Agenda and minutes
PDF 153 KBVenue: Council Chamber - Council Offices, St. Peter's Hill, Grantham. NG31 6PZ
Contact: Email: Democracy@southkesteven.gov.uk
Media
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Register of attendance and apologies for absence
Additional documents: Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor Penny Robins.
Councillor Robert Reid substituted for Councillor Penny Robins. |
|
|
Disclosure of interests
Members are asked to disclose any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Harrish Bisnauthsing declared an objection and interest on Application S22/0683 and clarified that he would not take part in the debate or vote.
|
|
|
Minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2023
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2023 were proposed, seconded and AGREED as a correct record. |
|
Proposal: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 41 unit retirement living facility, car parking spaces, access, landscaping and ancillary development Location: Land off Priory Road, Stamford Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal:Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 41 unit retirement living facility, car parking spaces, access, landscaping and ancillary development Location:Land off Priory Road, Stamford Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:
District Ward Councillor: Councillor Harrish Bisnauthsing Applicant’s Agent: Rachel Clare
Together with:
· Provisions within the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, Lincolnshire Minerals ad Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD and Stamford Neighborhood Plan 2016-2036. · Comments received from Anglian Water. · No comments received from Cadent Gas. · Comments received from Environment Agency. · No comments received from The Association of Gardens Trust. · Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire. · Comments received from Historic England. · Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS). · No comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Minerals Planning Authority). · No comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue. · No comments received from Lincolnshire Police. · Comments received from NHS Lincolnshire. · Comments received from SKDC Affordable Housing Officer. · Comments received from SKDC Conservation Consultee. · Comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection Officer. · Comments received from SKDC Arboricultural Consultee. · Comments received from SKDC Principal Urban Design Officer. · Comments received from Stamford Town Council. · Comments received from Ward Member.
During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:
· Concern was raised from the site visit around the ability to cross the proposed site to local amenities. It was queried what improved pedestrian crossings would be implemented and whether it would be a formal type of crossing.
The Applicant’s agent reassured the Committee with the proposed installation of dropped curb areas and tactile paving around the Uffington and Priory Road area, which had been in consultation with Highways.
The Principal Planning Officer highlighted that the crossing would not be controlled in terms of being a zebra or pelican crossing. Highways had advised that the road did not meet their adopted design standards in terms of providing a controlled crossing due to the geometry of the road and positioning. Additional signage in the area had been discussed with Highways, who were happy to pursue signage to provide motorists with warnings that a higher number of elderly people may be crossing in that area.
· Stamford Town Council had objected against the application. It was queried as to whether the Applicant had re-consulted with Stamford Town Council following the proposal to include crossing measures. It was confirmed that Stamford Town Council were still objecting to the proposal. · Concern was raised around the overall layout of the proposal and the accessibility to recreational activities for the elderly residents.
The Applicant’s agent outlined that the southern elevation in the garden would include areas for seating. A communal lounge with a connecting roof terrace would be situated on the top floor of the building. There was also a public right of way network adjacent to the building ... view the full minutes text for item 73. |
|
|
Application S22/2073
Proposal: Residential development comprising the erection of four detached dwellings and renovation/enlargement of existing dwelling Location: The Gables, Honington Road, Barkston, Lincolnshire, NG32 2NG Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Residential development comprising the erection of four detached dwellings and renovation/enlargement of existing dwelling Location: The Gables, Honington Road, Barkston, Lincolnshire, NG32 2NG Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions
Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:
Against: David Baker Beryl Hencher
Together with:
· Provisions within the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan 2011-2036 and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). · No comments received from Barkston Parish Council. · Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS). · Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.
(Councillor Julia Reid left the meeting at 14:45)
During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:
· One Member commented on the density of the proposed development.
It was acknowledged that plots 2 and 3 were large in scale. The application had been assessed on its own merits and it had been deemed acceptable due to the separation distances and the style of the properties.
· Whether the proposed development and plots 2 and 3, complied with policies SP2, SP3C, DE1A and DE1B.
The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the character of the development had been assessed and was considered acceptable. The separation distances met those suggested with the Council’s Design Guidelines SPD and were considered acceptable. The front elevations of plots 2 and 3 would front onto a public area and therefore a reduced separation distance could be considered.
It was confirmed that plot 4 had a garage in between the side elevation of another property on an oblique angle.
· Whether the proximity of plot 4 and 1 Thorold Gardens had been through design PAD.
The development had not been through design pad, this scale of development would not always be considered by design PAD.
The relationship between plot 4 and 1 Thorold Gardens was considered to be acceptable where 2 properties were adjacent to one another.
· A query was raised around the representations received to the Council on the application.
The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the objection had been received and considered as part of the application. All points addressed were in relation to amenity, which had been assessed in detail against the relevant policies of the Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.
· Whether any windows would overlook plot 2 and the appropriateness of requesting obscure-glazed windows.
It was confirmed that there would be 6 windows on the rear elevation of plot 2, the separation distance was above the 21-metre guidance for back-to-back dwellings. 3 of the windows would serve an en-suite or bathroom, which could be conditioned for obscure glazed windows.
· Further clarification was sought on the relationship between the frontages of plots 2 and 3 in relation to the 25-degree rule.
The 25-degree guidance would apply to the rear of a property impacting the rear of another property. The 25-degree guidance did not necessarily apply in this instance due to the front elevation fronting onto a public realm in terms of overlooking.
