(Public Pack)Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 28/10/2021
13:00 01476 406080 Karen Bradford, Chief Executive
www.southkesteven.gov.uk
Planning Committee
Thursday, 28 October 2021 at 1.00 pm Council Chamber - Council
Offices,
St. Peter's Hill, Grantham. NG31 6PZ
Committee Members:
Councillor David Bellamy, Councillor Harrish Bisnauthsing,
Councillor Phil Dilks, Councillor Mrs Rosemary Kaberry-Brown,
Councillor Penny Milnes, Councillor Charmaine Morgan, Councillor
Robert Reid, Councillor Penny Robins, Councillor Ian Selby,
Councillor Judy Stevens and Councillor Jacky Smith
Agenda
1. Apologies for absence
2. Disclosure of interests Members are asked to disclose any
interests in matters for consideration at the meeting.
Planning matters
To consider applications received for the grant of planning
permission – reports prepared by the Case Officer.
The anticipated order of consideration is as shown on the agenda,
but this may be subject to change, at the discretion of the
Chairman of the Committee.
3. Application S21/0938
Recommendation: That the application is refused
(Pages 5 - 29)
Proposal: Installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with
all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure.
Location: Land at Gonerby Moor, Great Gonerby, Grantham
Recommendation: That the application is approved
conditionally
(Pages 31 - 53)
5. Application S21/0676
Proposal: Erection of 35 dwellings (Reserved Matters application
relating to Layout; Scale; Appearance; Access; and Landscaping of
Outline permission S17/1900)
Location: Old Langtoft Gravel Pit, Land to south of Stowe Road,
Langtoft
Recommendation: That the application is approved
conditionally
(Pages 55 - 77)
6. Application S21/0964
Proposal: Section 73 application to remove conditions 1, 9, and 16
and vary conditions 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 as
well as addition of affordable housing condition of S14/2953
(residential development of 227 dwellings)
Location: Land off 372-400 Dysart Road, Grantham, NG31 7LY
Recommendation: That the application is approved, subject to
conditions and completion of a deed of variation to the existing
S106 Agreement
(Pages 79 - 96)
7. Application S21/1380
Location: Roseland Business Park, Long Bennington, NG23 5FF
Recommendation: That the application is approved
conditionally
(Pages 97 - 126)
8. Application S21/1422
Proposal: Demolition of existing Dutch barn and erection of a new
house and garage and a change of use of adjacent land from
Agricultural to Equestrian.
Location: Land To The Rear Of The Stables, Keisby Road,
Lenton
Recommendation: That the application is approved
conditionally
(Pages 127 - 138)
9. Any other business, which the Chairman, by reason of special
circumstances,
decides is urgent
01476 406080 Karen Bradford, Chief Executive
www.southkesteven.gov.uk
Public access and participation Anyone who would like to speak at
the meeting should notify Democratic Services on:
[email protected] at least one working day, before the
time of the meeting.
The deadline for the meeting to be held on Thursday 28 October
2021, will be 1.00pm on Wednesday 27 October 2021.
If you would like to include photographs or other information as
part of your presentation to the Committee, please send the
information in an electronic format relevant case officer at least
one working day before the meeting. If you are submitting hard copy
information, please send to the relevant case officer at least two
working days before the meeting. All speakers are at the Committee
Chairman’s (or Vice-Chairman’s) discretion. Each person is
permitted to speak for 3 minutes. Members of the Council are
permitted to speak for 5 minutes in accordance with Council
Procedure Rules. One person for the applicant or the town and
parish council will be allowed to speak. Where an application has
several supporters or objectors; they are encouraged to appoint a
representative to present a joint case. Committee members may only
ask questions of the applicant, the applicant’s agent or technical
experts speaking for or against an application. The Chairman and
Vice-Chairman of the Committee may ask questions of members of the
public but only to verify the source of any material facts stated
by a public speaker. Order of proceedings 1. Short introductory
presentation by the case officer 2. Speakers (Committee members
will ask questions after each speaker)
a) District Ward Councillors who are not Committee members b)
Representative from town/parish council c) Objectors to an
application d) Supporters of an application e) The applicant or
agent for the applicant
3. Debate – Councillors will discuss the application and make
proposals 4. Vote – the Committee will vote to agree its
decision
Proposal: Erection of 213 dwellings with associated infrastructure
and landscaping
Location: Land to the north of Uffington Road, Stamford Applicant:
Vistry Partnerships, Cross Keys Developments, Wm Morrisons
and
New River Retail Agent: Miss Olivia Morris, Harris Lamb Property
Consultancy, 75-76 Francis
Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 8SP Application Type: Full
Planning Permission (Major) Reason for Referral to Committee:
Major application
Key Issues: Principle of development Design and Impact on the
character of the area Impact on highway safety Impact on heritage
assets Flooding and drainage Impact on residential amenity Ground
contamination
Technical Documents:
5
01476 406080
Reviewed by: Phil Moore (Special Projects Manager) 18 October
2021
Recommendation (s) to the decision maker (s)
That the application is REFUSED.
6
7
1 Description of Site
1.1 The site comprises 4.67ha of previously developed (brownfield)
land to the east side of
Stamford. The site is linear in nature, orientated north to south.
The site is located to the
north of Uffington Road, with access to be taken from Uffington
Road, and was previously
industrial in use having been occupied by the Mirlees Blackstones
engineering works
although no buildings remain on the site.
1.2 The site consists of a mix of hardstanding across the site,
with a series of self-seeded
shrubs and immature trees and with a former road access located to
the eastern side of
the site. To the eastern boundary is a belt of TPO protected trees.
The trees mark the
boundary of the former Essendine railway line running north to
south across the eastern
boundary of the site.
1.3 Beyond this tree belt to the east are some more former
industrial buildings, and a new Aldi
supermarket under construction. To the west of the site the site
boundary runs adjacent to
the car park of Morrisons supermarket with the building itself
beyond. These are sited at a
higher level than the application site. Further to the north along
the western boundary are
a series of retail units culminating in a McDonalds restaurant on
Ryhall Road. To the
northern boundary and north western boundary of the site is
Stamford Business Park,
including a recently constructed site for Cummins Generator
Technologies. To the south of
the site, across Uffington Road is a former car dealership,
entrance to bridleway and
newly constructed care home.
2 Description of Proposal
2.1 This application is seeking full planning permission for the
erection of 213 dwellings
together with public open space, landscaping and drainage systems.
The proposed
dwellings are set off a main access road through the site, with
access taken from Uffington
Road. Dwellings either directly front on to the access road or are
located on a series of cul
de sacs.
2.2 The 213 dwellings proposed include 64% affordable housing,
above the 30% requirement
of Local Plan Policy H2 and include a split of house types and
sizes including 1 and 2
bedroom apartments and 2, 3 and 4 bedroom dwellings. Of the 213
dwellings proposed,
77 (36%) would be open market dwellings, with the remaining 136
(64%) split between
affordable rent 65 (31%) and shared ownership 71 (33%). The
proposed dwellings are
split as follows:
• Market Housing: 6x 2 bed apartments, 17x 2 bed dwellings, 40x 3
bed dwellings; 14x 4 bedroom dwellings
• Affordable Housing: 12x 1 bed apartments, 18x 2 bed apartments,
47x 2 bed dwellings, 49x 3 bed dwellings and 10x 4 bed
dwellings.
2.3 The proposed dwellings are a mix of apartments (36 in total
across the site) and then a
mix of two storey and three storey dwellings. The proposed
dwellings are a mix of 10
house types in total in addition to the proposed apartments.
2.4 The proposed 213 dwellings on the site of 4.67ha results in a
gross density of 46 dwellings
per hectare (dph), or a net density based on a net site area of
3.92ha of 54dph. The
densities proposed are high densities, reflecting the brownfield
nature of the site and a
location within the built up area of a market town and located in
close proximity to services
and facilities. The proposed design, layout and density of the site
is discussed further
below. The proposed mix of dwellings, with a high overall
proportion of 2 and 3 bedroom
8
dwellings is supported, and provides a greater number of smaller
dwellings than required
by the Strategic Housing Market Assessment as set out in Policy
H2.
2.5 The proposed house types include a mixture of different
materials including reconstituted
stone to entrance and gateway buildings together with appropriate
feature detailing.
Further materials details are not stated, however the submitted
materials plan proposes a
mix of three brick types together with the reconstituted stone to
key plots and a mix of two
roof tiles.
2.6 The proposed layout includes areas of public open space (POS)
to the eastern side of the
site, with a set back open space area provided to the west side of
the TPO tree belt along
the eastern boundary, including a footpath through, leading to a
drainage swale and a
small open area of open space across the access road. Whilst not
identified as public
open space, an underground water supply easement exists to the
western boundary of the
site.
