Agenda item

Proposal: Section 73 application to remove Condition 21 (Pennine Way Bridge) and vary Condition 36 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S08/1231 to remove the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way bridge

Location: Poplar Farm, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

The afternoon session commenced at 1pm.

 

Councillor Vanessa Smith joined the meeting at 1pm.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to give Committee Members 10 minutes recess to read and review the exempt agenda supplement.

 

Councillor Tim Harrison and Max Sawyer felt as if they had not received sufficient time to review and consider the information within the exempt agenda supplement.

 

The Legal Advisor advised if Members felt they had insufficient information to determine the application; they should not participate in the vote as this could bring the decision of the Council into disrepute.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to give Committee Members a further 10-minute recess to read and review the exempt agenda supplement.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to go into closed session to seek clarification of the exempt papers:

 

‘Under Section 100(a)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public may be excluded from the meeting during any listed items of business, on the grounds that if they were to be present, exempt information could be disclosed to them as defined in paragraph 5 of Part 1 Schedule 12A of the Act’.

 

(The Committee returned into open session at 14:22).

 

Proposal: Section 73 application to remove Condition 21 (Pennine Way Bridge) and vary Condition 36 (Off-site highways works) of planning permission S08/1231 to remove the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way bridge

Location: Poplar Farm, Grantham

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions and subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillors                  Cllr Matt Bailey

                                                         Cllr Paul Martin

                                                         Cllr Ben Green (Statement to be read out)

Cllr Gareth Knight

Cllr Ian Stokes

Against                                             Cllr Richard Davies (Grantham North-West LCC Councillor)

                                                          Linda Jackson (Barrowby Gate Grantham Town Councillor)

On behalf of the Applicant               Darren Ridout – Development Manager (Buckminster)

 

Together with:

 

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

·       Comments received from Active Travel England.

·       Comments received from Barrowby Parish Council.

·       Comments received from County Councillor Paul Martin.

·       Comments received from Grantham Civic Society.

·       No comments received from Grantham Town Council.

·       No comments received from Great Gonerby Parish Council.

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

·       Comments received from National Highways.

·       No comments received from Network Rail.

 

The following comments were made by the District Ward Councillors:

 

·       A list of material considerations of the application was outlined.

·       Connectivity of Gonerby Hill Foot, through Poplar Farm and to Barrowby gate was suggested in order to provide the link road around the town.

·       Objections from Lincolnshire County Council were outlined. A survey had been conducted where 926 of local people responded and 805 (87%) people said they wanted the road to be built.

·       The bridge hits (29) within the town and A1 closures (42) annually were highlighted.

·       District Ward Councillor felt the developer had let the people of Grantham and residents of Poplar Farm down after previously promising the bridge would be delivered.

·       That the bridge was not an incidental feature. It formed part of the package of infrastructure that accompanied this development when permission was granted. Removing it now fundamentally altered the balance that justified the original decision.

 

The following comments were made by objectors:

 

·       It was felt the changes to the S106 was not a minor amendment and was a fundamental weakening of the infrastructure package.

·       Concern was raised on the provision of the sports pitch being delayed and the provision of a health centre.

·       It was felt the proposal was a material reduction in what residents were promised.

·       Delaying or removing the obligations to deliver the bridge would result in an unacceptable development, conflicting with NPPF paragraph 57 and the Council’s Local Plan.

·       An objector had attended a meeting where plans were discussed to release around 100 new-build houses onto the market in the Barrowby Gate area being significantly more than the originally suggested 30.

·       Previously, an inspector’s report had suggested the bridge was no longer necessary, due to the planned Southern Relief Road. But that road is designed primarily for lorries and transport heading east/west, it does not address the everyday traffic problems faced by local residents.

·       For local people, the Pennine Way Bridge would not be a luxury, but a necessity.

 

The following comments were made by the Applicant:

 

·       The original plan with the inclusion of the Pennine Way link was to improve connectivity across the railway to reduce traffic within the town centre.

·       The Section 73 application proposes to vary the latest planning permission initially submitted in 2008 and approved in 2011.

·       The application seeks the removal of the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way link whilst retaining this as part of the planning permission.

·       Since conditions were put in place in the granting of the consent in 2011, there had been major infrastructure, policy and strategy changes affecting Grantham.

·       In 2024, following a pre-application submission in 2020, a full and updated technical Highways Assessment was carried out, which considered the benefits of the fully approved and commenced Grantham Southern Relief Road.

·       The assessment concluded that with appropriate mitigation and the completion of Grantham Southern Relief Road, the Pennine Way link would not be required.

·       Highways Grantham Transport Strategy did not include the Pennine Way link and was deemed not a necessary piece of infrastructure. Grantham Southern Relief Road was due to open in 2028.

