Agenda and minutes
PDF 226 KBVenue: The Meres Leisure Centre, Trent Road, Grantham, NG31 7XQ
Contact: Democratic Services
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Public Open Forum
The public open forum will commence at 1.00 p.m. and the following formal business of the Council will commence at 1.30 p.m. or whenever the public open forum ends, if earlier. Minutes: Question 1
From: Susannah Holloway
To: Councillor Helen Crawford, Chairman of the Planning Committee
“The Mallard Pass Solar Farm proposal has just passed through the pre-application NSIP consultation process. The scope application is due to be received by the Planning Inspectorate imminently, with 30 days to approve it. After that Mallard Pass will collaborate with local Councils to develop the Draft Statement of Community Consultation. Speaking on behalf of the Mallard Pass Action Group, will the Council take on board input and suggestions from the Group, particularly as Mallard Pass’ first consultation was wholly inadequate in its communications, reach, accessibility and detail?”
The Chairman of the Planning Committee understood the concerns that local residents had regarding this proposal. The proposed solar panel farm would be treated as a National Strategic Infrastructure Project and this meant that the planning application process was different from other smaller schemes where planning permission was sought from the Council.
The developer had advised that the Development Consent Application would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in Winter 2022. Whilst there had been some early engagement by the developer, this would not be the only public engagement carried out. The developer had advised that a scoping opinion would be shortly submitted to the Planning Inspectorate which specifically related to the Environmental Impact Assessment that would need to be prepared in support of any subsequent planning application. The purpose of a scoping opinion was to set the content or scope of the Environmental Statement. South Kesteven District Council would be one of many stakeholders that would be consulted on the scoping opinion before the Planning Inspectorate made a decision.
In relation to further public consultations, the developer would prepare a Statement of Community Consultation which would set out how they proposed to engage with local communities and stakeholders. The District Council would be consulted on the content and appropriateness of this document and the Authority would be very interested in hearing feedback from the Mallard Pass Action Group about the developer’s first consultation exercise.
As a supplementary question, Susannah Holloway asked whether the District Council had determined how it would collaborate with Lincolnshire County Council and Rutland County Council in respect of the Statement of Community Consultation, given that this was a cross-county matter.
The Council’s Assistant Director of Planning confirmed that early engagement with the developer and respective Local Authorities had been undertaken and the District Council would continue to ensure dialogue across the board in this respect. She acknowledged the significance of this project and highlighted how important it was for all interested parties to fully engage in the process. No final decisions had yet been taken but the Council did have a very open dialogue and was working closely with colleagues.
Question 2
From: Susannah Holloway
To: Councillor Breda-Rae Griffin, Chairman of the Council, or Councillor Kelham Cooke, Leader of the Council
“At the point South Kesteven District Council have to present their final recommendations to the Planning Inspectorate about the Mallard Pass Solar ... view the full minutes text for item 62. |
|
|
Apologies for absence
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Ashley Baxter, Bob Broughton, Rosemary Kaberry-Brown, Nikki Manterfield, Virginia Moran, Charmaine Morgan, Judy Smith, Ian Stokes and Hannah Westropp. |
|
|
Disclosure of Interests
Members are asked to disclose any interests in matters for consideration at the meeting. Minutes: No interests were disclosed. |
|
|
Minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2021
To consider the minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2021. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2021 were proposed, seconded and agreed as a correct record.
DECISION:
That the minutes of the meeting held on 25 November 2021 be approved as a correct record. |
|
|
Minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 14 December 2021
To consider the minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 14 December 2021. Minutes: The minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 14 December 2021 were proposed, seconded and agreed as a correct record.
DECISION:
That the minutes of the extraordinary meeting held on 14 December 2021 be approved as a correct record.
|
|
|
Communications (including Chairman's Announcements)
Minutes: The Chairman of the Council took this opportunity to wish Members a Happy New Year and presented the engagements she had undertaken since the last meeting of Full Council, as set out in the agenda.
