ward together with associated demolition and external alterations to form 11no. dwellings (Use Class C3), and Outline planning permission for the erection of 16 no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with matters reserved for appearance and landscaping

Location: Stamford And Rutland Hospital, Ryhall Road, Stamford, PE9 1UA

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

Proposal: Hybrid Application for Full Planning Permission for the conversion of the infirmary and casualty ward together with associated demolition and external alterations to form 11no. dwellings (Use Class C3), and Outline planning permission for the erection of 16 no. residential dwellings (Use Class C3) with matters reserved for appearance and landscaping

Location: Stamford And Rutland Hospital, Ryhall Road, Stamford, PE9 1UA

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 Councillor                             Councillor Richard Cleaver (Statement)

Against                                             Chris Hunt

                                                         Linda Ball

                                                         Richard Asher

For                                                   Justin Wilson

Applicant                                          Richard Evans

Agent                                               Peter Higginbottom

Together with:

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, Stamford Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Stamford Town Council.

·       Comments received from Environment Agency.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Education).

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

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Fire & Rescue Service.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       Comments received from National Highways.

·       No comments received from Natural England.

·       Comments received from NHS Lincolnshire Integrated Care Board.

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       No comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection Officer.

·       Comments received from The Georgian Group.

·       Comments received from Stamford Local History Society.

·       Comments received from Stamford Civic Society.

·       Comments received from The Victorian Society.

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

-       The District Councillor confirmed he had no reason to disagree with the officer recommendations on both applications - neither as a nearby resident nor as a councillor in an adjoining ward. He had not received communications from members of the public regarding these applications.

-       The Historic Society welcomed the preservation of key structures, however, expressed deep concern on the potential loss of archaeological heritage.

-       Previous investigations of the site had revealed graves and structural remains.

-       The future use of the Friary gatehouse was not clear within the application. The gatehouse was the only remaining building fragment of the religious houses in Stamford.

-       It was requested the gatehouse be transferred to ‘Friends of Stamford Friary Gate’ to safeguard, protect and maintain the gatehouse in perpetuity.

-       A local resident felt as if the application would enhance the town centre and put the site to viable use.

-       That a local developer would use local suppliers, meaning money would be kept within the town. It was felt the developer had produced great work previously in Stamford.

-       That the green space on site would be beneficial to residents residing there and setting of the Listed Building.

-       The developer was a Stamford based family house builder, delivering high quality housing to heritage buildings.

-       The developer would restore and protect heritage assets, whilst retaining perimeter walls and providing a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

Proposal: Listed building consent for the conversion of the infirmary and casualty ward together with associated demolition and external alterations to form 11no. dwellings (Use Class C3)

Location: Stamford And Rutland Hospital, Ryhall Road, Stamford, PE9 1UA

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

Proposal: Listed building consent for the conversion of the infirmary and casualty ward together with associated demolition and external alterations to form 11no. dwellings (Use Class C3)

Location: Stamford And Rutland Hospital, Ryhall Road, Stamford, PE9 1UA

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

Together with:

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

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       Comments received from The Georgian Group.

·       Comments received from Stamford Local History Society.

·       Comments received from Stamford Civic Society.

·       Comments received from The Victorian Society.

Final decision

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

Time Limit for Commencement

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

The works hereby consented shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

Drawing No.2140-01 Location Plan

Drawing No.2140-04 Proposed Site Plan

Drawing No.2140-06 Construction Management Plan – Demolition Phase

Drawing No.2140-07 Construction Management Plan Infirmary Works Phase

Infirmary Building:

Drawing No.2140-14A Proposed Ground Floor and Basement Plan

Drawing No.2140-15A Proposed First and Second Floor Plan

Drawing No.2140-16B Proposed Elevation Plan

Drawing No.2140-17B Proposed Section Plan

Casualty Building:

Drawing No.2140-19 Proposed Floor Plans, Sections, Elevations

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

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

Before the Development is Commenced

Before the development hereby consented is commenced, a scheme of archaeological building recording to a Level 2/3, according to a written scheme of investigation, must have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme must include a provision for recording the buildings historic assets prior to their alteration/destruction. The works must then be carried out in line with the written scheme of investigation.

Reason: In order to provide a reasonable opportunity to record the history of the site and in accordance with Policies DE1 and EN6 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan and Paragraph 215 of the NPPF.

Prior to the commencement of works, a detailed schedule of all features of historic significance must be produced. The schedule must highlight the features to be retained in situ or moved within the site.

Reason. To ensure the preservation of historic features which contribute to the significance of the designated heritage asset within the site, in line with EN6 and NPPF 215.

During Building Works

The works hereby consented, including any demolition, works, shall be carried out in strict accordance with the Schedule of Proposed Works to Infirmary Report (Grey Friars Developments Ltd) (23 May 2025) and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

Proposal: Application for approval of reserved matters relating to access, appearance, layout following outline planning permission S24/0315

Location: 30 East Street, Rippingale, PE10 0SS

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to REFUSE reserved matters consent

This application was withdrawn by the Applicant, following the publication of the agenda.

There were none.

The Chairman closed the meeting at 15:10.