Agenda and minutes
PDF 146 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, St. Peter's Hill, Grantham. NG31 6PZ
Contact: Email: Democracy@southkesteven.gov.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Register of attendance and apologies for absence
Minutes: Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Judy Smith, Paul Wood, Penny Robins, Nick Robins, John Cottier and Rosemary Kaberry-Brown.
Councillor Richard Cleaver substituted for Councillor Paul Wood.
Councillor Sarah Trotter substituted for Councillor Judy Smith.
Councillor Robert Reid substituted for Councillor Nick Robins.
Councillor Phil Dilks had been appointed for the Alliance SK vacancy.
|
|
|
Disclosure of interests
Members are asked to disclose any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting Minutes: Councillor David Bellamy disclosed that he would be speaking as the Ward Councillor on application S22/0615 and would therefore exclude himself from the Planning Committee and would not take part in the debate or vote. |
|
|
Minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2022
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 14 July 2022 were proposed, seconded, and AGREED as a correct record. |
|
|
Application S22/0615
Proposal: Construction of 2-storey detached dwelling and triple garage with studio above on an additional 6th plot (an addition to development approved under S19/1709) Location: Woodyard to the rear of 11-17 Stamford Road, Colsterworth Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Construction of 2-storey detached dwelling and triple garage with studio above on an additional 6th plot (an addition to development approved under S19/1709) Location: Woodyard to the rear of 11-17 Stamford Road, Colsterworth Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions outlined in this report.
Noting comments made in the public speaking session by: District Ward Councillor: Councillor David Bellamy Applicant: Jon Gibbison from Hereward Homes Ltd Together with:
· Provisions within the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan, Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD and the Colsterworth and District Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2026. · No comments received from Anglian Water · No objections from Cadent Gas. · Objection received from Colsterworth Parish Council. · No objection from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS) · No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Minerals) · Comments received from SKDC Environmental Health Officer. · Objection from Ward Councillor – David Bellamy. · Comments received from the SKDC Tree Officer.
During questions to public speakers, Members commented on: · A query was raised on how much the proposed properties were being marketed for, due to the Parish Council stating that affordable housing for the area was required rather than additional market housing. · Whether the applicant had carried out a required appropriate consultation in accordance with Policy SP4. It was confirmed an independent company had carried out a survey, which provided positive feedback. · Whether residents living in the current houses of the development were included within the survey. It was confirmed they were advised of the proposal but were not residents in the properties at the time of the survey. · Why only 50 respondents were received from the feedback boxes placed around the town. The applicant stated that the feedback boxes were provided by the independent company. · Whether the proposed site would impact the public footpath. The Officer confirmed that the public footpath would not cross through the application site.
During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on:
· Whether the proposed site was in proximity of the village boundary. The Officer highlighted that the characteristics of the proposed site represented an edge of settlement site. · Whether the applicant would consider the inclusion of greywater recycling systems and charging points to compliment climate change. · Concern was raised on the conflict between the application and the adopted Neighbourhood Plan. It was confirmed that the Council’s Local Plan allowed edge of settlement applications and had been adopted more recently in 2020, therefore, the Local Plan would override the Neighbourhood Plan. · The Planning Officer noted that the application was a replication of a previously refused proposal on the basis on lack of evidence from the support of the community and proven need for market housing.
(Councillors Richard Cleaver, Harish Bisnauthsing and Robert Reid were unable to participate in voting on the application due to not being present for part of the presentation or debate)
It was proposed, seconded, ... view the full minutes text for item 22. |
|
|
Application S21/2443
Proposal: Mallard Pass Solar Farm – stage 2 consultation Location: Land either side of East Coast Main Line near Essendine and north of Uffington Recommendation: That the Committee endorse the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response.
Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Mallard Pass Solar Farm – stage 2 consultation
Location: Land either side of East Coast Main Line near Essendine and north of Uffington.
Recommendation: To endorse the draft response to Mallard Pass Solar Farm Ltd and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response.
Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:
District Ward Councillor: Councillor Rosemary Trollope-Bellew Councillor Virginia Moran Councillor Kelham Cooke Lincolnshire County Councillor: Councillor Ashley Baxter Greatford Parish Council: Councillor Jason Halsey Against: Tony Orvis - Representative from Mallard Pass Action Group David Alliston
Together with:
· Comments received from SKDC Environmental Health Officer. · Comments received from SKDC Sustainability and Climate Change Officer. · No objection from SKDC Principal Conservation Officer.
During questions to public speakers, Members commented on: · Whether the Ward Councillor felt that the main objections could be overcome with further mitigation in the application. · A query was raised on who would benefit the most from the proposal. The Leader of the Council confirmed that the developers would take a significant profit from the proposal. · Clarification was sought on how the risk of flooding would impact the community and what could be done to minimise this. · Whether the public speaker agreed that renewable energy and solar panels were more carbon friendly than the use of oil and gas.
During questions to officers, Members commented on:
· How many homes or businesses would be directly affected by the application or suffer significant harm to their existing amenity. · Whether the proposed site would be a loss to agriculture or whether the land would also be utilised for other purposes. · Whether any information was available that substantiates the claim of providing energy for 92,000 homes. · Whether the application presented an opportunity to improve biodiversity, green corridors, re-established hedgerows, and other mitigation measures. · How many other solar farms of the equivalent size were around the UK and whether any equivalent sized were in the planning stage? · How many other power stations of the equivalent size were around the UK and whether any of them had plans for equivalent solar farms. · Concern was raised regarding the environmental impact assessments and the effects on biodiversity and wildlife. · A query was raised on whether the solar panels/mounting frames were being imported and whether this would impact the carbon footprint. · Whether any consideration had been given on the sustainability of solar panels and how they would be disposed of after the 40 years. · Whether the sheer scale of the application had any bearing in the Council’s responses in terms of technical information provided. · Whether alternative more suitable land could be considered. · Whether the Council would need to ensure that responses made took account of future changes in policy. · Further concern was raised on the communities’ thoughts regarding flooding. · It was queried as to whether wind power energy was considered at the beginning of the proposal.
The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that socio-economic factors, landscape and visual impacts were within the scope ... view the full minutes text for item 23. |
|
|
Any other business, which the Chairman, by reason of special circumstances, decides is urgent
Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Close of meeting
Minutes: The Chairman closed the meeting at 16:50. |