Object

Representation ID: 3069

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs ANN BAILEY

Barrowby is a village this 459 proposed house would with site SKPR 272 nearly double the size with the majority being new houses, we have a small school, 1 shop, amenities full to capacity and roads not wide or safe enough to take on the extra traffic. We would have 2 separate communities with the original village which now has no shops separate from the new houses unless cars were used to travel round the village. I am therefore against this proposed site for safety, size, and identity

Object

Representation ID: 3070

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Georgina Brearley

Would like Barrowby to remind village rather than creeping nearer to Grantham
The local amenities are already stretched
Parking down Barrowby High Rd and Rectory Lane for school runs are overstretched already .

Object

Representation ID: 3071

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Karen Jessop

Whilst i fully appreciate the need for more housing of the need3d type - affordable - the new plan would add 455 units. Given the already approved developments on low road, barrowby, the adds 725 houses to barrowby. Barrowby is a village with one school and one shop. It does not have the infrastructure for 725 new dwellings. Reedings road where i live, will become increasingly busy due to low road development. High road and especially low road (by the pub) cannot cope with more traffic and the Drift has a single lane blind corner.

Object

Representation ID: 3072

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Geoff Bidwell

Destroying the countryside. No need for these houses here....

Object

Representation ID: 3077

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Pennifold

The traffic generated will be too great. The school will be overwhelmed.

Object

Representation ID: 3079

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Norris

The proposed housing developments in Barrowby, totaling 725 homes, conflict with the local need of 167 dwellings. The sites are deemed unsuitable for large-scale growth due to poor public transport, a strained primary school, and infrastructure constraints. The plan also faces environmental issues, contradicts the council's own site logic, and breaches spatial strategy by effectively doubling the village's size.

Object

Representation ID: 3082

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Pat Pennifold

Hello
I object to the proposed site SKPR-327 because of the following reasons:
The village infrastructure is not there to support an additional 455 homes, in addition to the 221 of SKPR-272.
The roads are already becoming very busy, with 'boy' racers, and general traffic.
The school is already at capacity.
There are no doctors or dentist surgeries in the village, and Grantham practices are already full.
There is now a bigger litter problem.
There is also more noise.
The site is also perfectly good agricultural land, and should be utilised in this manner.

Sincerely
Pat Pennifold

Object

Representation ID: 3111

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr edward richardson

Not suitable for the reasons outlined by the parish council, plus all the land has been in midtier environmental schemes for years providing a haven for wildlife and biodiversity and acting as a valuable green corridor. As well as the footpaths on fields wider margins have been created and villagers have been free to walk their dogs and themselves around the field margins and enjoy the mature hedgerows. All this will be lost with this development.

Object

Representation ID: 3116

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jayne Stowell-Brodie

Road infrastructure is inadequate for even the existing village size; a single, curved narrow road (Low Road) connects Grantham and the A52. Much on-street parking, especially during school runs, which reduces the road to a single lane. There are no cross walks nor traffic calming. The Drift is also too narrow and mostly one lane. Bridges on the Drift and Low Road are light vehicle only.

The small school with no parking is in a remote historic part of the village and cannot take the existing in-village demand. Any development should include relocation of the school and include adequate parking.

Object

Representation ID: 3126

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Mr William Richardson

Be awful for the environment. Between the mature hedges being torn up, wildlife loosing habitats and bees loosing plans to pollinate. Just bad all round.

Object

Representation ID: 3127

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Crosby-Stockwell

Barrowby is a small village, which is slowly being enveloped with Grantham due to the new builds being developed. The village simply does not have the infrastructure. My biggest concern is the strain on roads within the village, such as access to a1/a52 - increasing traffic through the village to junctions which are already overloaded and congested.

Comment

Representation ID: 3136

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Artiom Biriukov

Barrowby village don't need to be bigger! 745 houses what for??reject this planing and stop build new houses

Object

Representation ID: 3148

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Simons

I object to this proposed plan due to environmental reasons as well as the impact on surrounding properties.

Object

Representation ID: 3212

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Townhill

This is farm land and should not be built on

Object

Representation ID: 3223

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Tom Strawson

This proposed site would completely overload the villages and the west of Granthams roads, not the mention the impact on flooding downstream in the town itself. If the skdc wish to meet these housing targets, I believe a stand alone purpose built town or village would be a more future proof option instead of overloading current roads and services.

Object

Representation ID: 3251

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Caitlin Cooney

• The scale of growth is totally excessive
• Strain on local services / Risk of an unconnected, Car dependant state
• Increase traffic
• Harm to the village setting
• Existing new build estates across Grantham left empty as no one is buying
• Site refusal in 2010 - nothing has changed
• SKPR-318 another strain on Barrowby
• The loss of best and most versatile agricultural land - 100% prime farming land between Grade 1-2
• Sewage works unable to cope with the proposed
• Would almost double the village size

Object

Representation ID: 3270

Received: 24/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Dan Beard

I'm writing to oppose the granting of this planning permission. The village's infrastructure is already struggling to cope with the current population. Adding more homes would put an unacceptable strain on local roads, schools, and community facilities. We need to prioritize sustainable development that benefits existing residents, not exacerbate existing problems. I urge you to consider the long-term impact on our village's quality of life.