2.7 Landscaping proposed includes retention of the existing TPO
belt of trees to the eastern
boundary and with a series of indicative tree planting areas
proposed to the site frontage
onto Uffington Road, to the northern boundary and north western
boundary of the site, and
also periodically through the site. No street trees within adopted
highway verges are
proposed.
2.8 The site is proposed to be drained through the use of SuDS,
with the creation of swales to
the eastern side of the site and with surface water to be
discharged via a restricted run off
to an existing surface water sewer which itself discharges into the
Rover Gwash.
3 Relevant History
3.1 S17/0613 - Outline application for residential development of
up to 100 dwellings with all
matters reserved except for access. Permitted 27/12/17 – now
expired.
3.2 Further planning history of the site relates to the historic
use of the site by Blackstone and
more recent applications for boundary treatments related to the
adjacent Morrisons and
retail uses.
Policy SP1 – Spatial Strategy
Policy H1 – Housing Allocations
Policy H4 – Meeting all Housing Needs
Policy E3 – Employment allocations
Policy E6 – Loss of employment land and buildings for
non-employment uses
Policy EN1 – Landscape Character
Policy EN5 – Water and Flood Risk Management
Policy ID2 – Transport and Strategic Transport Infrastructure
Policy DE1 – Promoting Good Quality Design
Policy SB1 – Sustainable Building
Policy STM1-H2 – Stamford East
Section 5 - Delivering a sufficient supply of homes
9
Section 9 - Promoting sustainable transport
Section 11 - Making effective use of land
Section 12 - Achieving well-designed places
Section 14 - Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change
Section 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic
environment
4.3 Draft Stamford Neighbourhood Plan
Policy 1 – Integration of New Residential Allocations (Stamford
North)
Policy 3 – Housing type and mix on new developments
Policy 12 – Sustainable Transport
5.1 Stamford Town Council
5.1.1 Objection. The site will be over-developed with no communal
space, play areas or
pedestrian crossings contrary to SKDC Local Plan Policy OS1 (Open
space).
Consideration is required for the Rights of Way on this site. The
overall design is poor and
the layout extremely condensed contrary to SKDC Local Plan Policy
DE1 (Promoting
Good Quality Design). The site is located between the entrances to
two large
supermarkets and opposite a large newly-built care facility, and
there will be poor access
onto the busy major road (Uffington Road) contrary to Stamford
Neighbourhood Plan
Policy 2 (paragraphs 1e and 2f).
5.1.2 The Planning Committee is in favour of new housing on
brownfield sites but more
consideration to access and layout is needed for this development.
Any future planning
application for this site should take the following points into
account: 1.) All the issues
outlined above in the Objection. 2.) A recommendation that the
existing 30mph zone
should be extended so it includes Uffington Road from the town
boundary to Morrison’s
roundabout. 3.) Suggestion that a S106/Cil contribution is made
towards healthcare
provision in the Town, pedestrian crossings, access to shops and
the Gwash Way
countryside walk.
5.1.3 We have very serious reservations regarding issues of access
into and exit out of this
development and its potential contribution to town congestion
problems. As you are no
doubt aware, traffic in Stamford is already constrained by two
bottlenecks; the Town
Bridge and Ryhall roundabout. Previous objection to the
neighbouring Aldi development
showed the strong degree of local concern over congestion and road
safety on this part of
Uffington Road and those conditions remain. Suggestions from
residents on the night of
our meeting included a link road though the development joining
Uffington Road with
Ryhall Road via the road that runs past Stamford Business Park to
improve access.
Equally, we received objections to that idea as it would cause
further congestion on Ryhall
Road and turn the development into a rat-run.
5.1.4 We would like to emphasise that we appreciate the need for
new housing in and around
Stamford, but believe it must be proportionate to the
infrastructure.
5.2 Stamford Civic Society 5.2.1 The site layout does not feel
appropriate within the broader context of Stamford. The
general layout is incredibly bland.
5.2.2 The topography of the site and its relationship to the
Morrisons and what was the Gilman
site (where Aldi are now constructing their supermarket) should be
set out and understood
10
clearly. There are real issues with these external levels and their
relationship to the
development site.
5.2.3 Landscaping "TBC" is ludicrous, landscape architects should
have been included from the
start not as an add on, landscaping is one of the key elements that
will make this
development a success for the residents, as much of the housing
backs onto retail parks
and industry. The site layout is very ‘hard’ - there are not enough
green spaces to break
up the units. We note the swale (which always look awful but we
know fulfils’ the SUDs
requirement) however this is not useable green space and will just
be a green hole.
5.2.4 The three storey housing is too dominant for the location,
and it is barely believable that
the two main blocks are positioned on the highest part of the site
adding to their bulk. This
is magnified by the mass and detailing of the present design blocks
which would do justice
to a set for Prisoner Cell Block “H”! This is not the position on
the site where we would
consider townhouses /flats should be sited. We would have thought
that two storey units
would be more appropriate.
5.2.5 The parking layout is awful - all the observer will read,
when the site is occupied, will be
cars as the majority of spaces are in front of the dwellings. There
is no attempt to conceal
parking but there are numerous opportunities where the spaces could
be resisted in a
more sympathetic way. We are all aware that every household has at
least two cars if not
more (especially in this location) and the proposal should respond
to this.
5.2.6 We note the extensive use of brickwork throughout the scheme
and we would question
whether this is this a part of the 'local vernacular'? The bland
roofscapes also have little to
do with the supposed “Stamford Vernacular” and should be rethought.
There is mention of
different ‘characters’ across the site but this does not come
across in the site layout. It is
lost as it is all too similar to create different 'characters'. As
for the use of reconstituted
stone, where is Stamford? - it is slap bang on top of a limestone
belt, the local stone would
be preferable for the whole development!
5.3 Affordable Housing (SKDC)
The proposal is to develop the above site with 213 mixed size and
tenure dwellings. Of
the 213 proposed dwellings 77 will be for open market sale the
remaining 137 dwellings
are proposed to be developed as affordable housing in partnership
with Cross Keys
Housing Association. Of these 66 dwellings will be for affordable
rent and 71 dwellings for
affordable home ownership. Discussions have been held with both the
developer and
Cross Keys Housing Association and I can confirm that the proposal
meets the priority of
the Council to deliver affordable housing in Stamford and meet the
identified needs for
both the affordable rented and affordable home ownership in terms
of the size of dwellings
and tenure.
5.4 Environmental Protection Services (SKDC)
5.4.1 The previous use of the land was industrial and commercial
with engineering and foundry
activities that may have taken place at specific locations on the
site as part of the
Blackstones farm machinery manufacturing facility. Latterly the
site was used for
production of diesel engines as part of Cummins. The site buildings
were demolished
some years ago and the concrete pad(s) remain. There is the
potential for contamination
of soils and groundwater, buried services and infrastructure such
as underground tanks
that would need to be remediated. The application does not include
a comprehensive site
survey, assessment, risk modelling and remediation strategy for the
geo-environmental
aspect of the proposed residential development. Environmental
Protection would therefore
11
require a pre-commencement condition for a ground conditions report
and verification
report.
5.4.2 The applicant has submitted a report detailing an acoustic
survey that has taken place at
the site along with recommendations for mitigation measures
associated with the results of
the survey. The applicant shall implement the recommendations for
mitigation measures
for the design and build specification of the residential
properties (acoustic glazing, trickle
vents, passive ventilation, orientation and layout of properties)
along with provision of
acoustic fencing to boundaries and gardens as detailed in the Hoare
Lea acoustic report
(revision 3 – April 2021).
5.4.3 Further request for conditions for a construction management
plan and a demolition
management plan.
5.5 LCC Highways & SuDS Support
5.5.1 No written comments received; any comments will be reported.
Verbal updates and
attendance at meeting with the applicant (Design PAD)
provided.
5.6 Anglian Water
5.6.1 The surface water strategy/flood risk assessment submitted
with the planning application
relevant to Anglian Water is unacceptable due to no clear detail as
to the plans of surface
water disposal. If suds are being utilised, we would require
details as to whether you
would wish Anglian Water to adopt this feature, if so we require a
full strategy. Proposed
conditions for surface water drainage.
5.7 Fire Authority
5.7.1 No objections.
5.8 Historic England
5.8.1 No objections. On the basis of the information available to
date, we do not wish to offer
any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist
conservation and
archaeological advisers, as relevant.
5.9 LCC Minerals and Waste
5.10 In accordance with the criteria set out in Policy M11 of the
Minerals and Waste Local Plan:
Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2016), the
applicant has identified
that the proposed development is, or forms part of, an allocation
in the Development Plan,
and also that prior extraction of the mineral would be impractical.