The Leader of the Council reported that Councillor Mark Whittington had been appointed onto the Cabinet with responsibility for Waste Services. Further announcements in relation to Cabinet Member responsibilities would be made in due course. Councillor Whittington’s appointment had a consequential impact on the Governance and Audit Committee, Constitution Committee and Finance, Economic Development and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee, particularly in relation to Chairmanships and Vice-Chairmanships.
The Leader outlined that he would support the appointment of Councillor Paul Wood, Leader of the Opposition, as the next Chairman of the Governance and Audit Committee, together with Councillor Kaffy Rice-Oxley as Vice-Chairman, with Members outlining their support of the proposed cross-party approach.
The Council noted these announcements. |
|
|
Localised Council Tax Support Scheme 2022/23
To consider the Council’s Localised Council Tax Support Scheme 2022/23. Additional documents: Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Finance and Waste Services presented the report and proposed the Localised Council Tax Support Scheme for the 2022/23 financial year.
The options in relation to the Council’s Localised Council Tax Support Scheme had been considered by the Finance, Economic Development and Corporate Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 3 December 2021 and Cabinet on 7 December 2021, with both meetings supporting the recommendations set out in the report.
Further to public consultation on the proposed scheme, 8,236 surveys had been sent out of which 308 were returned which equated to 3.74%. 81.82% of those who had responded supported the current scheme with 87.99% supporting the continuation of the Discretionary Payment Fund.
Consultation with major preceptors had also been undertaken, with the Lincolnshire Police and Crime Commissioner and Lincolnshire County Council being supportive of the current scheme remaining in place with the existing criteria for 2022/23.
The proposed continuation of the Special Constabulary Discount Scheme had been supported by Lincolnshire County Council, with South Kesteven District Council and South Holland District Council being the only authorities to propose inclusion of the discount as part of their respective Schemes.
The proposal was seconded.
In answer to a question regarding the financial impact of the Special Constabulary Discount Scheme, it was explained that the criteria for the discount was still being clarified by the Police and Crime Commissioner. As soon as the criteria had been set the Council’s website would be updated and engagement work would take place to reach out to those eligible. As the discount would comprise of an application process it was difficult at this stage to confirm how much it would effectively cost the Authority.
In discussing the proposal the inclusion of the Special Constabulary Discount Scheme was welcomed by Members, who were also supportive of the 100% exemption for care leavers which would continue to be available for those aged 18 to 25.
On being put to the vote, the proposal was AGREED.
DECISION:
That the Localised Council Tax Support Scheme 2022/23, based on the same overarching criteria as the current year’s scheme, be approved.
Councillor Ian Selby requested that his abstention from voting be recorded in the minutes. |
|
|
Review of the Council's Constitution
To consider approval of a new Responsibility for Functions section of the Council’s Constitution and agree the process for the remainder of the comprehensive review of the Constitution. Additional documents: Minutes: The Cabinet Member for Corporate Governance presented the report, providing Full Council with an update on the comprehensive review of the Council’s Constitution, and proposed approval of a new ‘Part 3 – Responsibility for Functions’ section of the Constitution.
This new document ensured that the Council’s scheme of delegation was up to date, fit for purpose and in a format which was much easier to understand, interpret and follow.
Approval of this new Responsibility for Functions section was the first part of the comprehensive review of the Constitution but represented the most complex aspect of the review. The timetable in paragraph 4.1 of the report set out an ambitious, but deliverable, action plan to ensure that the whole Constitution was completely reviewed and ready for adoption at the Council’s Annual General Meeting on 26 May 2022.
The Cabinet Member took this opportunity to place on record her thanks to the Constitution Committee and all Members of the Council who had participated or contributed at engagement events during the development of the Responsibility for Functions document. She also thanked the Head of Democratic Services for his leadership and the support he had provided in facilitating this constitutional review.
An amendment to the document was highlighted in relation to the Employment Committee and its role of making appointments to the positions designated as Statutory Officers. The recommendations contained within the report, subject to this addition, were therefore proposed.
The proposal was seconded.
