Agenda item

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary Condition 24 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S16/2816 (Revised submission of planning application S24/0140)

Location: Land at Rectory Farm (Phase 1), Grantham

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

 

S24/1442

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary Condition 24 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S16/2816 (Revised submission of planning application S24/0140)

Location: Land at Rectory Farm (Phase 1), Grantham

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

 

S24/1443

Proposal: Section 73 application to vary Condition 24 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S16/2819

Location: Land at Rectory Farm (Phase 1), Grantham

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

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillors             Councillor Paul Martin (Statement read out)

                                                    Councillor Gareth Knight

Against                                        Roger Graves, Local Resident

Applicant                                     Mike Walker, Land Director for Vistry Homes

                                                    Chris Holloway (Transport Consultant)

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document and National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways & SuDS).

·       Comments received from Barrowby Parish Council.

·       Comments received from National Highways.

·       Comments received from Grantham Town Council.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

 

·       Clarification was sought around a comment made on a masterplan.

 

The Ward Councillor outlined the significant amount of development taking place in this part of the town. There were very few objections to surrounding developments, due to other developers on nearby applications contributing to transport infrastructure.

 

·       One Member requested examples of when the Council had “rolled over” applications in the past. 

 

It was highlighted that various conditions were proposed for the Barrowby Gate development in 1970-80s. The issue had been long term in this part of the town around the lack of infrastructure and/or facilities, when the applications had conditioned sports facilities, shops, play areas etc.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning & Growth issued a caution in terms of comments made in relation to past developments that date back to 1970-80s in terms of failed delivery infrastructure.

 

The Committee were reminded to consider the acceptability of the proposal and the proposal in this case was whether the trigger point for requiring the works to be completed could be moved, not whether the developer could avoid delivering the junction improvements

 

It was clarified the Council did not have a planning application for the Poplar Farm development at present to vary any of the terms of the planning permission that had been previously granted. 

 

·       A Member queried whether the Ward Councillor had any specific contrary evidence regarding movements in the area at present. The Ward Councillor disagreed with the comments from Highways stating the site would have 11 two-way trips at peak times.

 

The Ward Councillor provided anecdotal evidence from personal experiences. Concern was raised the junction was already congested, without this application.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning & Growth informed the Committee that technical evidence would need to be provided to the Inspector if the application was refused on vehicular movements. Anecdotal information and evidence was unlikely to assist in an appeal decision.

 

(Councillor Tim Harrison declared he was the Chairman of Grantham Town Council, who had objected to this proposal. It was confirmed that Councillor Harrison had no input into the objection comments and he was not pre-determined).

 

·       One Member queried the reasoning behind the delay in the junction improvements.

 

The Applicant confirmed that they were required to follow formal approval processes with other authorities. The original planning permissions had been approved with a junction improvement design, which had been assumed to be at a satisfactory standard to allow the technical approval process to be advanced. However, the Applicant’s have subsequently been required to redesign the junction improvements, which had taken an extended period of time. The revised scheme can now be put forward for technical approval, but this process could take up to 12 months.

 

·       One Member noted the previous application for the site had gone to appeal. It was queried whether the Applicant’s would continue to appeal the previous application for 150 homes on the site, if this application be granted.

 

The Applicant’s engineering and highways consultants still considered that the occupation of 150 dwellings as proposed by the previous application would still be safe and would not have a severe impact on the junction.

 

The Applicant’s would be reluctant to withdraw the appeal and would not commit to a decision at present.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning & Growth reminded the Committee of the live appeal situation. The appellant’s view in terms of the appeal was not material for the consideration of this application and the decision would not bind the Council to any course of action in terms of that appeal. This application should be judged on its own merits.

 

The Applicant clarified they had received dialogue with the authorities, which had got them to 50 homes position, which National Highways and Lincolnshire County Council were satisfied with.

 

·       Clarification was sought on whether the Applicant’s were aware of timescales that authorities work to prior to submitting the application.

