S/165/02238/20: View the plans and documents online, please click on the Application Number.  (Please note:  If viewing as a pdf document, this hyperlink is not available).

 

Applicant:                             Gin Property (Spilsby) Ltd

 

Location:                              Land at Halton Road and,

Ashby Road,

Spilsby

 

Recommendation:             Approval with Conditions

 

Officer:                                   Andy Booth

 

 

Application Type:  Outline Planning Permission

 

Proposal:                  Outline erection of up to 600no. dwellings and a medical centre with provision of associated open space, landscaping, estate roads and cycleways.

 

Location:                  Land at Halton Road and Ashby Road, Spilsby

 

Applicant:                 Gin Property (Spilsby) Ltd

 

Members received an application for outline erection of up to 600no. dwellings and a medical centre with provision of associated open space, landscaping, estate roads and cycleways.

 

This application sought outline planning permission for residential development of up to 600 dwellings, a Medical Centre, open space, structural landscaping, estate roads and cycleways on 39ha of land to the east of Spilsby between Ashby Road and Halton Road.  The site was based on an allocation in the East Lindsey Local Plan.

 

The application had been called in to be heard at committee for the reasons outlined at Paragraph 1.1 (agenda page 35 refers).

 

Members were referred to the Supplementary Agenda which included comments from the NHS regarding the Medical Centre and Highways regarding a request for further conditions.  The Development Management Lead Officer confirmed that the conditions requested by the Highways Department had been agreed with the applicant and were therefore to be considered implicit to the recommendation and included in any conditions agreed on approval.

 

The Development Management Lead Officer detailed the site and surroundings information to Members, which were contained with the report presented, Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.7 refers (Agenda pages 35 to 36 refers) and displayed on the presentation slides.

 

The main Planning issues were considered to be:

 

·         The principle and quality of development.

·         Technical considerations

·         S.106 requirements, viability and other considerations.

 

As the application was for Outline permission and the planning recommendation was an unusual one (agenda page 51, para 9.1 refers), the Development Management Lead Officer detailed the reasoning behind the request for authority to be delegated to the Assistant Director Planning and Strategic Infrastructure to further discuss the way forward for the scheme.  It was noted that due to the size of the scheme (600 houses plus a medical centre) the matter was considered a long term project, and was expected to take many years and numerous applications regarding the implementation of the reserved matters.  He concluded by drawing attention to the urgency regarding the delivery of the medical centre as one of the main reasons for the unusual methodology being applied to the matter.

 

There was one speaker for this application, the applicant’s agent Mr Michael Braithwaite.

 

Once the speaker had concluded his presentation, Members were invited to ask questions.

 

One Member queried that although the matter was an Outline application and they could not go into details, Sports England had commented regarding the lack of sports facilities for young persons.  The Member commented further on a lack of references to health and wellbeing for young people.  Therefore, Mr Braithwaite was asked if bearing in mind the size of the development, would not some sports-based facilities be desirable?

 

Mr Braithwaite responded that 1.5 hectares were being put aside for informal use and felt that some of that land could possibly be used for sports, noting that encouraging less formal sport facilities allowed a wider provision, stating it could be a viability issue.  He acknowledge that Sports England had requested the provision of more formal sports facilities, however he did not believe that could be delivered within the site, and he noted that the less formal approach was preferred by his client.

 

Another Member noted that according to the plans, space had been left for plenty of green spaces and he appreciated that, but considered that there needed to be a sense of place and community factored into the design of the site and queried as to the measures to be put in place in respect of the green issues.

 

Mr Braithwaite responded that one of the key strategy concerns would be the drainage strategy with six large attenuation ponds to assist in the alleviation of standing water or flood issues.  He continued that within the master plan, there was an intention to protect key local habitats including the emphasis of public rights of way into the town.

 

He concluded his response by informing Members that with regards to renewables, the application was Outline only and therefore there was no strategy regarding renewables at that time.  He considered that future plans would include any renewables that would be statutorily required at the time of the application.

