Agenda item

Proposal: Outline application for residential development (up to 650 dwellings), a local centre (up to 3,000 sq. metres of gross floorspace for uses within Class E (a-g), and F2(a) and F2(b)), open space including country park, access, link road between Old Green North Road and Little Casterton Road, drainage and landscaping (Access only) (Rutland County Council Ref: 2022/0227/MAO)

Location: Land at Quarry Farm, Old Great North Road, Little Casterton, Rutland

Recommendation: That the Committee endorse the draft revised response to Rutland County Council and delegate authority to the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response.

Location: Land at Quarry Farm, Old Great North Road, Little Casterton, Rutland

Proposal: Outline application for residential development (up to 650 dwellings), a local centre (up to 3,000 sq. metres of gross floorspace for uses within Class E (a-g), and F2(a) and F2(b)), open space including country park, access, link road between Old Green North Road and Little Casterton Road, drainage and landscaping (Access only) (Rutland County Council Ref: 2022/0227/MAO)

Recommendation: That the Committee endorse the draft revised response to Rutland County Council and delegate authority to the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, to issue the final response.

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor                                Councillor Richard Cleaver

Against                          Carys Vaughan (representing – Protect Quarry Farm)

During questions to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

·       Clarification was sought on a strong list of concerns outlined in the report which had been echoed by public speakers that had not been addressed.

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified that the previous objection related to insufficient evidence of the impact on the A1 road and the local highways network.

Following the previous discussion on the Stamford North application, more information on the model had been provided, alongside input from formal consultee responses from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) and National Highways, who were the authority that dealt with the A1. They had both lifted their holding position and confirmed they hold no objections to both applications.

Another concern related to an agreed master plan for the development which particularly looked at the coordination of the spine road. A joint master plan had been submitted by the developers showing how it could be accommodated. A Main Street design brief had been published as part of the application which looked into design principals of the link road.

The final concerns related to the impact on the local wildlife site, which was a site-specific ecological impact and ultimately a matter for Rutland County Council to consider. Further concerns related to affordable housing and infrastructure contributions; however, this was also a decision for the Rutland County Council to make as the Planning Authority for this application. The Council had expressed their concerns on the matters through consultee responses, alongside suggestions and requests.

·       Whether the 650 proposed houses for the site were connecting to infrastructure arranged by the Council. It was noted that Rutland County Council would not contribute to the provision of water and sewerage.

The foul water drainage was being addressed through the applications and the developers. The Stamford North application required phasing plans and no occupation until suitable mitigation was provided for clean and foul water.

The suggested response to this application requested the conditions to be replicated for any permission granted for water and sewerage. The consultee response was drafted and highlighted the Council had no objections subject to those conditions being included.

·       It was queried whether the application could be referred to the Secretary of State.

The Assistant Director of Planning & Growth confirmed there was a joint strategic board which had been in place for a number of years to discuss matters of the site. The site was included within the Councils Local Plan and was proposed to be in Rutland Local Plan before it was withdrawn.

It was confirmed that anybody could write to their local MP or the Secretary of State for HMCLG and request that any planning application be called-in. The Secretary of State would then make a decision.

The Committee were reminded of the difficulties around CIL contributions being post-decision for Rutland County Council.

·       Whether there would be any benefit of the Council, as a governing body referring the application to the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State would determine the application. They would not be able to impose Rutland County Council with a decision subject to S106.

The Solicitor clarified that nothing could be done due to CIL rather than S106 contributions being involved. If the Secretary of State determined the positions, the outcomes would remain the same.

·       What the Council’s position would be if the application was refused.

If planning permission was not granted on this application, the Stamford North development could not go ahead. The resolution that Committee had previously made was for the joint infrastructure planning agreement to be signed, which could only be signed and completed, if permission was granted for both sites.

The Committee were reminded that the Council were a consultee to Rutland County Council on this application. Rutland County Council would take regard to the Council’s objection and advice, however, they may not refuse the application.

Following a previous point made, Rutland County Council would have consulted Anglian Water on their scheme.

The Chairman suggested the Council’s response be revisited to ensure it was more strongly worded and robust.

Rutland County Council may look to consider the application in the near future, which would impose a time limit for the response to be revisited and sent.

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED that the Committee endorse the draft revised response to Rutland County Council and delegate authority to the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and the Chairman of Planning Committee, to issue the final response with the inclusion of stronger and robust wording alongside the inclusion of the S106 agreement.

The Committee requested that the final response be shared with them.