 

The Applicant confirmed they had a planning permission for two junction designs for northbound and southbound slip roads. The designs had gone through the process as part of the application that had been signed off by all authorities. The Applicant’s design works on the junction, in liaison with Highways had taken 9-12 months, however, it was a time-consuming process.

 

·       It was noted that an application for the site was submitted 8 years ago, however, traffic issues were so significant that the junction was deemed unacceptable and a condition was put in requiring the junction improvement prior to occupancy. A query was raised on whether the volume of traffic had changed in the last 8 years and whether there was any data to show an ongoing increase or decrease in traffic since the original condition was put into place.

 

The Applicant confirmed the original submission and the technical work completed to reach an agreement for junction improvements was only completed in 2020. The data was based on data from 2019, which had been updated and assessed since the original submission, which was standard practice.

 

More up to date data had been completed following the pandemic which had affected traffic flows. Long-term monitoring suggested that traffic data had only recently returned to pre-pandemic levels. Ongoing monitoring was taking place, however, traffic flows had not materially changed since the original assessment in 2019.

 

·       One Member queried whether data for monitoring traffic was desk based or actual equipment on the roads assessing the volume of traffic.

 

The Applicant clarified the volume of traffic was undertaken in a traffic survey itself. The monitoring was general statistics for road networks across the County as a whole, which were mainly automatic traffic counters, however, was not specifically used at the junction in question.

 

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

 

·       Whether the application could be refused on any planning grounds as there were no objections from National Highways.

·       What weight could be given to anecdotal evidence from residents and public speakers against National Highways evidence.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth reminded the Committee to take regard to both forms of evidence. The Council carried out consultations with statutory and other stakeholders who had expertly advised the Planning Authority and the Committee in terms of their position. At any appeal, evidence would need to be provided to persuade an inspector that the position was correct.

 

In this occasion, technical data had been provided via detailed transport assessment which had been assessed by the Highways Authority and by National Highways. These provided expert opinions, at safety and capacity had raised no objections to the proposal. Members were requested to provide valid evidence that could be used to present to an Inspector if the application was refused, to reasonably defend the position. Anecdotal evidence was not sufficient for a reason for refusal at appeal.

 

·       It was queried whether the figures that 50 dwellings would result in 12 additional two-way trips and 11 two-way trips in the PM was based on a national standardised formula.

·       One Member requested figures surrounding the number of accidents occurring in the area within the junction.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning & Growth clarified that actual data had been collected and included within the report. Data varied from being selected, traffic modelling for Lincolnshire and other evidence from similar developments with the same sets of circumstances. The figures provided within the report would have been scrutinised by Lincolnshire County Council and National Highways.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner highlighted that accident data was provided from a 7 year period up to July 2023, there had been a total of 7 accidents at the junction, equating to 1 per year.

 

As part of the previous refusal, Lincolnshire and National Highways both objected to the application prior to a decision being made. This refusal decision had gone to appeal.

 

·       Concern was raised that if this application was refused and went to appeal, the Council would be at great risk of losing the appeal and delaying works that would take place in the future.

·       Clarification was sought around the wording of condition 24 and advice given by Highways.

 

It was clarified the use of terminology. The previous application considered was a submission of details, therefore the condition was still relevant to this application and the details would have to be implemented. Lincolnshire County Council’s response outlined they were comfortable with the details being the same and provide the same level of mitigation. However, the condition would not be formally fulfilled, until the junction works had taken place.

 

The effect of a Section 73 permission was to still condition the junction works being completed prior to 50 occupations in total across the two schemes.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning & Growth noted the original condition was technical design of the junction to be implemented before any occupation. The previous application was merely to determine the technical design of the junction. This application was to change the trigger point of the delivery of the junction, from 0 occupations to 50 occupations.

 

·       It was queried whether a condition could be included to ensure the junction works are completed at 50 occupations only.

 

It was confirmed that applicants were entitled to apply for a variation of applications if they wished to do so, therefore, that was not possible.