Members raised disappointment over the layout and ... view the full minutes text for item 74. |
|
Proposal: Outline application for redevelopment of site for mixed use development comprising of Class C3(a) (Residential) and Class E(c)(ii) (Office) (Appearance, Layout and Scale for Approval) Location: Ross Thain & Co LTD, Belton Street, Stamford Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Outline application for redevelopment of site for mixed use development comprising of Class C3(a) (Residential) and Class E(c)(ii) (Office) (Appearance, Layout and Scale for Approval) Location: Ross Thain & Co LTD, Belton Street, Stamford Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.
During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:
· Whether the parking permit scheme allowed public parking during certain hours of the day.
The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the parking permits were be primarily used by the occupiers of the townhouses. There was an allowance within the scheme to allow short term parking of no more than 2 hours.
It was noted that the 2011 site specific census data was utilised rather than census data from 2021, where arithmetical sums had changed.
It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and subject to the schedule of conditions as set out in the Addendum Report:
Time Limit for Commencement
1) The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or two years from the approval of the last reserved matters, whichever is the latter.
Reason: In order that development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2) Details of the reserved matters set out below shall have been submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval within three years from the date of this permission:
i. Access ii. Landscaping
Approval of all reserved matters shall have been obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.
Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to control the development in detail and in order that the development is commenced in a timely manner, as set out in Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
Approved Plans
3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans (in relation to the scale, appearance and layout only):
i. Proposed Block Plan (Ref: 1298/03/Rev H) ii. Proposed Site Layout (Ref: 1298/04/Rev E) iii. Proposed Block A Floor Plan (Ref: 1298/05/Rev C) iv. Proposed Block B Floor Plan (Ref: 1298/06/Rev B) v. Proposed Elevation Plan – Belton Street / Gas Street / Tenter Lane (Ref: 1298/07/Rev D) vi. Proposed Elevation Plan – Internal Courtyard (Ref: 1298/08/Rev C) vii. Site Section Plan (Ref: 1298/09/Rev C)
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
Demolition and Construction Management Plan
4) No development shall take place, including demolition of buildings hereby approved, until a Demolition Method Statement and Construction Management Plan and Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, which ... view the full minutes text for item 75. |
|
|
Application S22/1567
Proposal: Erection of four detached bungalows Location: Land at 255 Harrowby Lane, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9TT Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Erection of four detached bungalows Location: Land at 255 Harrowby Lane, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG31 9TT Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions
Noting comments made in the public speaking session by:
District Ward Councillor: Councillor George Chivers Parish Council Clerk: Peter Armstrong Applicant’s Agent: John Dickie
Together with:
· Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011 – 2036, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). · Comments received from Harrowby and Londonthorpe Without Parish Council. · Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways and SuDS). · Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.
During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:
· Who the boundary fence currently belonged to? It was noted that the pillars on the boundary fence required upgrading.
It was confirmed that the boundary fence was the property of a previously demolished bungalow.
· That the ground of the proposed site became waterlogged due to a nearby reservoir. · Whether a bus stop was within close proximity of the site.
There was a bus stop around the corner from the site on Fifth Avenue, Grantham.
The Applicant’s agent identified a beech tree to be the most appropriate in a particular corner of the site. It would be considerable time before it grew to its fullest extent and was merely a landscaping choice of the agent.
· Clarification was sought regarding mitigating impacts on climate change and whether the Applicant had ambitions of including ground source heat pumps and solar panels.
It was confirmed that the proposal would include solar panels on south facing roofs and ground source heat pumps to comply with the latest building regulations.
· Whether the proposal would include grey water recycling.
During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:
· That the boundary was not an accurate depiction and was on the verge of overlapping gardens on Fifth Avenue, Grantham.
The DM Manager highlighted that the line of the boundary had been plotted incorrectly. Page 172 of the agenda pack provided an accurate site layout plan, as approved.
· Whether Officers were satisfied with the refuse collection issues raised.
It was confirmed that the bin drag distance was 40 meters from bin storage location to the side of the road. Prospective buyers would need to take the bin drag distance into account when buying the properties. Whilst not ideal, it was not considered to be an unacceptable distance.
The Chairman noted that the proposal was an improvement from the outline planning permission.
· Whether there was a more appropriate positioning and location of the beech tree due to the tree straddling another piece of land and not being totally contained within the site. · Concern was raised on the representation received from Harrowby & Londonthorpe without Parish Council on their fear of the site being too narrow for an emergency service to access.
It was queried as to whether the width of the driveway was appropriate or whether it could be made wider.
The DM Manager confirmed that the access drive was 4.31 meters. The minimum Lincolnshire County Council ... view the full minutes text for item 76. |
|
|
Application S22/2287
Proposal: Erection of a single-storey flat roof extension to rear elevation following demolition of existing conservatory Location: 51 Stanley Street, Bourne, Lincolnshire, PE10 9BJ Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions
Additional documents: Minutes: Proposal: Erection of a single-storey flat roof extension to rear elevation following demolition of existing conservatory Location: 51 Stanley Street, Bourne, Lincolnshire, PE10 9BJ Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions
During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:
· Assurance was sought that the existing conservatory wall be demolished and that any walls where asbestos was found, be dealt with appropriately.
The Assistant Director of Planning noted that asbestos was dealt with under a separate legislation and the construction workers on site would be required to take appropriate steps. This was not dealt with by the Council.
It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorize the Assistant Director of Planning to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions:
Time limit for commencement
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
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:
1. Site Location Plan - received 21 November 2022 2. 2022-PR32-OFA-DR-PP-01 REV A Existing and Proposed Plans and Elevations - received 20 January 2023
Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.
Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.
During building works
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 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.
|
|
|
Any other business, which the Chairman, by reason of special circumstances, decides is urgent
Additional documents: Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Close of meeting
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman closed the meeting at 16:40. |