The Chairman of the Constitution Committee added his thanks to Members of the Constitution Committee and those Members who had taken the opportunity to engage and suggest additions or amendments to the document, all of which had been taken into account. He encouraged further attendance at subsequent workshop sessions that would be scheduled as part of the later stages of the review.
Members welcomed the cross-party working and support associated with this piece of work. The revised document and wider constitutional review were welcomed given the importance of the Constitution to the Authority.
On being put to the vote, the proposal was AGREED.
DECISION:
That Full Council:
1. Notes the engagement activity undertaken with Members and Officers in the development of the new ‘Part 3 – Responsibility for Functions’ section of the new Constitution.
2. Approves the new ‘Part 3 – Responsibility for Functions’ section of the Constitution.
3. Approves the process for the next stage of the comprehensive review of the Constitution. |
|
|
Community Governance Review for Grantham Town
To consider the Terms of Reference for the Community Governance Review in relation to Grantham Town. Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman of the Community Governance Review Working Group presented the report, proposing approval of the Terms of Reference for a Community Governance Review of the unparished area of Grantham Town.
The request to commence this review was agreed by Full Council at its meeting on 30 September 2021 and the Terms of Reference document included specific information such as the scope of the review, references to necessary legislation and guidance, a proposed timetable and the subsequent consultation process that must be followed. The development of the Terms of Reference document was the start of the process and its approval officially commenced the Community Governance Review.
As the review developed there could be aspects that materialised which were not necessarily included in the scope of the Terms of Reference document. It was therefore proposed that delegated authority be granted to the Chairman of the Working Group in consultation with Political Group Leaders and the Cabinet Member for Governance and Licensing, to make any amendments to the Terms of Reference document should they be necessary.
Should Council ultimately decide to establish a Parish or Town Council for Grantham at the conclusion of the necessary consultation process, the timetable for the review allowed for this process to be undertaken in line with the scheduled election cycle for Parish, Town and District Council elections in 2023. It was vital, therefore, that the Working Group was able to meet as frequently as required and had sufficient ability to act quickly in order to deliver the review. It was therefore proposed that delegated authority be granted to the Community Governance Review Working Group in respect of the content and format of the consultation documentation and process associated with the Community Governance Review.
The Chairman of the Working Group emphasised that this represented the start of the process and that he would not prejudge what the public wanted in respect of local governance for Grantham, thereby reserving the right to vote either for or against the commencement of a Parish or Town Council until the relevant time.
The proposal was seconded.
Clarification was sought as to the number of people who needed to outline their wish as part of the consultation exercise to establish a Parish or Town Council in order for this to take effect. The Head of Democratic Services explained that there was not a specific amount of responses in favour or against the establishment of a Parish or Town Council that had to be received. The Authority was obliged to undertake a review which included a public consultation exercise, the results of which would need to be taken fully into account before reaching a final decision on whether or not a Parish or Town Council should be created for the area under review.
On being put to the vote, the proposal was AGREED.
DECISION:
That Full Council:
1. Approves the Terms of Reference for the Community Governance Review of the unparished area of Grantham Town.
2. Delegates authority to the Chairman of ... view the full minutes text for item 70. |
|
|
Demolition costs for buildings off Barnack Road, Stamford
To seek approval for the budget required to demolish and remediate the Council owned site off Barnack Road, Stamford for the St Martins Park Development.
Additional documents: Minutes: The Leader of the Council presented the report and proposed approval for the budget required to demolish the Council owned site off Barnack Road, Stamford for the St Martins Park development.
The Council had purchased land at Barnack Road, Stamford in March 2019 which adjoined land owned by Burghley Land Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Burghley House Preservation Trust. It was purchased as being strategically important to the Council’s growth ambitions in Stamford, the development of which was included in the Corporate Plan 2020-2023.
A condition of the sale was that the former factory buildings be demolished and any remediation works be undertaken on the site prior to the completion of the agreements with the prospective purchasers. Such works were a key requisite to progressing to the sale of the site, disposal of the asset and the capital receipts.