·       Officers had proposed conditions to limit the development until the completion of the Grantham Southern Relief Road.

·       If the link is not delivered, then the contribution secured in the 2011 S106 agreement would also be increased.

·       The new S106 consent, if approved, would deliver a combined sports facility and community building, ensuring that both services are provided in the community representing a significant improvement on the current consent.

 

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

 

·       Further clarification was requested on how the bridge strikes and A1 closures impacted Grantham’s road networks.

 

A District Ward Councillor noted that any closures on the A1 meant that any vehicles would be diverted through Grantham high street. The bridges were a ‘pinch point’ meaning with no link road, any residents of Poplar or Rectory Farm would have to use a route with a bridge ‘pinch point’ in order to access the town.

 

·       A query was raised on why the bridge was originally included in the Transport Strategy for Grantham.

 

In 1988, the main reason for the bridge to be installed was to connect the communities together.

 

·       Clarification was sought round the £20bn infrastructure and the need for the road. It was queried whether any funding had been put forward by LCC or any public body.

 

It was confirmed there was no other funding available for the road and it was developer only.

 

There was £4m originally accounted for in the viability appraisal for the cost of the bridge alone. There was additional monies that needed to be accounted for in terms of the payment required to cover the ransom strip held by network rail.

 

The timeframe for the delivery of the bridge was 750 occupations, which was considered the earliest point it was considered that the development could afford to deliver the bridge via sufficient receipts from the houses sold.

 

·       Whether the bridge, if erected, would put pressure on the Belton Lane junction.

·       Connectivity concerns were addressed and it was queried whether the bridge could also impact other areas of the town including Earlesfield and Harlaxton.

 

The Public Speaker outlined several roads within Grantham that were impacted by regular A1 closures or bridge strikes, the bridge would assist in relieving some traffic issues within these areas.

 

·       Clarification was sought on anecdotal evidence on how frequent accidents occurred on the A1.

 

The District Councillor felt there were often issues relating to the A52 or the A1 at least once a day.

 

·       A Member requested the general consensus of opinion for the bridge as an adjacent Ward Councillor.

 

It was felt that many residents were in favour of the bridge in order to future-proof the town.

 

·       A query was raised on whether the Applicant had in fact failed to deliver the playpark and sport pitch on this site.

 

An objector stated the Applicant had failed to deliver the playpark, failed on upkeeping green spaces and lacked overall maintenance of the site.

 

·       Clarification was sought around closures on the A1 and how it impacted Grantham as a whole.

 

An objector confirmed when the application was reviewed in 2022, it was found that the A1 was closed at least once a fortnight between Stamford and Blyth, for around half a day on average. In 2026, closured were now occurring weekly.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth reminded Members that questions to public speakers were merely for points of clarification from their speech.

 

Members were asked to disregard any comments made in regard to deliverability of the play park. There were no breaches in terms of the planning application and the Applicant was fully compliant to the planning permission and any S106 agreements.

 

The Legal Advisor advised the Committee to give limited weight to any anecdotal evidence.

 

During questions to the Applicant, Members commented on the following:

 

·       Clarification was sought on the Highways Assessment regarding how it was completed and who by.

 

The Applicant clarified as part of the planning application, a transport assessment was undertaken by a consultant. This was the assessment referred to in the Applicant’s speech and its findings had been supported by Lincolnshire County Council Highways.

 

Transport modelling could only be completed once schemed were committed and underway. The 2024 transport assessment takes into account the Grantham Southern Relief Road.

 

·       One Member queried how many formal meetings had taken place between Network Rail and the Applicant on the bridge design and delivery.

 

The individual speaking on behalf of Buckminster had only been with the company for a year, and therefore, could not comment on how many formal meetings had taken place.

 

·       Further clarification was sought from Highways position and concerns. They had requested robust evidence to fully understand the impact on their own network.

 

The Applicant clarified Highways did not raise any objections on Highways safety or capacity. The objection from them was in relation to active travel.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified the comments outlined by Lincolnshire County Council in the report recognised they were engaged in pre-application conversations with the Applicant back in 2020 around the potential to remove the obligations to deliver the bridge. At that point, they advised there were three reasons for the bridge being required:

 

-       Capacity relating to the impact of the traffic.

-       Connectivity relating to connections between Poplar Farm and Great Gonerby.

-       To provide a secondary link into Poplar Farm.

 

Lincolnshire County Council were satisfied with the proposal and that the removal of the obligations to deliver the bridge would not have an unacceptable impact on capacity. There would be additional links into Poplar Farm via Rectory Farm, which was not the case in 2020.