Accordingly, the County
Council has no mineral safeguarding objections.
5.11 LCC Education
5.11.1 No objections and no S106 request. The County Council has no
comments to make on
this application in relation to education as there is projected to
be sufficient capacity
available for this scheme.
5.13 Environment Agency
5.13.1 No objections.
5.14 NHS England
5.14.1 S106 request for £140,580 towards Lakeside Healthcare -
Sheepmarket Surgery, Ryhall
Road and St Mary’s Medical Centre, Wharf Road and Glenside Country
Practice.
5.15 Heritage Lincolnshire
Advise an archaeological programme of work, initially trial trench
evaluation.The
evaluation could be carried out prior to the commencement of any
development work at
the site, in accordance with an archaeological written scheme of
investigation. Any
relevant archaeological conditions should allow for further
archaeological investigation /
mitigation as required, depending on the results of the trial
trenching.
6 Representations as a Result of Publicity
6.1 This application has been advertised in accordance with the
Council's Statement of
Community Involvement and 5 letters of representation have been
received in total, from 2
households, from Cummins Generator Technologies, from Stamford
Property Company
and from Cllr Cooke, Leader of South Kesteven District Council
raising the following
relevant points:
1. Lack of supporting infrastructure to support development;
2. Impact of noise and light from nearby employment site; including
noise from vehicles
and night shift work;
3. Impact on local drainage network and outfall;
4. Objections to new junction on Uffington Road and no access from
Ryhall Road;
5. Conflict with Policy STM1-H2;
6. Conflict with Policy E6 and loss of employment land;
7. Lack of open space provision;
8. Lack of pedestrian connectivity
7 Evaluation
7.1 Principle of Development
7.1.1 Policy SP1 of the South Kesteven Local Plan (2020) sets out a
framework guiding the
location of new development within the District and provides that
the majority of new
development shall be focussed on Grantham and the market towns.
Policy SP1 sets out
that development should create strong, sustainable, cohesive
communities, making the
most effective use of previously development (brownfield) land
(where possible).
Development should also provide for a scale and mix of housing to
meet identified needs.
7.1.2 Policy H1 of the Local Plan sets out that development will be
delivered through a series of
site allocations across the district, including to Stamford as a
Market Town.
7.1.3 Policy H4 of the Local Plan promotes a mix of types of
housing provision, including
housing to enable older people and the most vulnerable to promote,
secure and sustain
their independence in a home appropriate to their circumstances,
including through the
provision of specialist housing accommodation in sustainable
locations.
7.1.4 Policy DE1 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure high quality
design is achieved, with
proposals to make a positive contribution towards the character of
the area, local identity,
and not adversely impact on the street scene and townscape and be
of an appropriate
scale, density, massing, height and material and not impact on
neighbouring residential
amenity.
7.1.5 Paragraph 119 of the NPPF sets out that planning policies and
decisions should promote
an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes and other
uses, while safeguarding
and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living
conditions. Strategic
policies should set out a clear strategy for accommodating
objectively assessed needs.
13
7.1.6 Section 12 of the NPPF sets out the importance of achieving
well-designed places to
ensure that proposals are only approved when they address the need
to improve the
character and quality of an area.
Local Plan Allocation and Development Principles
7.1.7 The site forms part of Local Plan allocation site STM1-H2:
Stamford East. The site
allocation is for an indicative 162 dwellings in total at around
30dph. The allocation
incorporates the proposed development site, with expansion of the
proposed site outside
of the allocation, however also takes account that part of the
wider site benefitted from an
extant outline permission for 100 dwellings. The indicative 162
dwellings identified in the
policy therefore increases to an indicative 262 dwellings to take
account of the outline
permission S17/0613.
(a) A comprehensive masterplan is required for the entire
site.
(b) The layout of the development should provide appropriate
transport infrastructure
measures to encourage walking, cycling and use of public transport
in order to
maximise opportunities for sustainable modes of transport.
(c) This site represents a gateway location and this should be
recognised in the design
and layout of development proposals.
(d) Highway, footway, cycleway connections shall be provided
throughout the site which
connect the site into the wider area.
(e) To ensure the development achieves good, high quality design, a
design code will be
prepared for the site.
(f) Any contaminated land should be remediated to recognised
standards.
(g) This site is situated within a Minerals Safeguarding Area. A
Minerals Assessment will
be required as part of any planning application.
7.1.9 The proposal is considered to partially meet the relevant
criteria e), f) and g) above. The
applicant has prepared and submitted a design code of the site to
partially comply with
criteria e). However the design code does not ensure quality is of
the required standard. A
ground investigation report and geoenvironmental report have been
provided for
compliance with criteria f). Whilst Environmental Protection have
requested further details
in this regard, this is considered to be appropriately secured
through planning conditions.
For criteria g) the applicant has provided the necessary Minerals
Assessment and LCC
Minerals and Waste have reviewed this and do not have any
objections to the proposal.
7.1.10 The applicant has submitted a masterplan within the Design
and Access Statement that
covers the application site and neighbouring site that also forms
part of the residential
Local Plan allocation STM1-H2. The masterplan however has not been
agreed with the
Council, with this considered to require a separate decision
process to the planning
application. The masterplan submitted is not considered to be
adequate. The masterplan
shows the site layout for this application site as proposed, with a
vehicular link to the
remaining site at the northern end, forming a loop road to the
permitted Aldi scheme at the
southern end of the adjacent site. The TPO tree belt that adjoins
both parts of the
allocation site is shown as retained, however with insufficient
public open space shown
across the wider site. Further, the masterplan does not address
access to the allocated
employment site, ST-E1, to the north of the residential
proposal.
14
7.1.11 Linked to the masterplan and design code (criteria a and e),
neither the masterplan,
design code nor the application are considered to adequately
address criteria b), c) and
d). In design terms the proposal scores poorly using the government
endorsed Building for
a Healthy Life assessment.
7.1.12 Criteria b) and d) are considered to be linked, with a
requirement for a layout that
maximises sustainable transport opportunities and that sufficient
connections are made to
the wider area. Outside of the main access (and access adjacent to
Aldi) from Uffington
Road, no walking, cycling or vehicular connection points are shown
in the masterplan or
the application, with no route shown to either connection to the
north east to the allocated
employment land or to the Stamford North allocation, nor are any
connections shown to
the west to Ryhall Road. Whilst LCC Highways have no made any
objections with regards
to the proposed single access point on Uffington Road, no further
connections have been
shown. Given the linear nature of the site from north to south,
future residents are the
northern edge of the site would have a substantial walk through the
site to access both the
neighbouring supermarkets on Uffington Road and the retail
provision that adjoins the site
to the west. In this respect, the application is not considered to
be in accordance with
criteria b) and d).
7.1.13 With regards to criteria c), the masterplan, design code and
application acknowledge the
gateway location of the site, however the proposal for two large
buildings for flats is not
considered to be an appropriate gateway feature in this context.
The flat building fronting
on to the access from Uffington Road will be 17.66m in width facing
to the site entrance,
with a depth of 9.10m and a height to the ridge of 12.38m and
consist of six flats. Its
neighbouring building, immediately to the rear and facing west to
the access road will be
34.98m in width, 9.10m in depth and be 12.53m in height to the
ridge, with a slight drop in
ridge height mid point in the building as the ground levels drop.
This second building
consists of 12 flats.
7.1.14 Both proposed flats buildings feature architectural details,
including protruding porch
features, stone quoins, recessed brick detail and brick course
detailing that is welcomed.
However, the proposed buildings would be highly visible in the
street scene, with the
smaller of the two buildings facing to Uffington Road. The existing
street scene in this
location is mixed, with an adjacent Aldi, albeit an Aldi set back
from the highway and with
materials highly scrutinised at the application stage, an adjacent
Morrisons set at a higher
land level than the site and a recently constructed care home
across Uffington Road to the
south. Nevertheless, the proposed scale of the buildings, at over
12m to the ridge height
and with widths of 17.66m and 34.98m respectively is considered to
be dominant, overly
imposing and detrimental to the character and appearance of the
area, being highly visible
markers when entering Stamford on Uffington Road from the
east.
7.1.15 The design and layout proposed, with the two proposed flats
buildings in close proximity to
Uffington Road, is considered to be harmful and not in compliance
with criteria c) of Policy
STM1-H2 which requires a suitable development reflective of its
gateway location.
7.1.16 Discussions with the applicant and agent have been ongoing
through the process of
determining the application. Amendments have been made to the
masterplan, with further
draft documents presented. However, the revised drafts presented
fall well short of being
acceptable, with outstanding issues including the gateway, footpath
connections within
and outside of the site, provision of open space and provision of
street trees remaining
outstanding issues together with access to the adjacent employment
allocation. The
applicant has declined to agreed to an extension of time to
consider the application.