 

One Member noted that a recent development by the same developer had not included sufficient room for parked vehicles leading to congestion and a concern that emergency vehicles would not be able to traverse the estate.  It was requested that the developer bear parking in mind with regard to any new applications and either establish a communal parking area or provide sufficient parking spaces.

 

Mr Braithwaite responded that the developer was attempting to avoid the development of cul-de-sacs within the estate. 

 

One Member commented that he considered that the development would have no bearing on the infrastructure around it as it could not influence better access to the town.

 

When queried regarding attaining a zero carbon rating for the development, Mr Braithwaite returned that when the Reserved Matters Applications were filed, they would comply with all energy efficiency standards in place at that time.

 

One Member queried as to why the 600 dwellings on the outskirts was not designed as a mixed development, making housing the fundamental cornerstone but with a mixture of housing and supporting commercial uses to address the rural nature of the community.

 

Mr Braithwaite returned by informing the Member that the Applicant had been guided by ELDC policy to support the town centre, including cycle and walking routes, the application was  also driven by national policy and support by Spilsby Town Council to encourage investment in the town centre.

 

Concern was raised regarding transportation from the development into Spilsby and the Development Management Lead Officer informed Members that no specific transport scheme for integration with Spilsby was proposed.

 

Further concerns were raised regarding transportation from Spilsby to other urban conurbations but other than an expressed wish that the Applicant would make the site an exemplar around green issues, no consensus was reached.

 

One Member considered the application to be good value, noting that the town council approved of the application and that compared with other “bolt on” applications the layout was good.

 

He was however, concerned by paragraph 7.21 of the report regarding viability which discussed the educational contribution declining from £2M to zero – noting that he had not seen the viability report and admitted to some confusion as to the fusion of 30% affordable housing and education contribution being funded from the same money and queried whether an “either/or” decision would be necessary.

 

The Panel’s Legal Advisor informed Members that the difficulty with building 600 dwellings was that it was necessarily a long term plan, with sections potentially sold to different developers at different times.  Therefore it was difficult for the Agent to answer some of the questions put to him.  She considered that if Members looked at the whole, there was a possibility that in five years it would be time to consider the viability issue, but that was an issue which would not become valid until much further down the timeline.

 

The Member responded that he was minded to support approval of the delegation and negotiation recommendation, but highlighted that consideration of affordable housing and education needed to be addressed.

 

The Development Management Lead Officer responded that all the points raised were important, but the medical centre was the priority identified in the Local Plan.  He continued that the negotiators would look at other particulars in order to provide the best mix of benefits for the rest of the Members aspirations.

 

The Assistant Director Planning and Strategic Infrastructure reminded Members that it would be helpful if an indication on the required priorities which they would prefer to see could be given.  He went on to reflect that as a broad principle, the application had already been accepted baring the committee’s approval, however future applications would need to be in line with any regulations in place at that time.

 

One Member considered that any emphasis should include the green agenda, with a holistic provision to ensure individuality to the site.  He was reminded that at the current stage of the planning process, they were not able to say what was required.  He conceded the point, but emphasised the Committee should be supportive, but be mindful for the need to a holistic approach due to the size of the site.

 

One Member considered the proposal to be premature and considered it to be outside the definition of an Outline Planning Proposal.  The Development Management Lead Officer confirmed to the Member that this point had been discussed and the Committee’s role was to agree in principle to approve further consideration and negotiation.

 

Further discussion regarding the need to decide between education and affordable housing took place with the need to give direction regarding the priorities agreed below:

 

·         Education

·         Sports Provision

·         Social Housing

 

It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved with delegation to officers to continue negotiations and upon being put to the vote, the proposal was carried.

 

Vote:                           7 in favour                 2 Against                   1 Abstentions

 

RESOLVED:

 

That Planning Permission be approved subject to further negotiations and the completion of a s106 obligation.

 

(NOTE: Councillor Kemp returned to the Chamber at 11.15am)