S/165/00287/24: 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:                          Gleeson Regeneration Ltd and Cyden Homes Ltd

Location:                           Land at Halton Road and Ashby Road, Spilsby

Recommendation:             Approve with Conditions.

Officer:                             Andy Booth

Application Type:    Reserved Matters Application

Proposal:                Reserved Matters application relating to the erection of 600 dwellings, 3no. pumping stations, 2no. electricity sub-stations, provision of open space, landscaping, infrastructure, attenuation ponds and construction of vehicular accesses, (outline planning permission ref no. S/165/2238/20 for the erection of up to 600 dwellings and a medical centre with provision of associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure, estate roads and cycle ways, granted 9th May, 2022).

Location:                 Land at Halton Road and Ashby Road, Spilsby

Applicant:                Gleeson Regeneration Limited and Cyden Homes Limited

Members received a Reserved Matters Application relating to the erection of 600 dwellings, 3no. pumping stations, 2no. electricity sub-stations, provision of open space, landscaping, infrastructure, attenuation ponds and construction of vehicular accesses, (outline planning permission ref no. S/165/2238/20 for the erection of up to 600 dwellings and a medical centre with provision of associated open space, landscaping and infrastructure, estate roads and cycle ways, granted 9th May, 2022) at land at Halton Road and Ashby Road, Spilsby

The proposal was for a development of significant scale, on a Local Plan allocated site, being a major contributor to the strategic delivery of housing in the District.

The allocation and development of the site was important for enabling delivery of a much-needed new doctors’ surgery in the town.

Outline planning permission for the development of 600 dwellings was granted (with agreement from the Planning Committee) on 4^th November 2021, Minute No. 45 refers, in advance of a s.106 obligation being secured for necessary mitigation measures (to be informed by a detailed viability appraisal) to enable on-going negotiations and to give confidence for on-going support and commitment to the business case for the delivery a new surgery for Spilsby. The Committee instruction was for the subsequent scheme detail to also be presented to the Planning Committee.

The proposal had also been subject to a notable level of interest.

The main planning issues were considered to be:

• The principle and quality of development including S.106 requirements and viability.
• Technical and other considerations

Members were referred to the additional information contained on pages 1 to 6 of the Supplementary Agenda.

Andrew Booth, Development Management Lead Officer, detailed site and surroundings information to Members at Paragraph 2, together with the description of the proposal at Paragraph 3, pages 27 to 35 of the report refer.

Matt Smith of MJ Gleeson and Martin Ingram of ARP Associates spoke in support of the application.

Members were invited to put their questions to the speakers.

-        A Member queried the affordable housing provision within the reserved matters application.  The Member noted that although policy guidance ordinarily required 30% affordable housing, equating to approximately 180 dwellings, the figure had first been reduced to 100 and then ultimately to 45.  Expressing concern for those residents who would consequently not have access to affordable homes, the Member queried whether any further enhancement of the affordable housing offer could be achieved. 

-         

In response, Mr Smith acknowledged the concerns raised and outlined the history of the site’s viability issues, which had been recognised at the outline planning stage. It was explained that, unusually, the Section 106 agreement had not been concluded at the outline phase due to the viability constraints and instead a condition had required the affordable housing package to be brought forward with the reserved matters.  The applicant further explained that significant off-site highway works and other infrastructure commitments had informed the viability assessment.  Although additional affordable housing could not be secured through the Section 106 process, the applicant confirmed that a substantial proportion of the development would be delivered by a low-cost housing provider offering homes significantly below standard market values, providing what they described as “affordable”.

-        A Member requested further detail on the intention for the green space located at the centre of the site. Mr Smith explained that the area included a naturally occurring pond, an additional water body and established vegetation, all of which had been identified for retention at the outline stage.  It was stated that the green space would remain largely in its existing form but would incorporate supplementary planting and a new network of informal paths.  The central open space had been enlarged from its outline configuration, and low-impact play and “trim?trail” features, such as logs and boulders positioned alongside pathways, were proposed.

-        A Member sought reassurance regarding the site’s foul and surface water drainage arrangements, noting previous concerns raised locally. Clarification was also requested about future road adoption and household waste collection. Mr Smith confirmed that all main roads within the development would be adopted and only short private drives serving a small number of dwellings would remain unadopted, which reflected common practice nationally.  To facilitate waste collection, bin collection points would be provided at the ends of the private drives.  With regards to drainage, Mr Smith confirmed that foul drainage fell within the remit of Anglian Water and they had acknowledged responsibility to receive foul flows from the development as part of the existing planning consent.  Surface water drainage had been over?engineered to provide a high level of reassurance.  Mr Smith stated that attenuation features had been enlarged, that run?off rates in both typical and extreme storm events would be no worse than existing greenfield conditions and that a management company would maintain the drainage infrastructure. 

-        Following a query on how management company charges would operate and whether residents would be liable prior to occupation, Mr Smith explained that the management company had not yet been appointed but that standard practice was for charges to fall only to residents once properties were occupied.  Until that time, responsibility rested with the developer.  Mr Smith further stated that only reputable management companies were used and that charges would not rise excessively, increasing only in line with typical inflation.

-        A Member queried the Section?106 contribution for education places, noting the potential scale of need given the number of dwellings proposed.  Mr Smith clarified that pupil?place calculations were undertaken solely by the County Council using their established methodology.  Although the Member expressed personal reservations about those figures, Mr Smith confirmed that the assessment provided was not generated by the developer.

Following which, the application was opened for debate.

-        A Member commented that large?scale developments within the county often gave the impression that Lincolnshire was being short?changed, with limited Section 106 contributions and insufficient focus on placemaking. He further stated that by contrast, the proposal appeared to buck that trend and expressed an interest in seeing how it progressed.

-        A Member raised concern regarding the apparent absence of 135 affordable housing units. In response, the Development Management Lead Officer acknowledged the concern and explained that although policy sought a higher number, the viability work undertaken at the outline stage, along with further detailed assessment since then, had established that the scheme couldn’t realistically deliver this.  Members were further advised that the reduced number of affordable homes remained policy?compliant when assessed against the justification provided and had been accepted by all relevant parties, including the Housing Team. They added that due to the long delivery timescale of the development, it would be standard practice for the legal agreement (still to be finalised) to include review mechanisms at appropriate stages to reassess viability.

The Development Management Lead Officer reminded Members that the Committee’s decision at the meeting related solely to the reserved matters application, specifically the detailed design and layout of the scheme. The revised recommendation sought delegated authority for officers to negotiate minor adjustments to the internal layout, as requested by the County Council in its role as Highways Authority.

-        A Member commented on the quality of the proposed green spaces, describing them as attractive and encouraged the applicant to engage with a local charity involved in environmental planting and expressed enthusiasm for seeing the green spaces enhanced in this way.

-        A Member raised the broader issue of affordable housing, observing that discrepancies between policy expectations and viability outcomes were becoming increasingly common across applications. They suggested that the mismatch risked creating unrealistic expectations among residents and argued that a review of policy thresholds might be necessary.

Following which, the application was Proposed and Seconded for approval in line with officer recommendation.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for approval in line with officer recommendation was carried.

Vote:         10 In favour            1 Against              1 Abstention

RESOLVED:

That the application be approved subject to the following conditions: