Agenda item

Proposal: Application for the approval of reserved matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a mixed-use development comprising light industrial units (Use Clas E(g)), Offices (Use Class E(g)), convenience store (Use Class E(a)), café (Use Class E(b)) and 23 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) pursuant to outline planning permission S20/205           

Location: Land to the north of Barnack Road, Stamford

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT reserved matters consent, subject to conditions

Proposal: Application for the approval of reserved matters relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for a mixed-use development comprising light industrial units (Use Clas E(g)), Offices (Use Class E(g)), convenience store (Use Class E(a)), café (Use Class E(b)) and 23 residential dwellings (Use Class C3) pursuant to outline planning permission S20/2056

Location: Land to the north of Barnack Road

Stamford

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT reserved matters consent, subject to conditions

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

Andrew Rowland, Senior Architect on behalf of Burghley Land Ltd

Mark Flood, Director, Insight Town Planning Ltd on behalf of Burghley Land Ltd (both answering questions only)

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036, Stamford Neighbourhood Plan, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven Supplementary Planning Document, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and South Kesteven Local Plan Review 2021-2041.

·       No comments received from Anglian Water.

·       No comments received from Barnack Parish Council.

·       No comments received from Environment Agency.

·       No comments received from The Gardens Trust.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

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

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue.

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Police Crime Prevention Officer.

·       No comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       No comments received from Ministry of Defence – Defence Infrastructure Organisation.

·       Comments received from Network Rail.

·       Comments received from Peterborough City Council.

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       No comments received from SKDC Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from SKDC Urban Design Officer.

·       No comments received from St. Martins Without Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Stamford Civic Society.

·       No comments received from Stamford Town Council.

·       No comments received from Welland & Deepings Internal Drainage Board.

·       No comments received from Wothorpe Parish Council.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on the following:

 

·       The provision, number and location of car parking was queried.

 

The Applicant clarified parking areas were to the back of the site and were broken down into smaller areas to incorporate landscaping and SuDS. Parking would reflect policy requirements.

 

·       Whether traffic generation would be of the same density as the old factory.

 

Traffic generation was reflected at outline planning application in 2022. The Highway Authority had considered the net change and were satisfied with the uplift during certain hours of the day, with appropriate mitigations being put in place.

 

·       Whether the computer-generated images were accurate in relation to design.

 

The Applicant confirmed their ability to deliver the proposal in line with the computer-generated images. Burghley had land ownership of the site and had strong opinions and input in terms of design quality.

 

·       Concern was raised on energy conservations and solar panels and the provision of these.

 

A wide range of sustainability features were proposed for the site, including solar panels. With the area being architecturally sensitive, solar panels would be hidden, for example, through a valley double pitch roof. Air source heat pumps would also provide energy for the buildings.

 

·       Whether there would be a provision for EV charging points.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified further detail in terms of sustainability were covered by a separate condition on the outline permission and would be a separate decision. Condition 31 requires the development to meet certain sustainability criteria and energy performance specified at outline stage.  

 

The Applicant confirmed all 3 applications would come forward as a phasing scheme for the site as a whole, which was covered by condition.

 

·       Who would be responsible for all open spaces and greenery of the site.

 

The responsibility of open spaces was covered at outline permission and would be managed by a management company, with influence from Burghley Estate. 

 

·       Whether a management company would implement overhead charges to the businesses or residents of the site.

 

It was confirmed overhead charges to businesses and residents was expected.

 

·       The level of public consultation that had taken place was queried.

·       Concern was raised of the access to the railway, at the north of the site. It was queried whether any safety fences would be implemented for safety measures.

 

A reserve matters within the application was hard and soft landscaping, the detail of the applications included how the northern edge would be treated as a landscaping barrier.

 

Network rail had been consulted on all applications and their consultation response included the types of species required of them to efficiently screen the railway, the types of species due to be planted, had been verified by Network Rail. They also requested a form of fencing along the railway boundary, which would be dealt with separately.

 

·       One Member queried whether a full visual impact assessment had taken place from key viewpoints within Stamford’s Conservation Area, whether the size and scale of Barnack Road frontage adequately preserved Burghley House and lastly, whether the variation reflected Stamford’s historic character.

