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 meeting resumed at 13.00.

 

Application: 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 Tim Harrison -       Cllr Gareth Knight -       Cllr Paul Martin -       Cllr Matt Bailey (written statement) -       Cllr Ben Green (written statement) -       Cllr Charmaine Morgan (written statement)
Against:	-       County Cllr Richard Davies -       Roger Graves
Applicant:	-       Stuart Bizley [Agent]

 

Together with:

 

·       Negotiations with Network Rail

 

The following comments were made by the public speakers:

 

-       The bridge was the justification for the initial development, and this should be prioritised over further affordable housing.

-       Two statutory transport consultees opposed the application.

-       The removal of the condition to the build the bridge would undermine public trust in the planning system.

-       Removing the obligation for the developer to build the bridge would remove all chance of the bridge being built at the detriment of local infrastructure.

-       The issues with the land negotiations should have been identified and raised sooner.

-       Attention was drawn to the objections raised by Lincolnshire County Council.

-       The connectivity factor for the development was below average which was insufficient given that 1000 children would live within the development.

-       The viability study was inaccurate and misleading.

-       Given that the planning permission was soon set to expire, this would provide an opportunity for fresh studies to be completed under a new application.

-       Network Rail had never quoted a price for the ransom strip.

-       The application exceeded a technical change.

-       Approving the application would have set a precedent that developers could remove conditions after planning permission was agreed.

-       There was demand for the bridge within the local community.

-       The developer was not in financial distress and had failed to provide the written updates required under the Section 106 agreement.

-       The application conflicted SKDC’s Local Plan.

-       There would only be one main access route to the development without the bridge.

-       The applicant’s agent noted that negotiations had been ongoing with Network Rail until 2013 and a solution to the site’s insufficient electricity provisions was not found until May 2020. Were the bridge condition to remain then viability studies show there would be a reduction in Section 106 agreement funding and affordable housing.

-       Negotiations with Network Rail broke down as they demanded 50% plus £500,000 to sign the paperwork. The developer’s position was 33%.

 

During questions to public speakers, the following comments were made:

 

-       When the A1 is frequency closed due to accidents, Grantham becomes gridlocked by diverted traffic. The bridge would help alliviate this.

-       Some Members and public speakers suggested the need for an updated transport assessment.

-       A speaker stated that they had not seen evidence that negotiations had ever taken place with Network Rail and suggested that a proportion of the funds raised from the properties sold so far had been reserved to fund the bridge.

-       There was no defined cycle path from the development to the town centre. Using the footpath under the rail bridge was unsafe, particularly at rush hour.

-       A speaker stated that they had contacted Network Rail via a freedom of information request, which had confirmed that Network Rail had no position on the ransom strip and no cost for its purchase had ever been agreed.

-       The bridge was in the original masterplan for the development. 

-       The applicant’s agent noted that the landowner would only make money from the sale of the land, not the profit from the development.

 

It was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to extend the meeting until 17.00.

 

-       The applicant’s agent was asked if they had overestimated the ransom cost. He rebuked this stating that Network Rail had a statutory duty to maximise their profit as a public body.

-       The agent believed that the timeframe was too short to consider other viability options as the planning consent expired in June 2026.

-       The agent stated that the applicant first raised red flags in 2020 when a feasibility study confirmed that the bridge was not necessary.

 

The meeting adjourned at 14.52 and resumed at 15.09.

 

During questions to officers and debate, the following comments were made:

 

-       A Member suggested a level crossing would be a suitable compromise.

-       It was confirmed that the viability reports had been independently created.

-       The Planning Officer noted that, given the restrictive nature of the planning condition, Network Rail were entitled to 33% value of each house built over 750 houses.

-       In response to a query about the accuracy of the price estimate to build the bridge, the Planning Officer noted that and changes to the costs would impact the viability assessment. However, the Officer noted that the assessments had been undertaken by professionals.

-       For consideration between the different viability options, a Member noted that the Section 106 contributions fund bus links within the development.

-       It was confirmed that 124 affordable homes had been built to date.

-       A Member believed that the viability study was fundamentally flawed as it did not account for the profit from the properties already built. The Planning Officer responded that the developer was entitled to make a profit and the benchmark land value had been factored into the viability study. Furthermore, it was not possible to determine excess profit.

-       It was queried whether the predicted vehicle impact in future years had been analysed. The Planning Officer noted that transport modelling had been undertaken and factored in the impact of the Grantham Relief Road.

-       It was acknowledged that the developer may refuse to surpass completing 750 properties to avoid triggering the condition to build the bridge.

-       It was noted that LCC Highways had stated that a footbridge would be more suitable, but the application was for a vehicular bridge.

-       A Member believed their own calculations demonstrated a £45-60 Million profit for the developer and therefore they could afford to build the bridge. The Planning Officer noted there were other financial factors that needed to be accounted for and reiterated that the viability studies had been completed by professionals. 

-       A Member suggested that BCIS index should have been used for cost estimates rather than Spons index. The Planning Officer confirmed that Spons had been used during the process and the estimated cost to build the bridge was in line with a similar project undertaken by LCC.

-       The Section 106 agreement was index linked.

-       A Member suggested adding the sports fields to viability option three. However, the Planning Officer noted that the sports pitches cost £1.2 Million whilst there was only a remaining surplus of £105,194.

-       Many Members agreed that the bridge was a necessary feature of the development as the connectivity without it was insufficient. However, the Planning Officer reiterated to Members that they needed to consider the impact of the new relief road in their weighting.

-       It was suggested by a Member that the developer had deliberately ran the clock down to apply pressure for the removal of the condition to build the bridge.

-       Members expressed frustration that the applicant did not approach sooner to take advise about securing alternative funding.

-       It was proposed that the recommendation was accepted, however this was not seconded by the committee, so the proposal fell.

 

It was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to extend the meeting until 17.15.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 16.50 and resumed at 16.59.

 

It was proposed, seconded, and AGREED to extend the meeting until 17.30.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to resolve to approve the application that removed the condition, subject to a Section 106 agreement which secured scenario four, retaining the bridge obligation at 750 dwellings with a Section 106 package of a total of £4 Million, retaining the sports pitches and with an overall affordable housing requirement of 8% across the remainder of the site. 

 

It was noted that Councillors Harrish Bisnauthsing, Sarah Trotter, and Mark Whittington were unable to vote as they were not present for the entirety of the item at the previous meeting before it was deferred.