Full details of the pre-construction stage of the development were included in the report, together with confirmation of the outcome of the robust tendering process in relation to demolition works. The cost benefit analysis undertaken on this scheme demonstrated that the benefits strongly outweighed the total fee set out in the quotation of the successful contractor.
The proposal also included a reserve movement of £500k from the Local Priorities Reserve to the Regeneration Reserve in order to ensure there was sufficient funding in the Regeneration Reserve to finance the demolition works.
The Leader put on record his thanks to Officers and the ongoing relationship with Burghley Estates.
The proposal was seconded.
The following comments were noted as part of debating the proposal:
· A question was raised as to why the Council’s declaration of a climate change emergency section of the report had been identified as not being applicable. · The costs were necessary to prepare the area for development. Given the partnership approach to the project a question was raised as to why Burghley Estates were only contributing £250k towards the demolition costs as part of the Collaboration Agreement as set out in paragraph 2.11 of the report. · Appendix 1 set out in detail the Collaborate Objective Gateway Report from GF Tomlinson Ltd, the successful subcontractor, including all of the net build costs, prelims and design fees to complete the demolition works which totalled £1.303m. Confirmation was sought as to whether the same procurement processes had been followed for the works identified over and above the quote total of £760k as set out in paragraph 2.7 of the report. · Clarity around archaeological considerations was sought in terms of potential costs and timescales. · It was necessary to understand whether the Council would gain any profit as a result of the development. Members needed to be confident that it would be a worthwhile endeavour. · This represented a significant project for the Council and works needed to commence as soon as possible.
In terms of archaeology, protection of such matters had been part of the country’s planning system since the 1990’s and so full consideration had been given to this aspect of developing ... view the full minutes text for item 71. |
|
|
Members' Open Questions
A 45-minute period in which members may ask questions of the Leader, Cabinet Members, the Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen of the Overview and Scrutiny Committees and opposition group leaders excluding the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee, Licensing and Alcohol, Entertainment and Late Night Refreshment Licensing Committees and Governance and Audit Committee. Minutes: Question 1: Councillor Helen Crawford to Councillor Robert Reid (Cabinet Member for Housing and Property)
Councillor Helen Crawford asked for an update on the Council’s national rough sleeping count.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property reported that a single-night snapshot was undertaken between midnight and 2am on 18 and 19 November 2021, which did not include those people in hostels or other supportive accommodation. He took the opportunity to thank Members and the Team for volunteering to undertake this assessment to ensure that the Council’s return to the Government was as accurate as possible. One rough sleeper had been found as part of the count who was able to engage with the Change4Lincs initiative.
He paid tribute to the outreach workers who supported the Change4Lincs programme, acknowledging the complexities surrounding the circumstances which could sometimes lead to homelessness.
Question 2: Councillor Kelham Cooke (Leader of the Council) to Councillor Paul Wood (Leader of the Opposition)
Councillor Kelham Cooke was pleased to see Councillor Wood remain as Leader of the Opposition following a failed leadership challenge and asked whether he agreed that since 2019 they had enjoyed a very good working relationship as both Leader of the Council and Leader of the Opposition, respectively, with good scrutiny and appropriate challenge.
The Leader of the Opposition expressed that he always looked forward to his meetings with the Leader of the Council and felt it was essential that they maintained a good relationship in order that they could work together for the benefit of the Council and its residents.
Question 3: Councillor Paul Wood (Leader of the Opposition) to Councillor Robert Reid (Cabinet Member for Housing and Property)
Councillor Wood asked for an update and assurance in respect of housing compliance, particularly in respect of electricity and gas.
The Cabinet Member for Housing and Property took this opportunity to report that the new housing management system was nearing the procurement process and should be rolled out during 2022/23, being fully operational in 2024.
In terms of compliance, all of the Council’s areas were now between 98% and 100% except for electricity, which was currently in the 70% region. The Cabinet Member, however, was confident that full compliance would be achieved by March 2022.