 

Conditions had been agreed at the outline planning permission in terms of landscaping, land use and building heights permitted on site. The report highlighted liaison with the Council’s Conservation Officer, Historic England and The Gardens Trust and all were in support of the scheme and had no concerns around the relationship with Burghley and the assets involved.

 

·       Whether the level crossing had been upgraded in order to make it safer to cross. It was questioned if the road leading to Barnack Road not crossing had been completed yet.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner confirmed the railway crossing upgrade was secured through a S106 agreement, which included additional street trees, bus stops including the entire footpath being upgraded.

 

A Car parking specific document had been sent to Lincolnshire County Council (Highways). For the office and industrial area to the West of the site, the parking requirement was 218 and the site proposed provided 219 spaces.

 

·       Whether comments from Peterborough City Council had been incorporated into the design as requested.

 

The Officer had noted the comments received from Peterborough City Council, however, the Council had their own expertise in terms of design quality, and they were satisfied with it.

 

·       Clarification and more details were sought around the green lawn throughout the site.

 

The land use plan showed an area of land on the eastern part of the site and the northern soft landscaping buffer to the railway line. Green areas would be interweaved throughout the site to aid connectivity routes throughout. 

 

·       Clarification was sought around court parking and roads, as set out in the plans.

 

The plan differentiated court parking and roads within the site where traffic calming measures were proposed.

 

·       Whether the Applicant could guarantee that nonindustrial units would not be replaced by housing in future.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Growth clarified there was no guarantee of future changes to the site. If the owners of the site wished to apply for a different use, a new application would need to be submitted and considered on its own merits.

 

Condition 17 removes the permitted development rights meaning the any change to the use of the site would require planning permission.

 

·       Concern was raised from Lincolnshire County Council SuDS where they had stated drainage proposed was mot the most appropriate form, however, was adequate.

 

It was highlighted that Lincolnshire County Council SuDS would have preferred to see more swales incorporated within the scheme, The difficulty in doing this meant more swales requires a bigger area of land which may impact the character of the area and historic location. However, the drainage solution was adequate to manage the level of water runoff required.

 

A member highlighted that whilst Building Regulations cover fire safety design those relating to the wider development are a matter for consideration of the planning committee.

 

During questions to the applicants agent it was confirmed fire hydrants would be provided in appropriate locations throughout the site.
All roads would be capable of taking a fire engine.

 

The Civic Society had requested all development to run concurrently.  The Applicants agent confirmed this would be the case.

 

During questions to officers and debate, Members commented on the following:

 

·       Some Members were satisfied with the application and pleased to see the master plan presented to them.

 

Councillor Tim Harrison raised the following concerns:

 

-       That outline permission was for 1 application, which had recently been split into 3.

-       That Officers mentioned a possible fracture in delivery of the project.

-       That Stamford Civic Society would only be satisfied if the 3 sites be developed concurrently.

-       That Lincolnshire County Council (SuDS) had state drainage would be adequate at present however, not for the future use as more swales would be preferred. 

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Growth confirmed that feedback from SuDS included factors around climate change, drainage and flooding. The comments from SuDS stated the scheme was adequate, however, Lincolnshire County Council had a preference of their ideal SuDS scheme. It was highlighted that Lincolnshire County Council would not be taking liability of SuDS for the scheme, if it was not adequate and fit for purpose.

 

A member commented whilst the Officer report stated Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust had no Comments, the online comment indicated the LWT reserved the ability to comment later.

 

Whilst members of the public had raised concerns regarding the use of employment land for the scheme it was pointed out that the application would provide a range of employment opportunities.

 

(Councillor Tim Harrison abstained from the vote, due to the advice received from Lincolnshire County Council in relation to SuDS).

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT reserved matters consent, subject to conditions:

 

Approved Plans

 

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

a.    Application Document Schedule (Dated 16 June 2025)

 

Unless otherwise required by another condition of this permission.

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

 

During Building Works

 

Design Quality and Visual Impact

 

Materials Sample

 

2)    Before any works above foundation level of any building hereby permitted are begun, a detailed specification of the materials (including the colour of render, paintwork or colourwash) to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall have been submitted to and approved 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 Local Plan.

 

Before the Development is Operational

 

Design Quality and Visual Impact

 

Materials Implementation

 

3)    No building forming part of the development hereby permitted shall be first occupied / brought into use, until that building has been completed in accordance with the approved external materials details.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development and in accordance with Policy DE1 of the adopted Local Plan.