Agenda and minutes

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED for Councillor Sarah Trotter to be elected as Vice-Chairman of the meeting.

Apologies for absence was received from Councillors Patsy Ellis and Vanessa Smith.

Councillor Max Sawyer substituted for Councillor Vanessa Smith.

It was noted that residents’ communications regarding application S25/0024 had been sent to all Members of the committee prior to the meeting. The committee confirmed that they were approaching the application with an open mind.

Councillor Penny Milnes disclosed an interest in application S25/1860 as she had called-in the item and registered to speak on the application. Councillor Milnes noted that she would withdraw from the committee and the chamber for the duration of the item after speaking.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 April 2026 were agreed as an accurate record.

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary condition 1 (Approved Plans) of planning permission reference S24/1453 (Application for reserved matters relating to layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access following outline planning permission S22/106

Location: The Gables, Honington Road, Barkston, Lincolnshire, NG32 2NG

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

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary condition 1 (Approved Plans) of planning permission reference S24/1453 (Application for reserved matters relating to layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access following outline planning permission S22/106.

Location: The Gables, Honington Road, Barkston, Lincolnshire, NG32 2NG

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

There were no public speakers.

Together with:

·       Provisions within the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011-2036.

·       The National Planning Policy Framework

·       No objections were received from Lincolnshire County Council Highways.

·       Comments received from the Parish Council.

·       No comments received from Environmental Protection.

During questions to Officers and debate, the following comments were made:

-       It was confirmed that the building regulations would ensure that the driveway would be suitable for waste collection vehicles.

-       Members acknowledged that the design of the driveway would maximise the garden size of the properties, promoting private maintenance of most of the site. Members praised the practical nature of this.

-       Responding to a Member’s concerns about noise pollution, the Planning Officer noted that the proposed treeline would provide acoustic mitigation and the surface material of the driveway had been conditioned within the previous application approval. The type of trees was regulated within the soft landscaping condition.

-       It was noted a previous full application had been refused, primarily due to the relationship of the plot. However, this application had to be assessed on its own merit.

Following discussions, it was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Outline application for residential development. All matters reserved except access

Location: Claypole Road, Newark, Stubton, NG23 5BU

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

Councillor Penny Milnes stepped down from chairing the meeting, and Vice-Chairman Councillor Sarah Trotter assumed the role for the remainder of the item.

Councillor Mark Whittington disclosed that he knew the applicant’s agent personally and withdrew from the Chamber for the duration of the item.

Proposal: Outline application for residential development. All matters reserved except access.

Location: Claypole Road, Newark, Stubton, NG23 5BU

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

Noting comments in the public speaking session from:

Together with:

·       The SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Stubton Neighbourhood Plan, and Supplementary Planning Document

·       The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

·       Representations received from the Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Highways and SUDS.

·       Comments received from the Environmental Agency.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

The following comments were made by public speakers:

-       The position of SKDC was noted in respect of the tilted balance.

-       It was noted that there was no bus, shop, school, or pub within the immediate vicinity.

-       Concern was noted about the indicative plan.

-       The road was linear and the site position was slightly elevated compared to nearby properties and this raised concerns about drainage. The applicant’s agent assured that a suitable solution would be accommodated for any drainage concerns.

-       The properties proposed in the rear of the site was not in keeping with the area and caused the most concern.

-       There were other large properties on the road, including a large holiday home whose countryside appeal would be detrimentally affected by the exposed properties proposed at the rear of the site. 

-       The Parish Council did not oppose the principle of development but reserved concerns about the proposed layout.

-       Stubton had already facilitated a significant proportion of the new dwellings across South Kesteven in 2026.

-       This exceeded the usual infill categorised development size of no more than three dwellings.

-       The land had been owned by the applicant’s agent’s father for 30 years, so the developer was local to the village.

-       The biodiversity net gain would be offsite.

-       The Applicant noted that similar developments had been approved by SKDC, such as on Doddington Road.

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

-       A Member commented his assumption that the local villagers seemed relaxed about the prospect of the development since only five letters of representation had been received.

-       The applicant’s agent was urged by a Member to account for the concerns of locals about drainage and flooding. The agent noted that he had already been undertaking flooding prevention measures personally.

During questions to officers and debate, the following comments were made:

-       Concern was noted that the application was contrary to SP2 and SP4 of the Local Plan.

-       A Member stated that they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

Proposal: Section 73 application to remove Condition 21 (Pennine Way Bridge) and vary Condition 36 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S08/1231 to remove the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way bridge

Location: Poplar Farm, Grantham

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

The meeting resumed at 13.00.

Application: Section 73 application to remove Condition 21 (Pennine Way Bridge) and vary Condition 36 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S08/1231 to remove the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way Bridge.

Location: Poplar Farm, Grantham

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

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

Together with:

·       Negotiations with Network Rail

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

-       The bridge was the justification for the initial development, and this should be prioritised over further affordable housing.

-       Two statutory transport consultees opposed the application.

-       The removal of the condition to the build the bridge would undermine public trust in the planning system.

-       Removing the obligation for the developer to build the bridge would remove all chance of the bridge being built at the detriment of local infrastructure.

-       The issues with the land negotiations should have been identified and raised sooner.

-       Attention was drawn to the objections raised by Lincolnshire County Council.

-       The connectivity factor for the development was below average which was insufficient given that 1000 children would live within the development.

-       The viability study was inaccurate and misleading.

-       Given that the planning permission was soon set to expire, this would provide an opportunity for fresh studies to be completed under a new application.

-       Network Rail had never quoted a price for the ransom strip.

-       The application exceeded a technical change.

-       Approving the application would have set a precedent that developers could remove conditions after planning permission was agreed.

-       There was demand for the bridge within the local community.

-       The developer was not in financial distress and had failed to provide the written updates required under the Section 106 agreement.

-       The application conflicted SKDC’s Local Plan.

-       There would only be one main access route to the development without the bridge.

-       The applicant’s agent noted that negotiations had been ongoing with Network Rail until 2013 and a solution to the site’s insufficient electricity provisions was not found until May 2020. Were the bridge condition to remain then viability studies show there would be a reduction in Section 106 agreement funding and affordable housing.

-       Negotiations with Network Rail broke down as they demanded 50% plus £500,000 to sign the paperwork. The developer’s position was 33%.

During questions to public speakers, the following comments were made:

-       When the A1 is frequency closed due to accidents, Grantham becomes gridlocked by diverted traffic. The bridge would help alliviate this.

-       Some Members and public speakers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

Proposal: Use of land as glamping site including 3no. eco friendly glamping pods, utility building, creation of car parking area and associated landscaping

Location: Land at 8 Bourne Road, Folkingham

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

It was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to defer application S25/0024.

There was none.

The meeting concluded at 17.30.