15
7.1.17 The application proposes residential development outside of
the boundary of site
allocation STM1-H2, extending to the north by approx. 0.9ha of
adjacent employment site
allocation ST-E1.
7.1.18 The applicant has provided a breakdown within the Planning
Statement which assesses
the potential jobs growth associated with the recently permitted
and currently under
construction Aldi supermarket, sited within the residential
allocation STM1-H2, and the
potential jobs loss associated with a loss of the portion of the
employment site allocation
proposed to be residential use. The total site area of employment
allocation ST-E1 is
identified as 3.80ha in Policy E3.
7.1.19 Policy E6 seeks to retain and enhance existing and allocated
sites for employment uses
unless one of the following criteria is considered to be
demonstrated:
a) the site is vacant and no longer appropriate or viable as an
employment site – this may
include the need for an effective, robust and proportionate
marketing of the land and
buildings to be undertaken; or
b) redevelopment would maintain the scale of employment
opportunities on the site, or
would deliver wider benefits, including regenerating vacant or
unutilised land; or
c) the alternative use would not be detrimental to the overall
supply and quality of
employment land within the district; or
d) the alternative use would resolve existing conflicts between
land uses.
7.1.20 The proposal for additional residential land, submitted as
part of this application, removing
a portion of an employment allocation, is not considered to meet
the criteria of Policy E6
as stated above. No assessment has been provided demonstrating that
the employment
land is no longer appropriate or viable for employment use. Loss to
residential would take
approx. 24% of the employment allocation and the site is one of
only two employment
sites allocated for Stamford in the Local Plan.
7.1.21 The employment site is therefore considered to be important
in delivering Policy E3 of the
Local Plan, and the proposed extent of loss of the employment site
has not been justified.
The housing numbers outlined for the site allocation (STM1-H2) are
considered to be
deliverable on the wider site (including the 100 of the previous
outline permission), with
this 262 dwellings considered to be achievable on the residential
allocation despite the
permission for an Aldi store off Uffington Road.
7.1.22 In addition to the loss of employment land, the application
proposal and masterplan do not
clearly demonstrate sufficient access to the employment site. The
applicant has noted that
site access may not be possible from Ryhall Road as likely
envisaged at the site of making
the site allocation due to land ownership issues, potentially
resulting in vehicular access to
the employment site being required from Uffington Road through the
residential allocation.
This matter has not been adequately addressed in the masterplan to
cover the wider site,
with a sufficient access required from either Ryhall Road or
Uffington Road that minimises
conflict with neighbouring residential uses.
Draft Stamford Neighbourhood Plan
7.1.23 The Draft Stamford Neighbourhood Plan is currently at
Examination at the time of writing,
having been through the Reg 16 submission consultation. An
Examiners Report has not
been received and the Plan has not progressed to referendum. The
Stamford
16
Neighbourhood Plan therefore is considered to be a material
consideration, albeit with
limited weight at present whilst the Neighbourhood Plan goes
through to adoption (being
‘made’).
7.1.24 Policy 1: Integration of New Residential Allocations is
considered to be relevant to the
proposal. Whilst titled for Stamford North, the policy text
includes reference to this
application site, STM1-H2. The referenced Stamford North masterplan
is not considered to
be relevant to consideration of this application (being for a
different site), however the
thrust of the policy requirements with regards to street and
layout, green space and
landscaping, views, orientation and gateway features, public realm
and streetscape,
parking, pattern of layout and building, materials and climate
change adaptation are.
Further commentary on these specific points is discussed in the
next chapter below.
Principle of Development Conclusion
7.1.25 Taking the above policies into account, the principle of the
proposal is not considered to
be acceptable. That the site is an allocation within the Local Plan
and is previously
development land, are considered to be substantial benefits.
However, the criteria of site
allocation Policy STM1-H2 are not considered to have been met, with
a suitable
masterplan and design code being key to the development of the site
allocation as a
whole. This has not been adequately addressed, with criteria a)-d)
of the allocation policy
considered to remain outstanding. Further, the loss of employment
land from allocation
ST-E1 is not considered to be suitably justified. The proposal is
therefore considered to be
in conflict with Policies E6 and STM1-H2 of the South Kesteven
Local Plan and Sections
11 and 12 of the NPPF and associated Planning Practice Guidance.
Specific
environmental and technical issues, which support this conclusion,
are discussed in detail
in the following sections below.
7.2 Affordable Housing
7.3 The applicant includes Cross Keys Developments, a registered
provider of affordable
housing. The proposal includes provision of 64% affordable housing
on site, split between
affordable rent (65 units) and shared ownership (71 units).
7.3.1 This over provision of affordable housing, above the 30%
target outlined in Policy H2 of
the Local Plan, is considered to be a substantial benefit to the
proposal. The supporting
text to Policy H2 sets out a requirement for 343 additional
affordable dwellings to be built
in the District each year, a target that has not been met and that
demonstrates the
significant level of need for additional affordable dwellings in
the District.
7.3.2 Provision of 136 affordable dwellings, on a site allocated
for residential development and
in an area of the district with high house prices and therefore a
higher than average district
wide need for affordable dwellings, is therefore welcomed. The
split of affordable units
between affordable rent and shared ownership has been agreed with
the Council’s
Affordable Housing Officer.
7.4 Impact on the Character of the Area
7.4.1 Policy DE1 seeks to ensure development is appropriate for its
context. Further, paragraph
130 of the NPPF provides that planning policies and decisions
should ensure that
developments are sympathetic to local character and history,
including the surrounding
built environment and landscape setting, while not preventing or
discouraging appropriate
innovation or change. Section 12 of the NPPF seeks the creation of
well-designed
buildings and places. Section 11 of the NPPF seeks the effective
use of land, including
achieving appropriate densities.
17
7.4.2 Policy EN1 seeks to ensure that development is appropriate
for the character and
significant natural, historical and cultural attributes and
features of the landscape and
contribute to its conservation, enhancement and restoration. Policy
OS1 sets out
requirements for provision of open space on site in all major
developments.
7.4.3 The proposal is for the erection of 213 dwellings on a site
allocated for residential
development in the Local Plan and that is previously development
land. The proposal is
residential in nature that although is not in keeping with the
surrounding context, this will
be superseded by the subsequent completion of the allocated
site.
7.4.4 The proposal is considered to detract from the character and
appearance of the wider
area and is not respectful of its context. The proposal, whilst
mainly on an allocated site
for residential use and on previously development land is high in
density, in contrast to
both surrounding land uses and residential developments elsewhere
in the town. The
density at 46dph, or above 50dph taking into account the net
density, is considerably
higher than the approximate density identified in Policy STM1-H2 of
30dph. Whilst a
density above 30dph could be justified for the site given its
context, the proposed density
is considered to be overly high, with a detrimental impact on a
reduced area of public open
space to be provided on site. Further, the high density results in
larger flat development on
the site.
7.4.5 Whilst flats are not unwelcome on the site and assist in
providing a mix of housing in
compliance with Policy H4, 18 of the proposed flats are proposed at
the front entrance to
the site off Uffington Road across two buildings. These flat
buildings are considered to be
overly dominant on the street scene, creating large incongruous
landmark buildings at the
entrance to the site. The neighbouring retail and care home uses
and their associated built
forms nearby are noted, however these buildings also serve a
purpose, with the building
designed around that purpose. The proposed flat buildings are not
required on the
residential allocation site and are not required to be sited as
large features within a key
gateway site to the town when entering from the east.
7.4.6 The increased density of the proposal at 46dph gross density
is considered to result in a
detrimental impact and not considered to be in compliance with para
124 of the NPPF in
requiring well designed, attractive and healthy places. The
resultant high density scheme
provides an unattractive gateway to Uffington Road and results in
an under supply of
public open space on the site, with a narrow linear strip of open
space proposed alongside
the TPO tree belt, a large linear swale feature and a small
rectangular area of open public
open space. This reduction is on site public open space is
considered to result in a
scheme deficient in opportunities for future residents of the 213
dwellings to access open
space provision. This is further exacerbated through the lack of
suitable connections from
the site to neighbouring uses or to open spaces outside of the red
line site.
7.4.7 The proposal maintains the existing boundary TPO protected
trees to the south eastern
boundary. Further landscaping is proposed to the southern boundary
to Uffington Road, to
the northern boundary to the adjacent employment allocation and
then sporadically
throughout the development. The proposed high density is considered
to result in a
scheme deficient in suitable space for further landscaping
provision, including lack of
street trees (now an NPPF requirement) and with little wriggle room
in the scheme outside
of privately owned spaces for further landscaping
enhancement.