 

·       Further concern was raised on desk-based modelling of the junction works. It was queried whether a condition could be included regarding ongoing traffic maintenance.

 

The Committee were informed that the desk-based data was the evidence given and a decision should be made on the information provided.

 

·       Concern was raised on the buildout of the 50 dwellings would be built prior to any works taking place on the junction.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning & Growth estimated that 50 dwellings could be completed in one year for a single house builder. For this application, several dwellings had already been built.

 

·       Clarification was sought around timescale of when the junction would be completed.

 

It was clarified that a definitive date could not be given in terms of the junction works being improved due to a process being followed before road space being implemented to complete the works. The Applicant had previously informed the Committee they were anticipating commencing the junction in March 2026, the junction works would then be completed and operational in September 2026.

 

·       A query was raised on whether there were any material planning considerations that the application could be rejected on.

 

The Officer recommendation was for the application to be approved. The original condition was to ensure that the A1/A52 junction has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development which should be considered.

 

·       Further concern was raised on the quality of data being relied on and further information was requested on what data was used. It was raised that residents concerned of the traffic could commission their own expert report which could be used as evidence.

·       A query was raised on whether the housing being provided as part of the application would include affordable homes.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner confirmed that traffic had been assessed on transport models which were based upon survey data collected from the site itself. The information is then used to produce a model alongside other sites with similar schemes around the locality and country, which were used to sense check the site-specific modelling.

 

The application did not specify whether the dwellings would be open market of affordable homes.

 

·       Clarification was sought on whether the original refusal was based on the entire development or on 50 dwellings as currently proposed.

 

The original application was not a refusal, previously Lincolnshire County Council and Highways England reviewed the applications and had concerns around the capacity of the junction, and therefore required junction improvements to be carried out prior to any occupations on site.

 

·       One Member highlighted that if the application was approved, residents may take alternative routes through other roads which may result in unintended impact on other routes.

 

Traffic modelling took into consideration that behaviours would mean people may travel in different directions and routes which may provide a form of impacts.

 

·       A query was raised on a trigger for a bus service within the area.

 

The Council communicate with Lincolnshire County Council on bus services, which were difficult to sustain. Due to this application being a variation of an original application, a requirement for a bus service could not be implemented.

 

Whilst it could be reasonably determined by the Committee Members that up to 50 houses at this stage was acceptable to Lincolnshire County Council Highway and more than 50 houses was unacceptable. The Assistant Director of Planning & Growth advised that it could not be predicted whether an application for further houses would be submitted by the developer.

 

Lincolnshire County Council and Highways Authorities had however robustly defended its objections to 150 houses being built. A position which the Council would continue to defend through the appeal process.

 

S24/1442

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director - Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions:

 

Schedule of Conditions

Approved Plans

1)    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

         

          Site Location Plan: 379-LP-01C received 24 January 2019

 

          Access: NTW 477 014 received 24 January 2019

 

          Site Wide Plans: 379-SK-01F; 379-SK-02F; 379-SK-03F; 379-SK-04F; 379-SK-05F; 8247-L-01C; GRA01.PL001D; GRA01.PL004A; GRA01.PL006A; GRA01.PL008B; GRA01.PL009B all received 18 September 2020

 

House Types and garages: HWK.pe7; EVE.pe; WAY.pe; MOU.pe; MYL.pe; PEM.pe; Rip.pe; KNI.pe; ASL.pe; COT.CH.pe; SG.pe; DTG.pe all received 08 June 2018

 

          Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

              

          Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

During Building Works

Construction Management Plan

2)    All construction works on site shall be carried out in accordance the Construction Management Plan and Method Statement (Dated February 2023) approved under application reference: S23/0300, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the permitted development is adequately drained without creating or increasing flood risk to land or property adjacent to, or downstream of, the permitted development during construction and to ensure that suitable traffic routes are agreed.

