Support

Representation ID: 121

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comments

Object

Representation ID: 683

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Sally Jordan

Why are you planning to build developments where there is a risk of flooding (Stamford East)

You are currently deciding on the Quarry Farm proposal - such a large development of housing will undoubtedly have a major negative impact on wildlife and biodiversity.

Object

Representation ID: 1051

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

I cannot support any ‘plan’ that advocates widespread destruction of the local countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 1310

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: East Mercia Rivers Trust

SKDC area is home to ecologically important limestone watercourses, specifically the Upper Witham and Limestone Becks. These are aquifer fed and are in a poor state. Restoration should be encouraged for any development. Run-off during the construction phase also addressed.

Support

Representation ID: 1320

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

The Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Interactive Map which supports this policy outlines the known existing areas of high biodiversity value and target for habitat creation.

We agree with the designations of this mapping, our Client’s site is not included as part of this designation which we support due to the nature of this land being farmed historically, therefore not generating a high biodiversity value on the site.

We consider as part of any development which may come forward on the site that this be an opportunity to introduce increased biodiversity on the site as the baseline is currently very low.

Support

Representation ID: 1384

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

We support this policy, in particular requirements for integrating trees and green spaces into developments early on in the design process. We recommend adding a reference to supporting the emerging South Kesteven Tree Strategy.

Object

Representation ID: 1442

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Rhys Baker

Does not focus enough on existing settlements and the Biodiversity Opportunity mapping seems to trump the green infrastructure. Green Infrastructure will help with flood mitigation, the urban heat island effect, air quality and preventing soil erosion. We must urgently start adapting to the current reality of climate change, with 1.5C now likely beyond our reach.

There should be a commitment to use documentation from the Wildlife Trust to implement policy to reach the UKs commitment to the UN target around biodiversity replenishment. Net gain is insufficient.

Support

Representation ID: 1648

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Market Deeping Town Council

Councillors welcome all proposals and policies to increase and improve Green Infrastructure for community health, wellbeing, active transport, improved connectivity with neighbouring settlements, and opportunities for enhancing the visitor economy. The Deepings Green Walk provides a long-term strategy for improving our local Green infrastructure and all references and acknowledgement of this by SKDC and any developers will be appreciated.

Support

Representation ID: 1664

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: The Deepings Neighbourhood Plan Group

A welcome idea to link sites with their wider GI context.

Support

Representation ID: 1690

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Deeping St James Parish Council

A welcome idea to link sites with their wider GI context.

Object

Representation ID: 1807

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

The inclusion of this policy is supported by the Trust. Provides suggestions to expand the policy to consider and emphasise the multiple benefits of green infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 1819

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Penny Milnes

Green spaces within and around settlements abound in this rural area. What increased protection can be included?
I am pleased to note the reference to ‘tranquillity’ and could it be widely defined to avoid doubt?
Is it possible to encourage artifacts to be stored and displayed in local places?

Support

Representation ID: 1849

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster and Norwich Hub Ltd

Agent: Godfrey-Payton & Co

These new policies and Appendices are supported.

Support

Representation ID: 1924

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Bettinson Trust

Agent: Savills

We support draft policy EN3 as proposed. Bettinson Trust are working up proposals for draft allocation SKPR- 53, which will sensitively address existing green infrastructure (Carr Dyke) and introduce landscape and biodiversity enhancements as part of the proposed development. A range of technical work is to be undertaken including landscape, drainage, ecology and masterplanning which will take account of the Green Infrastructure Mapping prepared by the GLNP.

Object

Representation ID: 1956

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcomes this policy and the explanatory text, we are also pleased to note that Green Infrastructure (GI) features throughout the Plan which will ensure that the multi-functional benefits of the provision of good quality GI can be fully realised. We welcome the cross reference in paragraph 10.16 to Policy OS1: Open Space and Recreation.
We are pleased to note that Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework: Principles & Standards has been referenced within the policy text. We suggest the policy or explanatory text could be expanded to reflect in more detail the advice included within this Framework.
Local Planning Authorities can apply the National GI Standards locally that will help deliver good GI networks for people and nature and you may consider doing this within the local plan.
We also suggest that the health benefits of GI should be emphasised either within this policy or within other relevant policies e.g. climate change, open space & recreation.