18
7.4.8 The nature of the site, being a linear site of previously
development land, is noted, and the
development of the site is not considered to negatively impact on
the wider landscape or
views to the site, except for those from the immediate area of
Uffington Road. However,
the lack of sufficient proposed landscaping is considered to
conflict with Policy DE1 d) and
e) and Policy OS1 with no well designed soft landscaping proposed
nor any nature
conservation or biodiversity enhancement.
7.4.9 The Council’s Principal Urban Design Officer has reviewed the
scheme as presented and
also provided feedback to the applicant and agent in consideration
of the scheme at pre-
application stage and throughout consideration of the application.
A draft Building for a
Healthy Life Assessment was provided by the Urban Design Officer
highlighting a series of
‘red’ outcomes (as opposed to green (good) or amber (moderate))
including for natural
connections, walking, cycling and public transport, facilities and
services, memorable
character, well designed streets and spaces, healthy street and
green and blue
infrastructure. The requirement for a positive response to Building
for a Healthy Life
(replacing identified Building for Life 12) is stated in Policy DE1
j). As submitted, the
application scores poorly against the categories of Building for a
Healthy Life, with a series
of categories identified as ‘red’ and none identified as
‘green’.
7.4.10 Policy DE1 of the Local Plan requires development proposals
to make a positive
contribution to local distinctiveness, vernacular and character of
the area and not
negatively impact on the street scene or townscape character of the
surrounding area.
7.4.11 As per the masterplan as discussed above, discussions have
been ongoing with the
applicant and agent to seek relevant amendments to the proposal.
The applicant has not
agreed to an extension of time to continue such discussions, with
the application as
currently presented considered to fall well short of the required
standard of design and out
of character for its location as a gateway feature to Stamford and
in conflict with Policy
DE1 and the relevant sections of the NPPF.
7.4.12 By virtue of its scale, design and appearance the proposal
is not considered to be acceptable in the surrounding context and
street scene and is therefore in conflict with Policies EN1, OS1
and DE1 of the Local Plan and Sections 11 and 12 of the NPPF.
7.5 Impact on Residential Amenity
7.5.1 The proposed development for 213 dwellings is not located in
close proximity to existing
dwellings, with non residential uses to the west, east and north,
and with a single dwelling
only in close proximity albeit across Uffington Road to the south.
That the remainder of the
wider site allocation to the east is yet to come forward is noted,
however the TPO tree belt
would form the majority of this boundary between dwellings on the
different sites. As a
result, the proposal is not considered to be detrimental to
existing neighbouring amenity.
7.5.2 The closest dwelling to the proposal is Virginia Cottage to
the south east of the site across
Uffington Road, located approx. 45m form the nearest proposed
dwelling (Plot 25).
Virginia Cottage lies to the rear of a landscaped boundary to
Uffington Road and with the
next nearest residential development of the adjacent care home to
the east of Virginia
Cottage, across a bridleway. Due to the separation distance,
boundary treatments and
intervening highway there is therefore not considered to be any
resulting amenity impact
on the dwelling of Virginia Cottage.
7.5.3 The northern boundary of the site is in close proximity to
the relatively recently completed
Cummins building, located on Stamford Business Park. The applicant
has submitted an
Acoustics Report (April 2021) which included noise monitoring at
two positions at the
19
northern end of the site adjacent to the McDonalds and Cummins
sites, with additional
attended monitoring at three locations to the southern and western
boundaries of the site.
7.5.4 The highest existing noise levels were recorded were in
proximity to the Cummins site
(identified as Stamford AvK in the report). The assessment
indicates that ‘Significant
adverse impact’ would occur due to low background levels and,
therefore, as implemented
within the design, where possible, external amenity spaces have
been moved away from
this shared boundary behind an access road and, where possible,
relocated behind
dwellings.
7.5.5 These relocated external spaces will benefit from both
distance attenuation and barrier
screening as provided by the intervening dwellings. Gardens are
generally located twice
as far back from the boundary as that of the noise logging meter
and therefore, distance
correction in the order of -6dB can be applied to these spaces. The
dwellings are all in
excess of 6.5 metre in height which, in accordance with the
principles of CRTN, will
provide barrier screening in excess of 15dB attenuation. On this
basis, noise levels in the
gardens will be in the order of 6dB below background noise levels
during the day,
equivalent to a BS4142 assessment of “low impact” and 1dB in excess
of background
noise levels during the night, equivalent to a BS4142 assessment
level marginally above
“low impact”. Given that use of the gardens is predominately a
daytime activity, this
marginal exceedance of the background noise level during the night
is not considered to
be significant.
7.5.6 Recommended mitigation includes: (i) that all habitable rooms
throughout the development be fitted with windows with a
minimum manufacturer’s rating of Rw 33dB. The sound reductions
should be achieved by the window unit as a whole including frames
and furniture.
(ii) Habitable rooms overlooking Uffington Road should be provided
with proprietary wall
or window mounted trickle vents to achieve background ventilation
in accordance with Building Regulations requirements. Vents, when
open, should have an acoustic rating equivalent to that of the
glazed portion of the window system.
(iii) all first floor habitable rooms which overlook Currys PC
World, McDonalds, the
northern access road or Stamford AvK should be fitted with a
passive ventilation system which provides an equivalent open area
to an open window or else a full mechanical ventilation system to
enable windows to be closed by residents at times when noise
generating activity is occurring.
(iv) gardens with an open view of Stamford AvK (Cummins) to the
west or north should be provided with solid fencing of minimum
height 2m and minimum density 10 kg/m2. Typically, this requirement
would be achieved with solid close boarded panels and concrete
gravel boards and would only apply to plots 188, 203 and 207.
7.5.7 The report has been assessed by the Council’s Environmental
Protection team who concluded that the proposal is acceptable in
noise impact terms providing the applicant shall implement the
recommendations for mitigation measures for the design and build
specification of the residential properties (acoustic glazing,
trickle vents, passive ventilation, orientation and layout of
properties) along with provision of acoustic fencing to boundaries
and gardens as detailed in the acoustic report.
20
7.5.8 The applicant has not submitted a Construction Management
Plan (CMP) to include
proposed mitigation measures to take account of neighbouring
impacts including dust and
noise. Any impacts on neighbours during the construction period
will be temporary during
construction only and subject to a planning condition requiring
submission of a CMP.
7.5.9 Taking into account the scale and nature of the proposal,
there is not considered to be an
unacceptable adverse impact on any residential amenity, subject to
conditions to include a
CMP and securing landscaping details and compliance with the
recommendations of the
acoustic report. The proposal is considered in this respect to
comply with Policy DE1 of
the Local Plan.
7.6 Highway Issues
7.7 The applicant has submitted a Transport Assessment (TA) in
support of the application
(March 2021). Proposed vehicular access would be from Uffington
Road, with a ghost
right turn to be provided. The proposed access replicates that
approved for the 100
dwellings approved as part of permission S17/0617. The access is
located within a 30mph
area and visibility splays of 43m can be achieved in both
directions.
7.7.1 The TA includes a traffic count model taken from the TRICS
database, demonstrating
traffic movements associated with the site of an additional 105 two
way movements in the
AM peak, and 99 two way movements in the PM peak. The TA then
models these
predicted traffic movements on the impact on the Uffington
Road/Priory Road/Morrisons
roundabout junction and includes background traffic growth from
committed developments
including the Aldi under construction. The junction analysis
demonstrates that for a
scenario of 2026 plus committed development plus development,
whilst there is a 4-13
second delay to arms of the junction, the junction remains
operating within capacity.
7.7.2 Pedestrian and cycling routes into the site would be from the
Uffington Road access, with
no pedestrian and cycling access outside of the red line at this
stage. The submitted
masterplan demonstrates vehicular, pedestrian and cycling access
outside of the red line
site into the adjacent site, with a link to the north of the TPO
tree belt, however insufficient
connections are shown outside of the wider site. A pedestrian link
connection to the north
east of the site, eventually linking to the existing public right
of way and to Stamford North
would be desirable to allow for wider footpath connections around
the town.
7.7.3 Representations have been made requesting that access to the
site is taken from Ryhall Road and not Uffington Road, instead with
use of the permitted Aldi access from Uffington Road only and a
vehicular route through to Ryhall Road. An access into the site
from Ryhall Road would be preferable as access to the allocated
employment site to the north, allowing for a separation in
employment and residential traffic, with the existing access road
to the north of McDonalds already providing access to commercial
uses. This scenario was likely envisaged at the Local Plan making
stage, however the applicant has suggested that such an access from
Ryhall Road is not deliverable. Notwithstanding the above, an
access from Uffington Road into this site, to link to a second
access from Uffington Road at the Aldi site is a beneficial access
scenario for residential uses, providing a loop road through the
site, with such an access also previously approved for residential
development (S17/0613).
