(public pack)agenda document for planning committee, 28/10

(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)
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
(Pages 55 - 77)
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)
Location: Roseland Business Park, Long Bennington, NG23 5FF
(Pages 97 - 126)
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
(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