Object

Representation ID: 3316

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Ms Sally Forest

I object to the proposal to build an additional 455 house on land east of Westry Corner /The Drift Barrowby.
We are already accommodating 270 extra houses in the village. Any extra houses would turn the village into a mere suburb of Grantham . It would np longer seem like a village at all.
The roads in the village do not need a greater volume of traffic passing through.
There is no post office and the village school is already full.
I believe we have had our fair share of new builds with the current land development ,

Object

Representation ID: 3327

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Thomas Parrish

The proposal would add 455 additional homes to our village. The village that once was has almost been destroyed and adding 455 more homes would ultimately make Barrowby part of Grantham with only the a1 separating us. The school and other amenities aren't sufficient for such proposals.

Object

Representation ID: 3344

Received: 25/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Norris

Object as proposal would double size of Barrowby, when added to existing planned developments. Village infrastructure (drainage, sewage, utilities) & services inadequate with no plans to develop or add to these. E.g it is understood Anglian Water are already struggling to support the existing community. The proposed development is too far for the new residents to walk to the Primary School etc = new residents will need to use cars = traffic & congestion will increase. The development will encroach on open countryside & A1 agricultural land which is understood to have legal protections. Development will undermine existing community.

Object

Representation ID: 3355

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Caunt

I believe this planning application should be declined as it would change the nature and very fabric of the village of Barrowby as it is today and would impact negatively on many peoples lives in this village.

Object

Representation ID: 3359

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Philip Extall

I object to the potential development of the area on the map marked as SKPR-327.
I believe the development would have a detrimental impact on the local environment of the village of Barrowby, the natural and human environment could suffer from the years of development planned. An increase in vehicle movement would increase noise, pollution and traffic congestion within the village. There is limited public transport to negate the increase in traffic. Local infrastructure lacks the capacity to cope with an estimated 455 houses, the village primary school is over subscribed and no doctors surgery.

Object

Representation ID: 3361

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Allan Freeman

Barrowby has already grown exponentially without any improvement to the infrastructure. The addition of this proposed development will almost double the size of the VILLAGE in less than 10 years. Why are we being unfairly targeted when other villages are left undeveloped? Our roads through the village are already struggling with the volume and size of traffic and this would exacerbate the problem! We have no doctors, dentists or other medical facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 3368

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Becky KERSHAW

I object to SKPR327 and SKPR272
Building in Barrowby, Grantham.
We moved to Barrowby as it was a lovely village. It is now getting bigger and more part of Grantham and will no longer be classed as a village. The school is not big enough for more children.
There is already too much traffic coming through Barrowby without adding more houses.
Also information says you have to give so many houses to social housing. We do not want immigrants being moved into the village.

Object

Representation ID: 3385

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Andrew Foster

Combined with SKPR-272, the 725 dwellings proposed for Barrowby as part of the plan represent 4.1% of the 17720 new dwellings required in SKDC. However, Barrowby (population ~2500) only represents 1.7% of the SKDC total population (143400 from 2021 census). So Barrowby is proposed to take on well over double its fair share while other areas has seemingly been left out.

According to the 2011 census, Barrowby had 840 households. This additional 725 almost doubles that, which doesn’t feel in keeping with the village nature or Barrowby.

Object

Representation ID: 3400

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Jones

Will these developments change the village status to a small town?
There are numerous new houses being built and remain unsold.
The Ilke project has stalled due to insolvency and houses are incomplete.
The road infrastructure will not be able to meet the proposed traffic expectations.
Will schools, shops and community services be augmented to accommodate?

Object

Representation ID: 3425

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Kerry Measures

I have provided a list of the many reasons I would like to object against this proposal but this is not limited to as the list is endless. The proposal for this site is not suitable and not practical.
This site takes away everything that the Barrowby village is.

Comment

Representation ID: 3431

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Dave Parker

Plan involves loss of BMV agricultural land.
Plan exacerbates existing, significant infrastructure challenges which must be addressed before the site is released.
Plan adds to existing local developments on at least 3 sites which are yet to be completed. 327 should not be considered for release until these have been substantially progressed / occupied.
Plan will generate additional vehicle movements, worsening existing localised congestion and road safety issues that are impacting on the physical integrity and heritage significance of the village conservation area.

Object

Representation ID: 3444

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Miss HELENA ROBERTSHAW

I am writing to object about the proposed plans for further housing developments in the village of barrowby on the corner of Westry Corner/ The Drift.
Development on the outskirts of the village will:
-damage the character of the village and aesthetics of the local area.
-increase traffic problems and pollution, particulary through the historic centre of the village.
-put further strain on inadequate local services such as schools, public transport and doctors.
-damage wildlife habitat by removing trees and hedges that are critiacl to local flora and fauna.
-impact on a well used and popular footpath.

Object

Representation ID: 3465

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Handley

Planning application SKPR-327 is unsound and inconsistent with both national and local planning policy
because it:
Fails to support or enhance local services, contrary to the requirement for rural sustainability (NPPF, SP2).
Exacerbates traffic congestion without mitigation, risking “severe” highway impacts (NPPF).
Overwhelms infrastructure with no evidence of coordinated upgrades.
Exceeds school capacity without proposing educational investment.
Therefore, this proposal should be removed form the ‘Plan’ as this proposal, along with SKPR-272 increases
the households in Barrowby by 80% without any associated increases in infrastructure, amenities and
education provisions.