7.7.4 Written comments from LCC Highways will be reported. LCC
Highways did provide pre- application advice to the applicant,
raising the following points:
• Principle of residential access established, ghost right turn
lane and central refuge requested;
• Access needs to be compatible with approved Aldi access;
21
• Existing footway to the north side of Uffington Road to be
widened to form a combined footway and cycleway;
• Qualifying criteria for a pedestrian crossing may not be met and
if so will not be required;
• Road and footway within the site should connect with the
Macmillan Way long distance footpath joining Ryhall Road;
• Pedestrian access encouraged to the employment and retail
provision north west of the site;
• Ramps/[platform junctions not advised within internal
layout;
• A Travel Plan will be required
7.7.5 The proposal would result in adequate access, parking and
turning facilities and would not have an unacceptable adverse
impact on highway safety. A Travel Plan has not been submitted
however would be acceptable to be conditioned. The proposed access
has been demonstrated to be safe and with proposed traffic
movements at the access and potential impact on the nearest
junction (Morrisons roundabout) is not considered to be severe. As
such the proposal is considered in this respect to comply with
Local Plan Policy ID2 and Section 9 of the NPPF.
7.8 Drainage
7.8.1 Policy EN5 of the Local Plan together with Section 14 of the
NPPF seek to direct
development to areas with the least probability of flooding,
together with implementation of
SuDS drainage where possible, in order to minimise surface water
runoff.
7.8.2 The site is located within Flood Zone 1, with no watercourses
located in proximity to the
site - the nearest the River Gwash approx. 120m to the east. The
site is previously
developed land and relatively flat for the majority of the site,
with a in levels to the south of
the site to Uffington Road.
7.8.3 The applicant has submitted a Flood Risk Assessment. This
sets out that approx. 57% of
the site is comprised of impermeable surfaces and that due to
underlying ground
conditions,
comprised of large areas of made ground, infiltration is considered
to be unsuitable and therefore it is proposed to restrict runoff
from the site using a vortex device (hydrobrake), with discharge to
the existing sewer which then discharges into the River Gwash, to
the east of the site. Two swale structures, proposed to the eastern
boundary of the site are proposed to achieve this whilst also being
positioned in an optimum position to capture standing water.
7.8.4 No strategy is provided for foul water drainage, however it
can be assumed that this will be discharged to the nearest foul
water sewer (likely under Uffington Road) either via a gravity
system or via a pumping station.
7.8.5 Anglian Water have assessed the proposal and have stated that
the sewerage system at present has capacity for the flows created
by the development. Anglian Water require additional information in
relation to the proposed surface water drainage strategy and this
could be conditioned. Subject to conditions, in this respect, the
proposal is considered to comply with Local Plan Policy EN5.
7.9 Ecology
7.9.1 The application site is previously developed land, with
extensive areas of hardstanding on the site and an eastern boundary
of TPO protected trees.
22
7.9.2 The applicant has submitted a Preliminary Ecological
Appraisal (March 2021). The appraisal found that although mainly
covered in hardstanding, the site also supports dense scrub
vegetation, mainly of introduced species such as buddleia.
7.9.3 For protected species, the site was considered to be
unsuitable for badger habitat, with no evidence of use by badgers
on site. Further the site is considered unsuitable for bat foraging
habitat, with little connectivity from the site for bats and the
boundary trees offering a low roost potential. No watercourses or
ponds were located on site. One pond was identified c.140m to the
north of the site, separated by an industrial unit and roads.
However, the wider habitat to the east of the site provides some
connectivity from this pond to the site.
7.9.4 The Appraisal submitted recommends that additional specific
surveys are required in
respect of assessing the potential for Great Crested Newts and
reptiles. Further, any
clearance works on site shall be outside of bird nesting season or
under the supervision of
an ecologist. A pre-commencement badger survey would also be
required to ensure
badgers have not become established on site.
7.9.5 The proposed mitigation measures for clearance works outside
of bird nesting season and
for submission of a pre-commencement badger survey can be
conditioned. Additional
species specific surveys are required to assess any impact upon
reptiles and Great
Crested Newts. Such surveys are time specific (spring and/or early
autumn) and have not
been submitted in support of the application. Such surveys are
required and would
normally assist in formulating the site layout, landscaping and
drainage strategy should
the surveys produce positive results.
7.9.6 The application proposes retention of the existing boundary
trees to the south east
boundary of the site together with further tree planting within the
site. The existing site,
subject to further species surveys, is not considered to hold
valuable habitats, with the site
previously developed and consisting of significant hardstanding on
site.
7.9.7 Due to the absence of additional recommended surveys for
reptiles and Great Crested Newts the proposal is therefore not
considered to comply with Local Plan Policy EN2. Should the
application be recommended for approval these surveys, together
with the other mitigation measures identified, would be
conditioned, however such surveys are normally required prior to
determination due to their influence of layout, landscaping and
drainage should the surveys produce positive results.
7.10 Heritage and Archaeology
7.10.1 The site is located approx. 390m from the Stamford
Conservation Area, 260m from the closest listed building (Grade II
Stamford Hospital site) and approx. 180m from St Leonard’s Priory
(Grade I and Ancient Monument). The proposal, for residential
development on previously developed land, with the site flanked by
two supermarket developments and intervening buildings, is not
considered to result in any harm to the setting of heritage assets
in accordance with Policy EN6 of the Local Plan and Section 16 of
the NPPF.
7.10.2 The applicant has submitted an Archaeology Desk Based
Assessment (April 2021) in
support of the application. The overall potential of the site in
archaeological terms is
assessed as moderate. This reflects that the site lies within an
area of multi-period
archaeology remains, ranging from pre-historic to post-medieval.
There is likely to have
been extensive disturbance to the site as a result of the previous
industrial activity on site,
including previous lime works and engineering works. A further
programme of
archaeological works is recommended.
7.10.3 Heritage Lincolnshire have been consulted and recommend that
further investigation, in
the form of trial trenching, is required in order to determine the
extent, character and date
of the archaeological deposits present. This could be secured
through a planning
condition.
7.11 Agricultural Land
7.12 The site is located within the built form of Stamford and is
previously developed land. Agricultural land classification is
therefore not considered relevant for this site.
7.13 Section 106 Heads of Terms
7.13.1 The proposal is major development for 213 dwellings and
would result in the need for S106 contributions including:
(i) NHS England - £140,580 towards Lakeside Healthcare – Stamford
and Glenside Country Practice – Castle Bytham;
(ii) Affordable Housing - 30% (64 dwellings) on site (although 137
proposed);
(iii) Provision of on site open green space, Local Area of Play
(LAP), Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) or suitable off site
contributions;
(iv) Community Centre/Village Hall improvements - £115,346
7.13.1.2 In the event that the application was acceptable in all
other respects, these contributions would ensure that local
infrastructure is suitably upgraded to cope with the additional
population. It is considered that these requirements would be
compliant with the statutory tests of the CIL regulations as well
as local and national policy requirements.
7.14 Sustainability and Climate Change
7.14.1 The proposal is for the erection of 213 dwellings. The
applicant has provided an Energy Statement (March 2021). This
Statement proposes compliance with Part L of the Building
Regulations, provision of water restrictors to minimise water use
to a 110 l/pp/per day, and provision of EV charging provision
throughout the development
7.14.2 The site is an allocated site for residential development
and located in close proximity to a number of services and
facilities, with supermarket provision, wider retail and employment
opportunities all located within 1km from the site.
7.14.3 Subject to an appropriate condition to secure sustainable
measures on site, the proposal in this respect is considered to be
in compliance with Local Plan Policy SB1.
8 Crime and Disorder
8.1 It is considered that the proposal would not result in any
significant crime and disorder implications. Lincolnshire Police
have been consulted and have no objections to the proposal.
9 Human Rights Implications
9.1 Articles 6 (Rights to fair decision making) and Article 8
(Right to private family life and home) of the Human Rights Act
have been taken into account in making this recommendation. It is
considered that no relevant Article of that act will be
breached.
10 Conclusion and Planning Balance
10.1 The proposal is for 213 dwellings mainly on a site allocated
for residential development, with part of the site allocated for
employment development. The site is identified as previously
developed land. The proposal includes that 64% of the proposed 213
dwellings on site will be affordable dwellings, significantly above
the 30% target of Policy H2.
10.2 The factors above are considered to be significant benefits
that weigh in favour of the proposal. Development on previously
developed land and on an allocated site is strongly
24
supported, as is the over provision of affordable dwellings in an
area of high need for affordable dwellings.