Ecological Mitigation

3)    The development shall be carried out in accordance with the ecological mitigation measures specified in the Environmental Statement (Dated May 2018).

Reason: In the interests of ecology and biodiversity.

Before the Development is Occupied

Estate Road

4)    Before any dwelling is occupied, all of that part of the estate road and associated footway that forms the junction with the main road and which will be constructed within the limits of the existing highway, shall be laid out and constructed to finished surface levels in accordance with details to be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of safety, to avoid the creation of pedestrian trip hazards within the public highway from surfacing materials, manholes and gullies that may otherwise remain for an extended period at dissimilar, interim construction levels.

Hard Landscaping

5)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, all hard landscaping works shall have been carried out in accordance with the details approved under application ref: S23/0300 except where amended by application ref: S24/0525, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Hard landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Soft Landscaping

6)    Before the end of the first planting / seeding season following the occupation / first use of any part of the development hereby permitted, all soft landscaping works shall have been carried out in accordance with the soft landscaping details approved under application ref: S23/0300, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policies DE1, EN3 and OS1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Materials

7)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, the external surfaces shall have been completed in accordance with the details approved under application ref: S23/0300, 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.

Boundary Treatments

8)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, the works to provide the boundary treatments shall have been completed in accordance with the details approved under application ref: S23/0300, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance to any boundary treatments and by screening rear gardens from public view, in the interests of the privacy and amenity of the occupants of the proposed and neighbouring dwellings and in accordance with Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Surface and Foul Water Drainage

9)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, the works to provide the surface and foul water drainage shall have been completed in accordance with the details approved under application ref: S23/0300, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory surface and foul water drainage in accordance with Policy EN5 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Sustainable Building

10)Prior to first occupation of each dwelling hereby permitted, the approved sustainable building measures shall be completed in accordance with the details approved under application ref: S23/0500, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the development mitigate against and adapts to climate change in accordance with Local Plan Policy SB1.

Off-Site Highways Works

11)No more than 30 dwellings within the development hereby approved shall be occupied, until either the scheme shown on drawing 103790 PEF ZZ XX DR Y SK002  (Linden/Jelson Eastern junction 'top up' scheme), the scheme shown on drawing 103790 PEF ZZ XX DR Y SK001  (GDOV Eastern junction 'top up' scheme as required under condition 28 of planning permission S17/1262), [the scheme shown on Proposed General Arrangement Plan (Ref: SK18/SB JCN/Rev P1)] or any other alternative scheme providing the same mitigation that may be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA has been completed.

Reason: To ensure that the A1 / A52 junction has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development.

Off-Site Highways Works (Western junction)

12)No more than 448 dwellings within the development hereby approved, either alone or in combination with planning permission S16/2819 shall be occupied, until the scheme shown on drawing no. 106648-SK006 Rev A (the Western junction GDOV scheme) has been completed.

Reason: To ensure that the A1 / A52 junction has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development.

Ongoing Conditions

Landscaping Protection

13)Within a period of five years from the first occupation of the final dwelling / unit of the development hereby permitted, any trees or plants provided as part of the approved soft landscaping scheme, that die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the first planting season following any such loss with a specimen of the same size and species as identified in the approved soft landscaping scheme, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved plans and in accordance with Policy DE1, EN3 and OS1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Landscape Management Plan

14)Following the first occupation of the final dwelling / unit hereby permitted, the approved Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan approved under application ref: S23/0300 shall be adhered to in full, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Hard and soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy DE1, EN3 and OS1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Surface Water Drainage

15)The approved surface water drainage scheme shall be retained and maintained in full, in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the permitted development is adequately drained without creating or increasing flood risk to land or property adjacent to, or downstream of, the permitted development.

 

(Councillors Tim Harrison and Patsy Ellis voted against the proposal.)

