Support

Representation ID: 108

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Support

Representation ID: 1322

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We generally support the reasons for release as detailed within Policy E6, however we consider the Council’s approach to Policy E6 could be more flexible in allowing the release of certain employment land. It is clear the Council have identified sufficient land to meet the employment requirement of the District, therefore smaller sites in more urban built up areas would perhaps be better suited to meet the housing needs of the District instead of employment. This supports the aspirations of the NPPF for seeking employment land which is well located and which is attractive to businesses. Therefore, if the land is not attractive to businesses in a certain location then it is potentially viewed as more beneficial for this to be released.

We also consider, that if the Council deems Policy E6 as necessary to protect employment sites across the plan period, then it is important that they allocate those sites which they know have a high chance of delivery and success for employment purposes. In line with this, the part of the Grantham Southern Gateway which has been released from employment purposes should be removed from the allocation in order to adhere to this Policy.

We therefore consider our Client’s site to be more suited over smaller sites as does not run the risk of being brought forward for other uses due to the strategic scale of the site and connections to the strategic road network.

Object

Representation ID: 2052

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Fisher German

The DIO fully support the identification of PWoG Barracks (SKPR65 (GR3-H4)) as a mixed-use, employment generating site.
For clarity of implementation, the policy and/or the associated reasoned justification, should be explicit as to what uses are considered to be employment and non-employment uses. If the position is to fall back to Policy E2 as currently drafted, then the Policy would allow for predominantly B-class uses and an allowance to deliver E(g) uses. However, as detailed in our response to Policy E2, to enable flexibility of delivery this should be extended to all uses within Class E. It is requested that Policy E6 is also rewritten to allow for other employment generating uses within class E to be delivered. Such an approach would assist in ensuring that employment land is not lost to other non-employment generating uses.

Object

Representation ID: 2275

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

We generally support the reasons for release as detailed within Policy E6 however we consider the Council’s approach to Policy E6 could be more flexible in allowing the release of certain employment provisions. It is clear the Council have identified more than enough land to meet the employment requirement of the District in more suitable locations, therefore the locations in more urban built up areas which are smaller in nature would be better suited to meet the housing needs of the District instead of employment. This supports the aspirations of the NPPF for seeking employment land which is well located and which is attractive to businesses. Therefore if the land is not attractive to businesses in a certain location then it is viewed as more beneficial for this to be released. We consider that Land at Peterborough Road, Market Deeping should be released from employment use and be allocated for residential use.