The Council continued to impress the Housing Regulator and the Cabinet Member did not anticipate being under their supervision for much longer. He emphasised, however, that the Council could not become complacent and had to maintain its current momentum.
Several Members had raised their concerns regarding the Council’s gas contract which expired in June 2022 and a replacement was in the process of being pursued.
The Council’s performance in relation to void properties continued to improve and the tenant liaison initiative and Members’ Working Group were working well, making for a much better avenue for being able to listen to concerns and receive feedback.
Question 4: Councillor Gloria Johnson to Councillor Rosemary Trollope-Bellew (Cabinet Member for Culture and Visitor Economy)
Councillor Gloria Johnson asked for an update on the ... view the full minutes text for item 72. |
|
|
Notices of Motion given under Article 4.9 of the Council's Constitution (deferred from the meeting of Council held on 15 November 2021):
|
|
|
Councillor Phil Dilks
“Whilst welcoming the cross-party work to date towards reducing carbon emissions as a result of the Council’s activities, this motion seeks to confirm and strengthen Climate Change mitigation considerations when determining major planning applications across South Kesteven. This Council resolves: 1. “Climate Change” is to be considered as a material consideration in all current and future major planning applications (i.e. applications to create ten or more residential units and/or any development on a site of 0.5 hectares or larger). 2. A specific “Climate Change” paragraph is included in all future reports for such applications coming to the council’s Planning Committee for determination. 3. Information is provided in the reports to committee detailing whether developments are proposed to be carbon neutral or offering reductions in carbon emissions.” Minutes: Councillor Phil Dilks proposed the following motion:
“Whilst welcoming the cross-party work to date towards reducing carbon emissions as a result of the Council’s activities, this motion seeks to confirm and strengthen Climate Change mitigation considerations when determining major planning applications across South Kesteven.
This Council resolves:
1. “Climate Change” is to be considered as a material consideration in all current and future major planning applications (i.e. applications to create ten or more residential units and/or any development on a site of 0.5 hectares or larger).
2. A specific “Climate Change” paragraph is included in all future reports for such applications coming to the council’s Planning Committee for determination.
3. Information is provided in the reports to committee detailing whether developments are proposed to be carbon neutral or offering reductions in carbon emissions.”
In presenting the motion, Councillor Dilks highlighted a conflict between a commitment in relation to the Council’s declaration of a climate change emergency and demands as Local Planning Authority to approve hundreds of new homes and made the following additional points:
· 40% of all carbon emissions came from family homes. · 2,700 new homes were approved for development by the Council’s Planning Committee last year. · The Council created approximately four to seven tonnes of carbon each year. · Approval of 2,700 new homes equated to 10,800 tonnes of carbon which was almost double the activities of South Kesteven District Council in the past year. · When determining applications material planning considerations had to be taken into account, however, very little focus was given to the potential impact on the climate. · Applicants should be asked to consider the impact of their proposed developments and what measures they were including as part of the application. It was acknowledged, however, that the application form for permitted development was a prescribed national form. · The Council’s Leader had previously stated that “climate change is the pressing issue of our time”. It was therefore necessary to put climate change at the centre of the Council’s agenda.
In seconding the proposal, Councillor Amanda Wheeler thought that the Council was already supposed to be putting such matters at the heart of its decision-making in terms of being carbon neutral and future proofing. She referred to Norwich City Council which had approved a brand new development comprising of 100 carbon efficient and affordable homes and questioned why such schemes could not be delivered in South Kesteven.
The following points were made during debate of the motion:
· Climate change was a significant issue for the Council and was at the forefront of its agenda, having declared a climate change emergency with aspirations of reducing its carbon footprint and being carbon neutral by 2050, with a clean and sustainable environment featuring as a priority in the Corporate Plan. · A design guide was in place to meet the principles and minimise the impact of climate change which helped push developers towards carbon neutral schemes. · The Local Plan already contained specific allocations for renewable energy, with specific reference to solar farms. · Development of ... view the full minutes text for item 73a |
|
|
Councillor Ashley Baxter
“This Council resolves:
· to encourage organisers of public firework displays within the South Kesteven District to publicise in advance of their events, in order to allow residents to take precautions for their animals and vulnerable people · to actively promote a public awareness campaign about the impact of fireworks on animal welfare and vulnerable people – including the precautions that can be taken to mitigate risks · to write to the MPs representing the South Kesteven District, and the relevant Minister of State, urging them to introduce legislation to limit the maximum noise level of fireworks to 90dB for those sold to the public for private displays · to encourage local suppliers of fireworks to stock ‘quieter’ fireworks for public display.”