 

·       Whether a detailed engineering design for the bridge had been prepared, when it was produced and whether it had been shared with Network Rail.

 

The Applicant confirmed an engineering design for the bridge had been prepared and discussed with Network Rail.

 

·       One Member queried whether the Applicant’s could afford to build the bridge. The Applicant stated they could afford to build the bridge. However, the Applicant’s highlighted the bridge was no longer required and the money could be utilised elsewhere.

 

·       It was noted the bridge was still required from an active travel perspective. It was queried whether the Applicant’s had considered other options to mitigate the impact on active travel.

 

The Applicant confirmed a variety of solutions had been explore on active travel routes, however, most routes still crossed the railway and encounter the same ransom positions with Network Rail.

 

·       How the traffic from the completed development which will include vehicles from another 1,100 houses will be distributed if the connection is removed.

·       Clarification was sought that if the application was approved, would the Applicant’s commit to constructing the bridge voluntarily without a legal obligation.

 

The traffic assessment would have reviewed traffic distribution from the scheme. It was felt a greater proportion of traffic would have been leaving via Barrowby Road rather than going over the Pennine Way link. Therefore, the proportion of traffic being added to Barrowby Road was not the full 1,100 homes because some of those movements were already modelled to use Barrowby Road.

 

(Councillor Sarah Trotter left the meeting at 15:50, she did not return).

 

·       Whether the potential for the road link would remain. Reassurance was sought on whether the layout provided retains the link from Poplar Farm to the railway.

 

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

 

·       Whether the bridge or the road for the bridge would remain on the site.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner noted the planning permission was accompanied by a master plan, which outlined the bridge link and was not being changed as part of this permission. Any reserved matters application for the remainer of the site would need to be in compliance with that master plan for the bridge to come forward.

 

(The Committee had an adjournment from 15:55-16:05).

 

·       That National Highways and Lincolnshire Couty Council had required robust evidence and had recommended refusal or requested further information

 

Comments received from National Highways around modelling related to the matter of timing in terms of the number of occupations that could be delivered on Poplar Farm before the A1/A52 junction improvements needed to be completed. This had been restricted to 750 occupations, which had already been accepted by an appeal Inspector as a suitable position.

 

Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) comments had accepted the capacity issue from their perspective alongside the safety issue. In terms of connectivity, the test was around whether it was necessary to mitigate the impact of the development.

 

·       It was queried when the Council were notified of the Applicant’s being in contact with Network Rail alongside when the detailed plan of the bridge was sent to the Council.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner confirmed whether the Applicant had complied with the S106 agreement was not part of the application being considered.

 

The Council were not directly notified of any communication taking place between the Applicant and Network Rail. The Council were not provided with the quarterly updates that were agreed. Officers had been advised that the negotiations did take place up until 2020, and the conversations did involve a bridge design and exploring contractors to undertake the works.

 

·       That the development was originally approved on the basis that a railway bridge connection was implemented. It was also deemed at that time that it was needed to put a S106 to ensure the works were completed.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner noted there were no records outlining the bridge was a primary objective and the housing was secondary objective. The application granted in 2011 recognises the site as a mixed-use urban extension and a growth direction for Grantham for housing.

 

·       Further clarification was sought on why the bridge was not necessary but desirable.

 

The policy context in which Highways matters were assessed when the bridge was originally imposed was a different context. The policy in terms of the NPPF at present was around mitigating the Highways impact as a severity test. When the bridge was provided as part of planning permission for Poplar Farm, the Highway’s authority policy position was that if a development takes up 50 cars worth of capacity on the highways network, they would have to provide alternative capacity to mitigate that impact, regardless of whether or not the Highway could accommodate that number of vehicles.

 

In terms of capacity, the Grantham Southern Relief Road was designed to remove through traffic from the town centre. If the roads within the town centre were at 100% capacity, the relief road by diverting some of the traffic would remove 20% of that capacity. By removing this the obligation to deliver the bridge on Poplar Farm, only uses that spare capacity because all of the modelling and assessments was that those vehicles are already on the network.

 

The modelling for the original permission expected vast majority of movements to be going down Barrowby Road. It was believed the Pennine Way link would only have relieved a small amount of distribution of traffic going down Barrowby Road.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to EXTEND the meeting until 5:30pm.

 

·       Members highlighted the fact Lincolnshire County Council Highways had strongly objected to the proposal.

·       Whether traffic would be pushed back on Belton Lane, if the bridge was to go ahead.

 

The Principal Development Management Planner clarified it was likely the traffic would be pushed back onto Belton Lane junction depending on where people were travelling to and from.

 

·       One Member highlighted comments made by Grantham Civic Society on the relocation of the diagnostic centre.

