Comment

Representation ID: 2901

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England has concerns that the site falls within BMV land. We recommend that GI should considered strategically across to the adjoining site.

Object

Representation ID: 3031

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Shirtcliffe

Village does not have the infrastructure or facilities for more housing

Comment

Representation ID: 3034

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Bridget Wilson

Barrowby is losing its identity as a village. Hundreds more new builds will ruin the look at feel of Barrowby, which is gradually becoming joined up with Grantham town as the estates head outwards towards Dysart Road. More anti social behaviour will follow. SKDC should consider the concerns raised by current residents rather than sideline them in favour of the government’s continuous push to build. Barrowby is not the right place for further development like this!

Comment

Representation ID: 3058

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

Both SKPR-327 and SKPR-272 are very close to a Veteran Pendunculate Oak (ATI no 157239). ati.woodlandtrust.org.uk
We ask that this tree be individually identified and protected in any plans, with a suitable root protection area designated.

Object

Representation ID: 3080

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Norris

The planned Barrowby developments are problematic for multiple reasons. The addition of 725 homes vastly exceeds the community's housing needs and is an unsustainable scale of growth. The village's infrastructure, including its school and transport, cannot support such an expansion. The sites also have significant environmental and physical constraints. The proposal contradicts previous decisions and violates local and national planning policies that require growth to be proportionate and well-supported by existing infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 3081

Received: 20/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Matthew Pennifold

Too much traffic will be generated .

Object

Representation ID: 3128

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: 3137

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.
What a about new hospiral and schools? Council just need extra money for sure!!!

Object

Representation ID: 3213

Received: 23/08/2025

Respondent: Hannah Townhill

This is a farm, someone's livelihood and the land should not be used for building

Object

Representation ID: 3271

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: 3392

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Janette Pask

As a resident who has lived in Barrowby for 50 years, I feel very strongly to more planning proposals, ie; SKPR-272 & SKPR- 327.
We have horrendous parking issues in the village particularly at school times. Leaving the village on Rectory Lane involves driving round a blind bend on the wrong side of the road.
We will have more cars around the playground & the coffee shop & school.
The infrastructure will not cope with the hundreds of vehicles. Access & egress on these country roads are dangerous & will lead to accidents.
We already have a huge housing estate on Reedings Road, we can’t cope with any more.

Comment

Representation ID: 3495

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support the inclusion of Principle B regarding waste water treatment capacity.

Object

Representation ID: 3531

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jason Bowers

Size of proposed site
Loss of wildlife habitat
Traffic already an issue in the village
Character of new buildings will not match rest of the village (take a look at the poor build quality on Morris Road)

Object

Representation ID: 3561

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Michael Cole

I wish to oppose the development due to it being completely out of character with the existing village and leading to a loss of any remaining local heritage and visual presence. I also oppose due the impact on local infrastructure, environmental impact and lack of facilities as set out in the reasons above.

Object

Representation ID: 3563

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Antonio Padovano

We strongly object to the proposals for Barrowby SKPR-327 & SKPR 272. The current infrastructure of our village will be hugely affected even more than it is now, given the insane number of homes being proposed.
We sincerely hope the council come to their senses and do the right thing in rejecting this proposal!

Object

Representation ID: 3570

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Dawn Padovano

SKPR327 & SKPR272
Barrowby village is already under tremendous strain with the recent new housing. There is no or little infrastructure in place for schooling, doctors surgery, roads & drainage to accommodate the vast proposed development.
The proposed scale is disproportionate to the size of the village.
This will fundamentally change the character of the village forever.
This will also have a severe affect on the wildlife surrounding the village
Another 700 houses with potentially 2 cars per household will affect Westry Corner and The Drift as they do not have the capacity to cope and is too narrow.

Object

Representation ID: 3593

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs J Franklin

The existing roadways already struggle to cope with the level of traffic through the village. There are not sufficient facilities to cope with this level of housing

Object

Representation ID: 3615

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Karen Gray

Objections include: increase of speeding traffic already an issue from Dysart Rd approach, safety concerns for children and pedestrians on an already unsuitable footpath, loss of valuable open countryside resulting in impact on wildlife and biodiversity, increase noise and air pollution, too many homes in an already over populated area, strain in GP surgeries and local schools, loss of privacy to the rear of our property, increase risk of flooding and impact on the area. No variation so will make Barrowby part of Grantham town.

Object

Representation ID: 3618

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Jennie Lindfield

Barrowby Village already has a problem with road congestion. Often causing single lane traffic. Monday to Friday are massive parking issues during school run times & at weekends Low Road is all single file due to limited sports field parking. The village is already overcrowded and the roads dangerous. I strongly object.

Object

Representation ID: 3626

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Kerry Measures

Barrowby is a very beautiful and special village. It does not need more housing. The land has already revealed historic findings and should be protected. The village also does not need more crime, traffic, noise and light pollution. Roads leading into the village do not support heavy traffic or HGV. This is a danger to life. There are abandoned, half built and unoccupied new builds at the end of Dysart road. Why build more?
I strongly object to this proposal and 327

Object

Representation ID: 3638

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr GG Hooper

SKPR327.Over development of village Barrowby;approx 25% increase in size;With SKPR272 16% increase in size giving total of 41% increase in housing;
no infrastructure (water, school, medical,parking) proposed particular issues likely re water being pumped up;
development of these two proposals really as a suburb of Grantham not of Barrowby;
significant increase in traffic rendering access to Grantham down Dysart Road difficult/impossible
further loss of farmland and rural vista
overcrowding in use of playpark in village green and parking nearby;
Local plan no longer of any relevance