10.3 Despite these identified substantial benefits, the proposal is
not considered to comply with South Kesteven Local Plan Policies
STM1-H2, E6, EN1, OS1, and DE1. A masterplan and design code,
whilst submitted, is not considered to be acceptable for the wider
allocation site. The masterplan does not fully address further
criteria of Policy STM1-H2, with little connectivity provided
outside of the red line site and wider site allocation, a layout
that is considered to be detrimental to the street scene and not
respecting of its gateway location in the town.
10.4 The proposal includes provision of residential development on
part of a site allocated for employment use. This has not been
adequately justified and the criteria of Policy E6 are not
considered to have been met to justify the loss of employment land
provision. Further, the submitted masterplan and application do not
demonstrate sufficient access to the remainder of the employment
site, potentially having a sterilising impact on future employment
opportunities.
10.5 The proposed development is considered to be overly dense,
with insufficient provision of public open space provided on site,
contrary to policies OS1 and DE1.
10.6 Potential conflict is identified with Policy 1 of the Stamford
Neighbourhood Plan – Integration of New Residential Allocations.
However, the Neighbourhood Plan remains at Examination stage, with
unresolved issues at present and is therefore considered to carry
limited weight in decision making. The potential conflict with
Policy 1 relates to the design and layout of the proposal, as also
identified in conflict with relevant South Kesteven Local Plan
Policies.
10.7 The identified benefits of housing delivery on an allocated
brownfield site together with an overprovision of affordable
housing carry significant weight. However these factors are not
considered to outweigh the fundamental conflict with Local Plan
policies and the NPPF through poor design and layout and
unjustified loss of employment land.
11 RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 The application is recommended for REFUSAL for the following
reasons:
1) The proposal as submitted is of poor quality design and layout,
falling well short of an acceptable standard, and fails to suitably
reflect the gateway location to the town. The proposed density is
excessive for the context, resulting in deficiencies in public open
space and landscaping provision and in dominant and incongruous
buildings at the site entrance which is a key entrance point to the
town. Furthermore, the proposal, considered together with the
submitted masterplan and design code fails to demonstrate that the
wider site allocation would be developed holistically and with
provision of suitable connections to the surrounding area and town
centre. The proposal is therefore contrary to South Kesteven Local
Plan Policies STM1-H2, OS1, EN1 and DE1 and Sections 8, 9, 11 and
12 of the NPPF.
2) The red line application site incorporates an area of land
allocated in South Kesteven Local Plan Policy E3 for employment
development (ST-E1). The loss of this employment land is not
considered to be adequately justified, nor has it been demonstrated
that satisfactory access to the remaining employment allocation can
be achieved. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy E6 of the
South Kesteven Local Plan and Section 6 of the NPPF.
Standard Note(s) to Applicant:
25
• In reaching the decision the Council has worked with the
applicant in a positive and proactive manner by determining the
application without undue delay. As such it is considered that the
decision is in accordance with paras 38 of the National Planning
Policy Framework.
• Insufficient evidence has been provided to safeguard potential
reptile and Great Crested Newt populations. Further surveys are
required and potential amendments required to the layout, drainage
strategy and open space provision depending on the results of these
surveys.
Financial Implications reviewed by: Not applicable
Legal Implications reviewed by: Not applicable
26
Planning Committee
S21/1018
Proposal: Installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with
all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure.
Location: Land at Gonerby Moor, Great Gonerby, Grantham Applicant:
Ms Sarah Tapp, Lightsource SPV 187 Limited Agent: Rachel Gaffney,
Pegasus Group, Pegasus House, Querns Business
Centre Application Type: Full Planning Permission Reason for
Referral to Committee:
Major Development
Key Issues: Principle of development Visual Impact on Landscape
Visual Impact on dwellings or communities Cumulative Impact
Heritage Impact Noise Impact Highway Considerations Ecology and
Biodiversity Aircraft Movements and Associated Activities
Aboricultural Impact Flood Risk and Drainage
Technical Documents:
31
Report Author
01476 406080
Growth Regulatory Viking
Reviewed by: Phil Moore (Special Projects Manager) 18 October
2021
Recommendation (s) to the decision maker (s)
That the application is APPROVED conditionally
32
S21/1018 - Installation and operation of a Solar Farm together with
all associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure.
33
1 Description of Site
1.1 The application site comprises a series of agricultural fields,
with some hedgerows and
vegetation adjacent to the site boundaries. The A is partially
adjacent to the western site
boundary and there is a motocross track between two sections of the
site towards the
western site boundary. Great Gonerby is located approximately 1.3km
south-east of the
site with Grantham further beyond. Marston is approximately 2km
north and Allington
approximately 2.5km west of the site respectively. Wagtail Country
Park is located
immediately to the north of the site and is also accessed off Cliff
Lane. A broadly triangular
area to the south of the site between Great North Road (B1174) and
the A1 comprises
primarily commercial uses including Grantham north services, a
garden centre and
Downtown/ Boundary Mills retail store.
1.2 There are a number of existing and consented solar farms
located within the wider area,
including:
- Marston Solar Farm (4.9MW) located approximately 1km north-west
of the site;
- Pastures Farm Solar Farm (5MW) positioned approximately 1.4km
south-west of the site;
- Grantham Solar Farm (5MW) located approximately 3km north-west of
the site; and
- 49.9MW Solar Farm on Land South of the A1 (recently approved
under S20/1433) located approximately 3.3km north-west of the
site.
1.3 Allington Meadows SSSI is located approximately 1.5km
south-west of the site. The
Environment Agency’s Flood Map for Planning indicates that the
application site is located
within Flood Zone 1. The site comprises Grade 3b agricultural land.
There are no Public
Rights of Way (PROW) within or immediately adjacent to the
application site.
1.4 Belton House Registered Park and Garden is located
approximately 2.5km south-east of
the site. Conservation Areas as well as a number of Listed
Buildings are located within the
nearby settlements of Great Gonerby, Allington and Marston.
Allington village cross
(Scheduled Monument) is located approximately 2.8km west of the
site and the
churchyard cross in St Mary's churchyard (Scheduled Monument) is
approximately 2.3km
north of the site.
2 Description of Proposal
2.1 The application proposes the installation and operation of a
Solar Farm together with all
associated works, equipment and necessary infrastructure. Planning
permission for the
solar farm element is sought for a temporary period of 40 years
from the date of first
export of electricity to the electricity grid.
2.2 The proposed development comprises solar panels arranged into
linear arrays tilted at 25
degrees and facing to the south. The panels would have a maximum
height of up to 3m,
with a gap of approximately 1m their lowest edge and ground level.
This offers the
potential for grazing to occur alongside the development, with
livestock able to pass
beneath the panels. The solar panels would be mounted on a metal
framework supported
by pile driven foundations, without the need for concrete
foundations. Between each line
of solar panels there would be a gap of approximately 5.4m to avoid
overshadowing from
one solar panel to another. The cabling that links the solar panels
and inverters to the
substation would be connected via a network of shallow trenches
which would be
backfilled.
34
- Solar photovoltaic cells on panels arranged on a simple metal
framework facing south
to form tables (“arrays”);
- 15 Switchgear Substations, spaced around the site adjoining the
internal access roads;
- 30 Transformers, adjacent to the Switchgear Substations and
Inverters around the site;
- 30 Inverters, adjacent to the Transformers and Switchgear
Substations;
- A 132KV Substation;
- A Customer Substation;
- An Auxiliary Transformer;
- A Storage Building;
- A toilet;
- Security fencing around the site. Gates are included in the
fencing for access to the
site and to the field margins for maintenance access within each
field;
- Internal access track within the site;
- CCTV and site security systems.
2.4 The application is also accompanied by a Construction,
Decommissioning and Traffic
Management Method Statement to address the activities involved in
constructing the Solar
Farm, and decommissioning it at the end of its operational
life.
2.5 The application includes a landscaping plan showing that the
existing vegetation would be
infilled or reinforced with appropriate native tree or shrub
planting to enhance the visual
screening of the site and mitigate the impact of the
development.
2.6 The application states that the solar PV installation would
result in a reduction in carbon
emissions associated with energy generation equating to
approximately 14,600 tonnes of
CO2 per annum (equivalent to the removal of approximately 3,250
standard cars from the
road each year). The proposed solar PV installation is the
equivalent to the energy needs
of approximately 14,375 homes within the UK.
2.7 Access for construction and some maintenance purposes is
proposed to be from the
private road south of the B1174 serving the Aviagen Turkeys Ltd
site. A secondary access
for maintenance purposes is proposed to be taken from Cliff Lane
into the northern parcel
of land adjacent to the 132kV Substation.