Object

Representation ID: 2067

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: South Lincolnshire Green Party

EN3: green infrastructure: does not focus enough on existing settlements and the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping seems to trump the Green Infrastructure (possibly because the former is in legislation). Green Infrastructure can help with flood mitigation, urban heat island effect, air quality etc and it’s critical that adapting to climate change is not overlooked, given that we are already tied into the impact of an over 1.5oC increase in temperature, and there is no sign of any major political Party having a mind to do anything about this.
The UK’s adopted policy (often called 30x30), as signed up to by Boris Johnson, following the Biodiversity COP15 is to set aside 30% of all land and water to be devoted to biodiversity, as a priority, and in perpetuity. This means that even where indigenous people’s have used the land or land has been used historically for for cultural reasons, biodiversity need must take priority. Biodiversity net gain is insufficient to reach this target - it is simply a distraction. Policy in the Local Plan should be aiming to help the UK government’s commitment to the UN target. The Wildlife Trust have strong documentation and policy on how to achieve this.

Object

Representation ID: 2127

Received: 24/05/2024

Respondent: Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership

The GLNP supports this policy and the reference to Green Infrastructure Mapping prepared by the Partnership. However, it would support reference to protecting the functionality of green infrastructure, with the inserting ‘or its functionality’ after text “Proposals that cause loss or harm to this network,” into paragraph 3 of the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 2136

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Greater Lincolnshire Nature Partnership, Natural England and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

The inclusion of this policy is supported, though it is felt it could be expanded to more reflect advice included in Natural England’s Green Infrastructure Framework: Principles & Standards. Applying these standards locally can help to deliver good green infrastructure networks which provide multiple benefits.
Including standards on green infrastructure such as Accessible Greenspace, Urban Nature Recovery, Urban Greening Factor, Urban Tree Canopy Cover, as well as strategic Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS), within the Local Plan, will offer developers greater certainty about what green infrastructure is required on site when used in conjunction with the Green Infrastructure Mapping developed by the GLNP and Green Infrastructure Principles in Appendix 2.
It is also felt that to help the GI standards to be delivered, local authorities should set green infrastructure targets. These should include delivery levels over time. For instance, the % of people having good quality publicly accessible greenspaces within 15 minutes’ walk from home by 2030.
It is also suggested that the health benefits of green infrastructure should be emphasised.
In relation to access to nature Natural England’s Accessible Greenspace Standard (GI Standard 2) should be used. This I in line with the Environment Improvement Plan (EIP) Goal 10: Enhancing beauty, heritage and engagement with the natural environment.

Support

Representation ID: 2413

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

The draft policy and the strategy for green infrastructure is supported. It is important that the green networks are retained, and it is considered they should be enhanced wherever possible, with development proposals ensuring that existing and new green infrastructure takes opportunities to enrich biodiversity and habitats, enable greater connectivity and provide sustainable access for all.

The land West of Grantham will assist in meeting this policy by improving provision across the site and connecting with the existing green infrastructure network.

Support

Representation ID: 2534

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands

Agent: Savills

DWH are unclear on mapping/identification of sites for the Biodiversity and Green Infrastructure Areas Opportunity Areas have been decided. Paragraph 16 (d) of the NPPF states ‘plans should contain policies that are clearly written and unambiguous, so it is evident how the decision maker should react to development it is considered this should be clearly set out in the policy or within the appendix.
As part of any development on the site, wider biodiversity and green infrastructure improvements could potentially be made to connect the biodiversity and green infrastructure opportunity areas identified east of Swinehill Lane and north of the A607.
DWH consider that the policy stating that ‘all qualifying development proposals…must deliver at least 10% measurable biodiversity net gain’.

Object

Representation ID: 2557

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr M J Dickinson

Agent: Robert Doughty Consultancy

Restrict the operation of farming land based on a map. No indication of how maintenance or enhancement will be delivered; nor how the policy will operate against the continued use of land for agricultural purposes with little or no public access.
Problematic as development will be dependent on third party landowners providing land for Green Infrastructure use when they will have other aspirations for the land which may not fit in with those to deliver Green Infrastructure. Developers also appear to be denied the opportunity to consider promoting Biodiversity Net Gain or Green Infrastructure on land that is not designated in the Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping for South Kesteven exercise.