Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Thursday, 1st December, 2022 1.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, St. Peter's Hill, Grantham. NG31 6PZ

Contact: Email: 


No. Item


Register of attendance and apologies for absence

    • Share this item

    Additional documents:


    Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor Penny Robins and Councillor Ian Stokes.


    Councillor Gloria Johnson was substituting for Councillor Penny Robins.


    Councillor Phil Dilks was filling the Alliance SK vacancy.


Disclosure of interests

    • Share this item

    Members are asked to disclose any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting

    Additional documents:


    No interests were disclosed.



Minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2022 pdf icon PDF 152 KB

    • Share this item

    Additional documents:


    The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2022 were proposed, seconded, and AGREED as a correct record.


South Lincolnshire Reservoir Phase One Consultation pdf icon PDF 214 KB

    • Share this item

    Proposal: South Lincolnshire Reservoir Phase One Consultation

    Location: North Kesteven District

    Recommendation: That the committee endorse the draft consultation response to Anglian Water and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder to issue the final response.

    Additional documents:


    Proposal: South Lincolnshire Reservoir Phase One Consultation


    Location: North Kesteven District


    Recommendation: That the committee endorse the draft consultation response to Anglian Water and delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Planning, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder to issue the final response.



    During questions to Anglian Water representatives, Members commented on:


    ·       Clarification was sought on where part of the grey shaded area outlined on the plan led to?


    It was confirmed that the strip of land was being proposed to be used as part of an emergency draw down route from the reservoir in a form of a ditch. It was highlighted that a reservoir of a certain scale required a need to lower water levels and to be able to discharge water to the South 40-foot drain.


    ·       Concern was raised regarding residents that currently lived in the proposed site area of the reservoir and whether a compensation package or assistance would be provided to them in relocating.

    ·       Whether the reservoir would be utilised for local use or transported to other regions?

    ·       The overall size scale of the reservoir in comparison to Rutland Water reservoir.


    Anglian Water were conscious of the possible disruptions caused to the residents and many within the proposed site would lose their homes. Prior to consultation, ongoing engagement with landowners and homeowners was taking place. Commercial compensation discussions were a matter of private discourse between Anglian Water and the residents affected. Following a more evolved design in 2023, a property support scheme for individual homeowners would be discussed. A statutory guideline provided residents compensation for the value of their property and top-up, disturbance payments may be required. 


    ·        The number of residents that could possibly be affected.


    The number of residents could not precisely be identified until the final layout of the reservoir had been confirmed, it was estimated at around 20 households directly. The main aim was to provide certainty in 2023 to enable residents to plan ahead of construction in the next decade. Residents within South Kesteven would be indirectly affected by traffic and construction noise.


    It was highlighted that the size scale of the proposed reservoir would be 52 km in surface area and around 1200 acres. The proposed reservoir was compared to Grafham Water in terms of scale and was smaller than Rutland Water. The distance around the reservoir was 8km. The proposed reservoir was not a drowned river valley and had a smoother circumference around it.


    Anglian Water clarified that the reservoir was part of planning for resilience across the whole of the Anglian Water region. In the East of England, a number of challenges were faced: a third less rainfall than the UK average, significant population growth for the area and challenges from protecting the environment and reducing the abstraction of water from the natural environment.


    ·       Whether the proposed site was bordering the A52 road of South Kesteven. One Member welcomed the need for sustainable water supply and the site proposed.

    ·       What the consequences would be if the reservoir  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.


Authority Monitoring Report pdf icon PDF 212 KB

    • Share this item

    The annual publication of the Authority’s Monitoring Report (AMR) is a statutory requirement for all Local Authorities. The AMR covers the period from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 and reviews progress in preparing development plans and the extent to which South Kesteven District Council’s policies have been put into effect.


    Additional documents:


    The Principal Planning Policy Officer presented the report that outlined the Council’s statutory requirement to public up-to-date information collected for monitoring purposes. These requirements were set out in regulation 34 of the Town and Country Planning Regulations 2012.


    The Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) covered the last financial year (April 2021-March 2022). It was noted that this was the second annual monitoring report of the Council’s adopted local plan in January 2020.


    Areas that the authority monitoring report includes were:


    ·       Number of completed dwellings

    ·       Affordable housing

    ·       Progress neighbourhood plans

    ·       Details relating to duty to cooperate


    In addition, the AMR also reported on the performance of the local plan against the local plans monitoring framework, which was set out as an appendix to the local plan.


    Headline monitoring results included:


    ·       485 homes were completed in the monitoring period (116 were affordable housing). The annual target was 650.

    ·       77% of all completions were within the four main towns with 30% completed in Grantham. The target for Grantham was 50%.

    ·       The five-year housing land supply had been fixed. A five-year supply of 5.22 years which was fixed through the annual position statement.

    ·       Two neighbourhood plans were successfully adopted.

    ·       Two neighbourhood plans were going through examination.

    ·       Successful adoption of two supplementary planning documents including the Council’s design guidelines and the rectory farm SPD.


    During questions to the Officer, Members commented on:


    ·       Clarification on what the acronym SOCG stood for.


    It was confirmed that SOCG stood for Statement of Common Ground. The SOCG outlined in the report was due to a property market area within Bassetlaw. The Council agreed to sign up as long as it did not impact any strategic employment sites going forward.


    ·       A query was raised in relation to indirect financial implications and how the community infrastructure levelling fits in with this.

    ·       Why the number of Council houses built were not stated in the report.


    It was a statutory requirement of the Authority Monitoring Report to report on community infrastructure levy (CIL). The Council were not a CIL authority, therefore, were not required to report on CIL. However, the Council was preparing a separate infrastructure funding statement which will be an annual report on S106.


    The Council’s monitoring framework, as set out in the local plan did not require the recognition of how many houses had been built by the Council. This information could be reported through other channels, such as the Housing Team.


    ·       Whether Mallard Pass Solar Farm would be included within next year’s Authority Monitoring Report.

    ·       It was noted that Grantham College had previously enquired to sell of their construction department for housing properties. However, the report stated 10% of people had no qualifications.

    ·       A question was raised on whether the Council would have the resources if more neighbourhood plans came forward.


    The Principal Planning Policy Officer confirmed that the Policy Team were tasked with supporting neighbourhood plans. The Policy Team was relatively small and were also undertaking work on the local plan. Parish/Town Council’s would be obligated to work with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.


Any other business, which the Chairman, by reason of special circumstances, decides is urgent

    • Share this item

    Additional documents:


    It was confirmed that there were no additional meetings planned for the rest of 2022.


    Members thanked all Officers for their hard work throughout the year. The Committee wished everybody a Merry Christmas.




Close of meeting

    • Share this item

    Additional documents:


    The Chairman closed the meeting at 14:48.