 

S24/1443

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to the following schedule of conditions:

 

Schedule of Conditions

Approved Plans

1)    The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following list of approved plans:

Site Wide Plans

• Green Infrastructure Strategy Plan (Ref: 8247-L-01-C)
• Composite Proposed Site Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL001J)
• Proposed Site Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL002J)
• Composite Proposed House Type Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL004G)
• Proposed House Type Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL005G)
• Composite Storey Height Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL006E)
• Proposed Storey Height Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL007E)
• Composite Proposed Movement Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL008E)
• Proposed Materials Layout (received 27 April 2023)
• Composite Proposed Store and Bin Plan (Ref: GRA01.PL011E)
• Close Coupled Substation – Pyramid Roof Detail (Ref: GTC-E-SS-0012_R2-1_1of1)

House Types and Garages

• Redpoll (Brick) (Ref: JD313X_AS)
• Redpoll (Brick) (Ref: JD313X_OP)
• Redpoll (Render) (Ref: JD313Y_AS)
• Redpoll (Render) (Ref: JD313Y_OP)
• Redpoll (Ref: JD331Y-AS)
• Redpoll (Ref: JD331Y-OP)
• Whinchat (Ref: JD315X-AS)
• Whinchat (Ref: JD315X-OP)
• Willowby (Brick) (Ref: JD319X-AS)
• Willowby (Brick) (Ref: JD319X-OP)
• Willowby (Render) (Ref: JD319Y-AS)
• Willowby (Render) (Ref: JD319Y-OP)
• Willowby (Ref: JS319X_AS)
• Willowby (Ref: JS319X_OP)
• Willowby (Ref: JS319HAX_OP)
• Willowby (Ref: JS319HAX_AS)
• Woodcock (Ref: JD326X-AS)
• Woodcock (Ref: JD326X-OP)
• Woodcock (Ref: JS326X_AS)
• Woodcock (Ref: JS326X_OP)
• Auklet (Ref: JD332Y_AS)
• Auklet (Ref: JD332Y_OP)
• Maple (Ref: JD401Y_AS)
• Maple (Ref: JD401Y_OP)
• Siskin (Ref: JD402Y-AS)
• Siskin (Ref: JD402Y_OP)
• Osprey (Ref: JD407X_AS)
• Osprey (Ref: JD407X_OP)
• Aspen (Ref: JD408X-AS)
• Aspen (Ref: JD408X_OP)
• Cardinal (Ref: JD411X_AS)
• Cardinal (Ref: JD411X_OP)
• Redwood (Brick) (Ref: JD416X_AS)
• Redwood (Brick) (Ref: JD416X_OP)
• Redwood (Render) (Ref: JD416Y_AS)
• Redwood (Render) (Ref: JD416Y_OP)
• Kingfisher (Brick) (Ref: JD421X_AS)
• Kingfisher (Brick) (Ref: JD421X_OP)
• Kingfisher (Render) (Ref: JD421Y_AS)
• Kingfisher (Render) (Ref: JD421Y_OP)
• Amber (Ref: JS203X_AS)
• Amber (Ref: JS203X_OP)
• Amber (JS203XHA_AS)
• Amber (JS203XHA_OP)
• Heron (Brick) (Ref: JS318X_AS)
• Heron (Brick) (Ref: JS318X_OP)
• Heron (Render) (Ref: JS318Y-AS)
• Heron (Render) (Ref: JS318Y_OP)
• Plover (Brick) (Ref: S304XHA_AS/OP)
• Plover (Brick) (Ref: S304X_AS/OP)
• Plover (Render) (Ref: S304Y_AS/OP)
• Garage Design (Ref: GD1-P01-AS)
• Garage Design (Ref: GS1C-P01-AS)

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

Reason: To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt.

During Building Works

Construction Management Plan

2)    The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the Construction Management Plan and Construction Phase Surface Water Management Plan approved as part of application reference: S23/0092, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the permitted development is adequately drained without creating or increasing flood risk to land or property to, or downstream of, the permitted development during construction and to ensure that suitable traffic routes are utilised.