·       Members felt there were strong reasons to refuse the application and also discussed possible outcomes if the development stopped which would result in the loss of the promised community centre, doctors surgery and playing fields.

·       It was highlighted the Applicant had stated in the speech that they could afford to build the bridge; however, they surmised it wasn’t necessary.

·       Concern was raised that there was only one access road into the estate.

 

It was clarified there was currently a singular point of access serving Poplar Farm, however, there was secondary points of access via Rectory Farm. With this in mind, there were 4 routes in total between Poplar Farm and Rectory Farm onto Barrowby Road. A member pointed out that the routes all ended up on Barrowby Road if the bridge was not provided and that Barrowby Road is known to be very congested.
A member stated that Rectory Farm would not have any target destinations for residents of Poplar Farm.

 

The Committee were reminded that removing the obligation would not remove the potential of the bridge being delivered. They should consider whether it was necessary for this developer to provide the bridge. It was agreed however that without the requirement of the applicant to build the bridge it would be unlikely to be delivered.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth outlined the site was allocated and was proposed in the emerging Local Plan. If the Council were challenged around the deliverability of the site as a future development (if the permission lapsed or did not come further forward), this could undermine the emerging plan and the Council would need to find 1,100 other homes elsewhere in Grantham.

 

·       One Member highlighted the ransom strip, which the Council did not have any control over. Network Rail would need to agree as the private landowner for any bridge to be built.

·       One Member suggested whether the Applicant could explore how much Network Rail may charge for access to the ransom strip.

·       It was queried what level of development would cause the least harm to the communities.

 

It was clarified that connectivity would still be important whether there was 0 or 750 homes. At 750 homes, the development was considered to be able to afford the scheme. The evidence within the report suggested that the Highways Network can accommodate the additional vehicle movements.

 

If Members were concerned that the bridge was even feasible however, felt it was desirable and beneficial to have. The Committee had an option to defer the application to allow for financial viability of the bridge to be explored further.

 

A new S106 agreement would cover the additional contributions that arise from the development. Therefore, if the Committee refuse the application without that S106 agreement being completed at this stage, it would be appropriate for an additional reason for refusal on the basis of no S106 agreement to secure the infrastructure improvement.

 

It was proposed and seconded to REFUSE the application for the following reason:

 

‘The removal of the obligation to deliver the Pennine Way link road bridge would significantly and demonstrably undermine permeability and active travel connectivity between the site and the surrounding areas without a suitable alternative point of connection being provided. This would result to harm to the permeability of the development, the attractiveness and safety of active travel options, contrary to the principles of building for healthy life and as a result of conflict with Policy DE1 and ID2 of the adopted Local Pan, adopted guidelines SPD and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and material considerations in the case including the public benefits associated with the delivery of the housing would not outweigh the identified harms and conflict with the development plan  ’.

 

(Councillors Tim Harrison, Max Sawyer and Paul Wood voted in favour of the proposal to refuse the application).

 

This proposal fell.

 

·       One Member queried how likely it would be that additional information on the reasons for refusal would be stronger or that there may be a better way forward for the development.

 

It was noted the viability process, the original estimate for the bridge was £4m in 2011. Since then, building costs had increased by 100% meaning bridge construction alone would be around £8m.

 

A comparable scheme had been discussed with Lincolnshire County Council in the Western Growth Point in Lincoln which had a bridge over a railway. The bridge required grant funding due to the cost of the bridge being over £20m, not accounting for any ransom strip.

 

The Committee were reminded of the critical nature of the reserved matter. The time to submit the reserved matters on the outline permission would expire in June 2026. The Council were in discussions with the Applicant meaning approval of the application may mean a developer would re-commence the delivery of the scheme.

 

Final decision

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to DEFER planning permission for the following reasons:

 

Whilst Members remain concerned that the bridge was necessary for connectivity reasons, it was felt that further information is required to allow Members to fully balance the relevant material planning considerations. As such, it was agreed to obtain further information on the following matters:

 

1.    Evidence of the negotiations undertaken with Network Rail to obtain their approval to deliver the bridge, including any information relating to the preparation of technical designs for the bridge, correspondence in relation to the appointment of contractors to undertake the works, and evidence of negotiations regarding the ransom strip

1.    Updated evidence in relation to the viability of delivering the bridge – this is to include further modelling of the viability assessment to include an updated cost of the bridge and the Network Rail ransom. This is to include testing at intervals throughout the development to understand if the bridge can be afforded at any point during the development. This will also include a further review of the Section 106 package in light of any additional development costs associated with the bridge.

 

(Councillor Tim Harrison voted against the proposal to defer the application).

 

(Councillors Vanessa Smith, Gloria Johnson and Paul Wood left the meeting at 17:20, and did not return).