Object

Representation ID: 3675

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Bradshaw

I strongly object to this proposed development. Barrowby is a village and the extra housing will practically double the population. The village school will not be able to accommodate all the children. The current infrastructure certainly cannot cope with this. Traffic generated on the village roads will in my view endanger the lives of children and the elderly in particular. A change in dwellings of this volume will completely change the village and its community. Bottom line is the village cannot accommodate this huge amount of new builds. This will also destroy the local countryside and wild life,

Object

Representation ID: 3697

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Glenn Lindfield

Barrowby is already over developed with over crowded roads - particularly at school run times and Sunday when kids are playing on the Village Green and the Sports Field. I strongly object to these proposals without any major investment in the surrounding road infrastructure. There appear to be plenty of unsold houses in the Grantham area - fill houses that have been built or are in build process then find more suitable sites - Barrowby is full.

Object

Representation ID: 3716

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Miss Tristen Thorpe

The proposed allocation of SKPR-12 for housing would cause severe harm to residents, heritage, and the environment. The site comprises 100% Best and Most Versatile farmland, at risk from flooding, and with unsafe highway access. Development would destroy open rural views to Harlaxton Manor, harm biodiversity, and degrade public rights of way. It would also increase traffic, noise, and loss of amenity for nearby homes. SKDC’s own assessments confirm major risks, making the allocation unjustified, ineffective, and inconsistent with national policy. We therefore strongly object and urge removal of SKPR-12 from the Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 3719

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Jake Powditch

The proposed allocation of SKPR-12 for housing would cause severe harm to residents, heritage, and the environment. The site comprises 100% Best and Most Versatile farmland, at risk from flooding, and with unsafe highway access. Development would destroy open rural views to Harlaxton Manor, harm biodiversity, and degrade public rights of way. It would also increase traffic, noise, and loss of amenity for nearby homes. SKDC’s own assessments confirm major risks, making the allocation unjustified, ineffective, and inconsistent with national policy. We therefore strongly object and urge removal of SKPR-12 from the Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 3758

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Julie Turner

The proposal will totally overwhelm the village, which is in danger of losing its identity due to the disproportionate number of additional houses being suggested throughout.
The road network and local services are designed to support the village of Barrowby, not an extension to Grantham town. The proposed location of the development would, with the additional traffic it would create, result in more dangerous driving and pedestrian conditions on what is already a dangerous corner, hazardous visibility and a huge increase in traffic along narrow roads not designed to accommodate such volume.

Object

Representation ID: 3868

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Colin Henfrey

Number of people: 2

I wish to OBJECT most strongly to the proposed development of both the SKPR-272 Westry Corner/ Low Road site and further development of SKPR-327 for the following reasons:-

Barrowby village has already committed to the development of SKPR-272 on Low Road and will soon feel the impact when completed. This is because the infrastructure servicing the village has not been upgraded to cope with more houses being built in Grantham, Harlaxton and our village.

Services such as Schools, Doctors Surgery, Community Centre and Play Area will be needed for such a large increase in the number of houses and I fear the provision of these will be inevitable if the plans are implemented and will swallow up more agricultural land in the village.

In Grantham there are plenty of Brown Field Sites, Empty Warehouses and rooms in and above town centre shops that could take the place of this proposal.

Traffic going North/South on the A1 and East West on the A52 will use Barrowby village roads as a rat run to get on to the slip roads to avoid going into Grantham.

Current Residents of Barrowby have bought their houses at premium prices for a village life style and will be subjected to years of disruption and a permanent change in their style of living.

To conclude I reconfirm our OBJECTION to any further village housing development.

Object

Representation ID: 3933

Received: 06/08/2025

Respondent: Barrowby Parish Council

Inconsistency with SKDC's Own Site Logic
SKPR-101 was rejected due to access, infrastructure, and landscape impact.
SKPR-327 shares the same constraints (access via The Drift, infrastructure limitations, open countryside impact) yet is proposed for 455 homes — with no new evidence to justify this reversal.
E. Breach of Spatial Strategy
Barrowby is a Larger Village, third-tier in SKDC’s hierarchy.
Policy SP2 restricts growth in Larger Villages to be “limited and proportionate.”
These allocations would double the size of Barrowby, breaching both Policy SP2 and NPPF paras 11, 15, and 29, which require sustainable, plan-led growth in scale with settlement function.

Comment

Representation ID: 3940

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Mr David Barney

The new developments (SKPR272 & SKPR327) will generate significant additional traffic. This will try to access the A52 and A1 via Barrowby village centre. Traffic and parking in and around Main Street, the school, the Church and the village green is already dangerous. Minor accidents are common and it's only a matter of time before someone (potentially a child) is injured or killed. How will SKDC ensure that this problem does not get worse?

Comment

Representation ID: 3946

Received: 23/07/2025

Respondent: Department for Education

We welcome the references made within the document SKPR-272: Low Road which require the provision of sufficient school places as part of these developments. The next version of the Local Plan should seek to identify specific sites which can deliver the early years, school and post-16 places needed to support growth, based on the latest evidence of identified need and demand in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan. The site allocation and associated safeguarding policies should also seek to clarify requirements for the delivery of new education infrastructure, including when it should be delivered to support housing growth, the minimum site area required, any preferred site characteristics, and any requirements for safeguarding additional land for future expansion where need and demand indicates this might be necessary. Establishing these requirements within the plan is particularly important for securing sites at an appropriate value when additional land or standalone sites for schools need to be purchased, as DfE ‘Basic Need’ funding allocations do not factor in the costs of site acquisition.