Before the Development is Occupied

Sustainable Buildings

3)    Prior to first occupation of each dwelling hereby permitted, the sustainable building measures approved as part of application reference: S23/0092 shall be completed in full for each dwelling, in accordance with the agreed scheme.

Reason: To ensure the development mitigates against and adapts to climate change in accordance with Local Plan Policy SB1.

Surface and Foul Water Drainage

4)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, the works to provide the surface and foul water drainage scheme approved as part of the application reference: S23/0092 shall have been completed in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Thereafter, the application scheme shall be retained and maintained in full, in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of satisfactory surface and foul water drainage in accordance with Policy EN5 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Hard Landscaping

5)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, all hard landscaping works shall have been carried out in accordance with the hard landscaping details approved as part of application reference: S23/0092, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Hard landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Materials

6)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, all external surfaces shall have been completed in accordance with the Materials Layout (Received 27 April 2023) approved as part of application reference: S23/0592, 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.

Boundary Treatments

7)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied / brought into use, the boundary treatments shall have been completed in accordance with the Boundary Treatment details and Phasing and Build Route approved as part of application reference: S23/0092, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 

Reason: To provide a satisfactory appearance to any boundary treatments and by screening rear gardens from public view, in the interests of privacy and amenity of the occupants of the proposed and neighbouring dwellings and in accordance with Policy DE1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Estate Road

8)    Before any part of the development hereby permitted is occupied, all of that part of the estate road and associated footways that forms the junction with Barrowby Road and which will be constructed within the limits of the existing highway, shall be laid out and constructed to finished surface levels in accordance with the details approved under application reference: S23/0092, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of safety, to avoid the creation of pedestrian trip hazards within the public highway from surfacing materials, manholes and gullies that may otherwise remain for an extended period at dissimilar, interim construction levels.

Soft Landscaping

9)    Before the end of the first planting / seeding season following the occupation / first use of any part of the development hereby permitted, all soft landscaping works have been carried out in accordance with the soft landscaping details approved under application S23/0092, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Soft landscaping and tree planting make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy DE1, EN3 and OS1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Off-Site Highways Works

10)No more than 20 dwellings within the development hereby approved shall be occupied, , until either the scheme shown on drawing 103790 PEF ZZ XX DR Y SK002  (Linden/Jelson Eastern junction 'top up' scheme), the scheme shown on drawing 103790 PEF ZZ XX DR Y SK001  (GDOV Eastern junction 'top up' scheme as required under condition 28 of planning permission S17/1262), [the scheme shown on Proposed General Arrangement Plan (Ref: SK18/SB JCN/Rev P1)] or any other alternative scheme providing the same mitigation that may be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA has been completed.

Reason: To ensure that the A1 / A52 junction has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development.

Off-Site Highways Works (Western junction)

11)No more than 448 dwellings within the development hereby approved, either alone or in combination with planning permission S16/2819 shall be occupied, until the scheme shown on drawing no. 106648-SK006 Rev A (the Western junction GDOV scheme) has been completed.

Reason: To ensure that the A1 / A52 junction has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development.

Ongoing Conditions

Landscaping Protection

12)Within a period of five years from the first occupation of the final dwelling / unit of the development hereby permitted, any trees or plants provided as part of the approved soft landscaping scheme, that die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced in the first planting season following any such loss with a specimen of the same size and species as identified in the approved soft landscaping scheme, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the provision, establishments and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscaping in accordance with the approved designs and in accordance with Policy DE1, EN3 and OS1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

Landscape Management Plan

13)Following the first occupation of the final dwelling / unit hereby permitted, the Landscape and Biodiversity Management Plan and Preliminary Ecological Appraisal approved under application ref: S23/1745 shall be adhered to in full thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: Hard and soft landscaping, and tree planting, make an important contribution to the development and its assimilation with its surroundings and in accordance with Policy DE1, EN3 and OS1 of the adopted South Kesteven Local Plan.

 

(Councillors Tim Harrison and Patsy Ellis voted against the proposal.)