3 Relevant History
Reference Proposal Decision Date S19/1407 Screening Opinion for a
solar
installation EIA Not Required
Policy SD1- The Principles of Sustainable Development in South
Kesteven
Policy SP1 – Spatial Strategy
Policy EN1 – Landscape Character
Policy EN3 – Green Infrastructure
Policy EN4 – Pollution Control
Policy EN6 – The Historic Environment
Policy ID2 – Transport and Strategic Transport Infrastructure
Policy DE1 – Promoting Good Quality Design
Policy RE1 – Renewable Energy Generation
4.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Section 8 – Promoting healthy and safe communities
Section 9 - Promoting sustainable transport
Section 11 – Making effective use of land
Section 12 - Achieving well-designed places
Section 14 – Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and
coastal change
Section 15 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Section 16 – Conserving and enhancing the historic
environment
5 Representations Received
5.1 Marston Parish Council 5.1.1 Marston Parish Council has no
objections to this application for a solar farm. However, it
must be made certain that no land belonging to LCC Highways
(alongside the A1) is given
up to the site as that land may be required for a link road from
Gonerby Moor roundabout
to Marston, in the future.
5.2 National Highways 5.2.1 No objection.
5.3 LCC Highways & SuDS Support 5.3.1 The vehicle movements
associated with the operation of a Photo Voltaic electricity
generating facility are very low. It is during the construction and
the decommissioning phases when vehicle activity is at its
greatest, as the materials and equipment are brought to and taken
away from the site and when the workforce is at its largest. The
proposal is to utilise the existing vehicle access on the B1174
Great North Road during the construction and decommissioning
phases. This access is a just very short distance away from the
strategic highway network (the A1), is of a suitable constructional
standard and has good visibility in both directions. This access
would therefore be suitable for the use proposed in this
application.
5.3.2 The application site has another existing vehicular access,
from Cliff Lane, which would not be suitable for construction and
decommissioning traffic. It is proposed that this access would be
used, by cars and vans as access for routine maintenance, once the
facility is operational. This occasional, infrequent use by light
vehicles would not be unacceptable, however it is suggested that
the following condition is included with any Consent that might be
granted for this Application to prevent inappropriate use of Cliff
Lane:
“Save for routine repair and maintenance work that may be necessary
once the development hereby permitted becomes operational, all
vehicular access and egress shall be made via the existing
vehicular access onto the B1174, Great North Road which presently
serves the existing Aviagen Turkeys site.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.”
5.3.3 Surface water falling on the individual PV units would simply
be cast onto the ground
beneath and would therefore be dispersed evenly over the site, much
the same as it is
already. The proposed development would therefore not be expected
to increase surface
water flood risk to the site or to neighbouring land and
property.
36
5.4 Upper Witham Internal Drainage Board
No objection following confirmation of a 6m buffer between the
development and the top of Toll Bar Drain’s banks.
5.5 Environmental Protection Services (SKDC) 5.5.1 No comments to
make.
5.6 Environment Agency 5.6.1 No comments to make.
5.7 Natural England 5.7.1 Based on the plans submitted, Natural
England considers that the proposed development
will not have significant adverse impacts on designated sites and
has no objection.
5.7.2 Under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management
Procedure) (England)
Order 2015 (DMPO) Natural England is a statutory consultee on
development that would
lead to the loss of over 20ha of ‘best and most versatile’ (BMV)
agricultural land (land
graded as 1, 2 and 3a in the Agricultural Land Classification (ALC)
system, where this is
not in accordance with an approved plan. We note the applicant has
confirmed the
classification to be Grade 3b.
5.7.3 Natural England welcomes the proposal to carry out ecological
enhancements on site and
the adoption of the ‘net gain ‘approach.
5.8 Historic England
5.9 Heritage Lincolnshire
5.10 The site for the proposed development lies in an area rich in
archaeological remains.
Cropmarks of prehistoric and Roman period occupation are recorded
in the area and
investigations nearby have revealed features and finds of Iron Age
and Roman period
date indicative of settlement. Evidence of medieval ridge and
furrow cultivation is recorded
in the area.
5.11 An Archaeological Desk Based Assessment and a Settings Impact
Assessment have
been submitted in support of the application. The DBA describes the
archaeological
remains recorded at and within the vicinity of the proposed
development area. It assesses
the potential for the presence of archaeological remains as
moderate, in particular for the
presence of remains associated with Iron Age / Romano-British
occupation (known from
archaeological investigations to the south of the current
proposal).
5.12 A field evaluation will be required to determine the presence,
significance, depth and
character of any archaeology deposits that may be impacted by the
proposal. This
programme should include non-intrusive and intrusive investigation
(geophysical survey,
followed by trial trenching).
5.13 It is considered that the site offers a potential for
archaeological remains to be present
based on the extent and type of remains recorded in the vicinity.
Insufficient information is
available at present with which to make any reliable observation
regarding the impact of
this development upon any archaeological remains.
5.14 Therefore, given this it is recommended that the developer
should be required to
commission a Scheme of Archaeological Work, in the form of an
archaeological evaluation
to determine the presence, character and date of any archaeological
deposits present at
37
the site. This evaluation should initially consist of geophysical
survey followed by a
programme of trial trenching.
5.15 Ministry of Defence
6 Representations as a Result of Publicity
6.1.1 This application has been advertised in accordance with the
Council's Statement of
Community Involvement and one letter of representation has been
received. The points
raised can be summarised as follows:
6.1.2 Support the application for the following reasons:
1) It is quite apparent that we must take whatever opportunities we
can to produce renewable energy.
2) This site is lower grade land ideally suited for such a
project.
3) It is situated in a very low lying area, consequently it is not
too visible except from the Gonerby Hills where there is no, nor
probably likely to be, development.
4) There is no impact on listed buildings, public footpaths,
heritage sites or SSSIs
5) It cannot be easily noticed from the A1.
6.1.3 The applicant has also submitted a statement of community
involvement document and
outlined the community engagement they have undertaken as
follows:
- On 15 October 2020 the 301 local households and businesses within
a 2.5km radius
of the site were sent an information pack outlining the proposal
and inviting them to a
virtual consultation event.
- Around 30 key stakeholders including the Ward Councillors, local
MP, Parish Councils
and the Leader of the Council were sent an information pack and
contacted directly to
ensure they were informed of the proposal.
- A newspaper advert was placed in the Grantham Journal on the 16
October 2020
outlining the proposal and inviting residents to join the virtual
consultation event.
- A virtual community consultation event held on Thursday 22
October 2020 and the
event was run as a pre-recorded overview of the project followed by
a live Q and A
session .
- Five stakeholders registered in advance to attend the event,
including representatives
from the site Parish Councils whilst another eleven councillors
either provided
feedback via phone or email confirming that they had received the
information and
would review this. Several councillors and one local organisation
asked for further
information following the event which was provided.
7 Evaluation
7.1 Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004
requires that the Local
Planning Authority makes decisions in accordance with the adopted
Development Plan,
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the
Development Plan is
the South Kesteven Local Plan 2011-2036 (Adopted January 2020).
There are no adopted
neighbourhood plans for the development area.
7.2 The policies and provisions set out in the National Planning
Policy Framework (July 2021)
are a relevant material consideration in the determination of
planning applications.
38
7.3 Principle of Development
7.3.1 The Local Plan sets out the Council’s aspirations for growth
in the district, with the 2036
Vision for South Kesteven supporting a diversified rural economy
and objective 14
promoting the positive use of renewable energy resources.
7.3.2 Local Plan Policy SD1 (Principles of Sustainable Development)
sets out the broad
principles for achieving sustainable development in South Kesteven.
The policy requires
consideration of a number of issues including taking measures to
take account of future
changes in the climate, avoiding flood risk, enhancing
infrastructure to support growth and
enhancing the natural environment.
7.3.3 Policy SP1 (Spatial Strategy) sets out the spatial strategy
for the district and seeks to
protect the best and most versatile agricultural land. Policy SP5
(Development in the Open
Countryside) limits development in the open countryside to that
which has an essential
need to be located outside of the existing built form of a
settlement and includes support
for rural diversification projects.
7.3.4 Policy RE1 (Renewable Energy Generation) states proposals for
renewable energy
generation will be supported subject to meeting the detailed
criteria as set out in the
accompanying Renewable Energy Appendix 3 and provided that:
a. The proposal does not negatively impact the District’s
agricultural land asset;
b. The proposal can demonstrate the support of affected local
communities;
c. The proposal includes details for the transmission of power
produced;
d. The proposal details that all apparatus related to renewable
energy production will be
removed from the site when power production ceases; and
e. That the proposal complies with any other relevant Local Plan
policies and national
planning policy.
7.3.5 A significant focus of the NPPF is to address climate change
which is emphasised within
the strategic policies and section 14. Para