Object

Representation ID: 3982

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Rachel Yuille

Ref: Barrowby SKPR-327/ SKPR-272

We believe the building of an extra 725 houses in this village area is totally excessive.

the Village does not have the amenities for the extensive housing project.
The school cannot cope and in fact parents of village children cannot find places.

Yet more cars swamp the village each day. The local Hospital & Doctors surgeries are at capacity.

We have lost our Post Office & butchers shops in recent years.

Enough is enough.

Stop the extra 455 houses.

Object

Representation ID: 4139

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mrs Phoebe Quayle

I am objecting for the following reasons.
A. Conflict with Local Housing Need (HNA, 2024)
The HNA identifies a housing need of just 167 dwellings to 2041. SKPR-327 (455 dwellings) and SKPR-272 (270 dwellings) total 725 homes

B. Barrowby Is Not Suitable for Strategic Growth
The HNA (para 261) concludes that Barrowby is unsuitable for large-scale development

C. Environmental and Infrastructure Constraints
SKPR - 272 lies within Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and Green Infrastructure Areas
SKPR-272 lies adjacent to high-pressure gas infrastructure and the A1 corridor necessitating landscape buffers and safety/amenity zones that limit developable area.

D. Inconsistency with SKDC’s own site logic
SKDC’s own Draft Site Assessment warns that Barrowby CE Primary is at capacity and wastewater infrastructure is under pressure.

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.”
This allocation along with SKPR -327 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.

Object

Representation ID: 4168

Received: 21/08/2025

Respondent: Graeme Ritchie

1. Traffic and Safety - The roads through and around Barrowby are already under pressure, particularly near the park and the primary school. Additional housing will significantly increase traffic, with serious implications for child safety and pedestrian safety.

Many drivers already travel too fast through the village, and increased traffic volume will only worsen the risk of accidents and congestion.

2. Lack of Local Amenities -Barrowby has very limited local services, including shops, schools, doctors, and dentists. An influx of potentially hundreds of new households will place a strain on already stretched resources, without any clear provision for additional infrastructure or services.

3. Loss of Village Character

One of the key reasons people value Barrowby is its identity as a village. Expanding by 725 homes risks overwhelming its character, turning it into a suburban extension of Grantham rather than maintaining the sense of community and rural appeal that residents cherish.

I urge the council to carefully reconsider the scale and impact of this proposal. Without significant investment in road safety, public services, and community infrastructure, the proposed development would have a damaging effect on both the safety and quality of life in Barrowby.

Object

Representation ID: 4170

Received: 22/08/2025

Respondent: Peter Mears

1. The number of homes proposed is far too high for the size of our existing village.

2. The road between the proposed two sites would not be able to cope with the huge increase in vehicle use. Also, the huge increase in vehicles travelling either back through the village to access the A52 or in the opposite direction towards Grantham would put massive pressure on an already difficult journey through the village and on down Dysart road.

3. A development of this size would irrevocably destroy the current quiet and peaceful atmosphere of Barrowby.

Comment

Representation ID: 4320

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Carolene Williams

I agree with the parish councils concerns regarding the proposals that the sheer number of new houses particularly in the time scale would be too much too quick for our parish.

The facilities in the village are inadequate to cope with this size of development. SKDC - 327 in particular which would border onto the drift and access onto this road is at present unsuitable as this would lead onto Westry corner as would SKDC - 272.

The proposed developments are almost a new village in itself and the impact on our village would be unsatisfactory in my opinion. The school traffic already causes issues in the centre of the village, no shop facilities including a post office, in the centre of the village and very limited public transport.

I think I am correct in saying that on the census of 2021 there just over 800 households in the village, and whilst I appreciate that is a while ago, this development totals 800+ this is just an extension of Dysart Road albeit in Barrowby Parish.

Object

Representation ID: 4599

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.

Object

Representation ID: 4609

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.