Vaculug's store plans for Grantham rejected by South Kesteven District Council over parking and safety objections
Plans for a new convenience store have been rejected due to safety concerns around vehicles parked on the nearby road.
South Kesteven District Council’s planning committee rejected Vaculug Traction Tyres' plans for a new convenience store due to highway issues and the loss of informal public space.
The decision was against planning officers recommendations.
Vaculug, in Gonerby Hill Foot, Grantham, planned a store with a 21-space car park on nearby council-owned land.
Lincolnshire County Council’s highways department had raised concerns about increased street parking around school times affecting safety.
Find out about planning applications that affect you at the Public Notice Portal
Although Vaculug revised their plans to include 49 parking spaces on the existing site, these concerns persisted.
Suresh Raj, owner of Gonerby Hill Groceries, and local residents worried about the store’s impact on businesses, traffic, noise, and green space.
Despite over 50 objections and alternative suggestions, planning officers found the parking provisions adequate.
Ward district and county councillor Paul Martin (Con) accused the developer of being misleading by claiming the car park was underused, providing photos showing it full, and asserting that it would meet “underserved” needs, citing three small businesses within a short distance.
“Anyone who knows this area well will tell you that the car park that was claimed to be under-utilised is constantly full and has been for decades,” he told the meeting today (Thursday, August 8).
He pointed to previous applications being refused on the grounds of highway safety.
“Of all the roads in my county council division, this stretch is one of the most concerning,” he added.
Town and district councillor Paul Stokes (Ind) called the recommendation 'utter madness' due to numerous objections and lack of support from Lincolnshire Highways.
“Whilst there have been modifications to the car park, I believe this is now creating a rat run where traffic will fly through the entrance and out the exit into Orchard Close.
“I can just see there being a real accident on that road. This will only create more opportunities for that to happen.”
He noted previous refusals of other applications for highway safety.
He added further concerns about lighting within the application.
David Mardle urged councillors to consider the distance to the nearby school and dangers to schoolchildren, noting speeds of 30 to 50 miles an hour.
“I've lived here for 11 years and often see vehicles travelling up and down the hill at speeds in excess of 50 miles an hour,” he said.
He said a speed camera along the road was nearly a mile further down and did not help with speed control along that section of the road.
He urged traffic calming measures, which were missing from the plans.
Agent Emma Lancaster argued the site could be better used, with the store serving local and passing customers.
“Whilst we know there are shops in the local area, these are typically very small and provide limited choice for local residents,” she said.
She acknowledged that street parking was a concern given the site’s proximity to the local school. However, she noted that planning officers had accepted the trip creation and replacement parking and had not raised concerns about the number of spaces.
“Despite some lingering concerns about on-street parking, your highways officer does not say the level of impact would be severe,” she told councillors.
“And this is a test when considering planning applications; it is a high bar, and one which the Labour government proposes to raise through changes to the NPPF later this year.”
The council's planning officer concluded that the store's impact on the surrounding highway network was manageable and compliant with national and local planning policies.
They said there was no planning mechanism to compel customers to use car parks and were unclear what other actions the planning authority could take to address parking issues on surrounding roads.
Issues like pollution, drainage, and road damage were to be managed through specific conditions.
The decision was recommended despite acknowledging that there was no pressing need for another convenience store given existing local businesses.
Several councillors noted that it was rare for Lincolnshire County Council’s highways office to object to planning applications, and several gave it heavy weight.
Coun Paul Wood (Ind) suggested that although Lincolnshire County Council didn’t use the word “severe” in terms of risk, the fact that they had objected could weigh “quite heavily” on the application.
He added that the county had clearly indicated there were safety issues, stating “I find it very hard to not take that advice on board” and emphasising that he couldn’t ignore the advice given.
Coun Tim Harrison’s (Ind) son had attended the nearby school, and he said there had “always been issues there”.
He said speeding cars were evidenced by the existing speed camera and remained concerned about children crossing the road safely, particularly around traffic turning right coming down the hill.
Coun David Bellamy (Con) said he remained concerned about on-street parking, including vans and articulated lorries stopping at the side of the road to pop into local stores.
Coun Patsy Ellis (Ind) felt evidence was provided by a combination of factors including the speed limits on approach, the slope of the hill, and the constant traffic going in and out.
“This to me screams a safety nightmare,” she said.
Emma Whittaker, the council's democratic services officer, however, said LCC had not presented evidence to suggest people would not use the car park and warned the authority would not defend their decision at appeal.
Legal adviser Martha Rees added that LCC's concerns related mainly to the operators' inability to guarantee that existing car parking issues wouldn't be worsened but said officers thought mitigation was possible via a car parking management plan.
Councillors refused the plans due to parking issues, safety concerns for schoolchildren, and loss of green space.