Minutes: This motion was withdrawn and would be referred to the next meeting of Full Council. |
|
|
Councillor Sue Woolley
“This Council is determined to reduce its carbon footprint at every opportunity and will also support efforts made by others to do the same. However, the drive for renewable energy can have unintended consequences particularly when agricultural land is taken out of food production to site such schemes.
Any large scale application for solar must be balanced against the need to produce more of our own food within our country and South Kesteven’s land is some of the most fertile in the UK. There is no point importing food with the carbon footprint it creates when we can grow it here sustainably. South Kesteven is at the heart of UK food production and we should not throw that away lightly.
I would therefore ask this Council to agree with me that our communities need to be made aware of all the information regarding renewable energy and any consultation exercises should be advertised as widely as possible.
I would also ask the Council to take into account the loss of valuable food producing land when making any decisions regarding renewable energy.”
Minutes: At this stage of proceedings it was proposed, seconded and, upon being put to the vote, AGREED that the meeting be extended for a further 30 minutes.
Councillor Sue Woolley proposed the following motion:
“This Council is determined to reduce its carbon footprint at every opportunity and will also support efforts made by others to do the same. However, the drive for renewable energy can have unintended consequences particularly when agricultural land is taken out of food production to site such schemes.
Any large scale application for solar must be balanced against the need to produce more of our own food within our country and South Kesteven’s land is some of the most fertile in the UK. There is no point importing food with the carbon footprint it creates when we can grow it here sustainably. South Kesteven is at the heart of UK food production and we should not throw that away lightly.
I would therefore ask this Council to agree with me that our communities need to be made aware of all the information regarding renewable energy and any consultation exercises should be advertised as widely as possible.
I would also ask the Council to take into account the loss of valuable food producing land when making any decisions regarding renewable energy.”
Councillor Woolley explained that she was not against renewable energy, but emphasised that it should be sited, generated and stored appropriately. Additionally, she was concerned that the manufacture and transportation of renewable energy itself generated carbon and had raised significant questions with regard to its lifespan and ultimate disposal.
With regard to food production, she could not understand the need to import food when it could be grown locally and sustainably.
A number of engagement exercises had already taken place or would take place in the future and it was important that the public and the Council engaged and participated in the various consultation processes.
The Council’s Monitoring Officer stated that although the motion was generic in relation to renewable energy and did not relate to specific sites or applications, whether pending or prospective, Members of the Planning Committee or any substitutes who may be required to act on the Committee when determining relevant applications, were recommended to be cautious in relation to the pre-determination of any such applications. They would need to be satisfied that they had an open mind in their deliberations.
Councillor Woolley, as a point of information, confirmed that the motion was not referring to a specific application.
The motion was seconded.
In discussion and debating the motion the following points were noted:
· The key objective of tackling climate change was set out in the Council’s Corporate Plan. · The Council had declared a climate change emergency and was committed to reducing its carbon footprint and to contributing to local and national targets. · The Council had a strong track record of approving solar farms, with Gonerby Moor being a recent example. · It was right to highlight the importance of balance. · The concerns raised ... view the full minutes text for item 73c |
|
|
Notices of Motion given under Article 4.9 of the Council's Constitution
|
|
|
Councillor Richard Cleaver
“This Council notes
· That its current Local Plan states, in relation to the Stamford North Housing Allocation that:
‘The following development principles accompany this allocation: a. A high-level masterplan, supported by a detailed development brief, appropriate full transport assessment and phasing plan, is required for the entire site (to include for the land extending into Quarry Farm, Rutland with an additional capacity of 650 dwellings).’
· That Rutland County Council (RCC) has rejected its draft local plan through which it was cooperating with SKDC in the development of such a masterplan in the form of a joint RCC/SKDC Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Both the RCC local plan and the SPD would have had policies within them that covered the Quarry Farm site and would have mirrored the requirements of SKDC.
· That RCC’s rejection of its draft local plan means that any planning application received relating to the Quarry Farm site between now and the adoption of a new local plan need take no heed of SKDC’s policies regarding the entire combined Stamford North and Quarry Farm site.
· That RCC’s rejection of its draft local plan coupled with the county having an assessed housing supply of less than five years means that it is now potentially vulnerable to the approval of unplanned, ad-hoc development since national planning policy states that there is a presumption in favour of development where councils’ assessed housing supply falls below 5 five years and no Local Plan is in place.
This Council reaffirms its commitment that a high-level masterplan, supported by a detailed development brief, appropriate full transport assessment and phasing plan, is required for the entire site (to include for the land extending into Quarry Farm, Rutland) before any planning applications are considered for any part of the entire combined site.
This Council therefore resolves to request that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities should ‘call in’ any planning application submitted to develop Quarry Farm until such time as a high-level masterplan, supported by a detailed development brief, appropriate full transport assessment and phasing plan has been agreed between SKDC and RCC.”
Minutes: At this stage of proceedings it was proposed, seconded and, upon being put to the vote, AGREED that the meeting be extended for a further 15 minutes.
Councillor Richard Cleaver proposed the following motion:
“This Council notes:
· That its current Local Plan states, in relation to the Stamford North Housing Allocation that:
‘The following development principles accompany this allocation: a. A high-level masterplan, supported by a detailed development brief, appropriate full transport assessment and phasing plan, is required for the entire site (to include for the land extending into Quarry Farm, Rutland with an additional capacity of 650 dwellings).’
· That Rutland County Council (RCC) has rejected its draft local plan through which it was cooperating with SKDC in the development of such a masterplan in the form of a joint RCC/SKDC Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Both the RCC local plan and the SPD would have had policies within them that covered the Quarry Farm site and would have mirrored the requirements of SKDC.
· That RCC’s rejection of its draft local plan means that any planning application received relating to the Quarry Farm site between now and the adoption of a new local plan need take no heed of SKDC’s policies regarding the entire combined Stamford North and Quarry Farm site.
· That RCC’s rejection of its draft local plan coupled with the county having an assessed housing supply of less than five years means that it is now potentially vulnerable to the approval of unplanned, ad-hoc development since national planning policy states that there is a presumption in favour of development where councils’ assessed housing supply falls below 5 five years and no Local Plan is in place.
This Council reaffirms its commitment that a high-level masterplan, supported by a detailed development brief, appropriate full transport assessment and phasing plan, is required for the entire site (to include for the land extending into Quarry Farm, Rutland) before any planning applications are considered for any part of the entire combined site.
This Council therefore resolves to request that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities should ‘call in’ any planning application submitted to develop Quarry Farm until such time as a high-level masterplan, supported by a detailed development brief, appropriate full transport assessment and phasing plan has been agreed between SKDC and RCC.”
Councillor Cleaver, in presenting the motion, outlined that it sought to defend the Council’s policies in the Local Plan, was plan-led and aimed to ensure that decisions in respect of the Quarry Farm site were made in the context of South Kesteven District Council’s Local Plan. Quarry Farm was essentially an extension of Stamford but was not located in the district. Given this and the fact that Rutland County Council did not have a Local Plan in place, he felt it perfectly reasonable to ask the Secretary of State to ‘call-in’ any planning applications in relation to the site.
Councillor Amanda Wheeler seconded the motion and agreed that Quarry Farm would form part of the Stamford ... view the full minutes text for item 74a |
|
|
Close of meeting
Minutes: The meeting closed at 16:43. |