Support

Representation ID: 127

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Support

Representation ID: 377

Received: 05/04/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

The Society supports the revised Policy EN6, but consider further provisions should be made to strengthen the Policy. In particular ensuring that Heritage Impact Assessments comply with NPPF and that a requirement that Archaelogical findings and reports are required to be made public as soon as possible.

Object

Representation ID: 504

Received: 15/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Robert Batchelor

Policy GR1 (Belton House) omits reference to Statement Of Common Ground, 2012, agreed between SKDC, Historic England and National Trust on interpretation of Setting Study. Full submission to SKDC by Email.

Object

Representation ID: 722

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Paul Martin

Response to EN6 The Historic Environment. reference SKPR-57

There are other sites away from the BeltonHouse NT estate that could be used. I see no reason this development should be allowed so close to this leading NT Grade 1 listed national treasure.

Object

Representation ID: 1117

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Preservation in situ should not be a default preferred solution . Whether remains need to be preserved in situ will be determined on a site by site basis, depending on results of the Desk Based Assessment and on site investigations, alongside early engagement with the County Council's Historic Environment Team.

Object

Representation ID: 1302

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Richard Evans

Strongly object to archaeology works prior to planning consent

Support

Representation ID: 1389

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

We suggest strengthening the wording on trees in conservation areas as follows:

"Ensure the preservation of trees within the Conservation Area. In exceptional circumstances, and only where sufficient evidence is provided to justify their loss, significant existing trees may be removed. In these instances, development proposals will only be supported where they re-provide the amenity, canopy, habitat and biomass of the existing trees through replacement planting or an equivalent off-site contribution."

Support

Representation ID: 1471

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Zoe Lane

It is my firm belief that we should be investigating options for how the Car Dyke could be made a scheduled monument as it is in other parts of Lincolnshire, and considering anny impacts this might have.

Object

Representation ID: 1479

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ms Joanna Plant

The requirement to provide archaeology works in advance of submitting a planning application will impact on viability and ultimately housing delivery.
Additionally, the fact that the level/extent of these pre-application investigative works is not defined, will result in fewer smaller sites coming forward for housing development.
This uncertainty around costs and timescales adds another layer of risk to developers and will be a key determining factor in whether a development site is viable or not. Archaeological investigations should continue to be conditioned in planning consents so developers don't have to shoulder these significant costs with no guarantee of securing planningpermission.

Support

Representation ID: 1509

Received: 17/04/2024

Respondent: National Trust

The introduction of thematic sections for distinct heritage asset types is noted. This supports clarity and allows for an appropriate level of detail. Links back to the National Planning Policy Framework are also helpful here. In relation to this, the draft text relating to public benefit in the context of harm, could align more precisely with national policy wording.

The requirements for Hertiage Impact Assessments are noted. Also, the clear reference to heritage asset setting, which contributes to significance, as a criterion in relevant assessments is welcomed

Support

Representation ID: 1649

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Market Deeping Town Council

This greater focus on historic assets is appreciated as there are currently many under-appreciated Heritage and Archaeological Assets within The Deepings area that are at risk due to proposed nearby developments affecting their context e.g. The Car Dyke.

Support

Representation ID: 1712

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Policy EN6 is welcomed. More detailed supporting text would be welcomed, however the changes to the policy are welcomed.

Object

Representation ID: 2068

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: South Lincolnshire Green Party

Has anything been done to close the loophole that permits people to pave over their driveways?

Object

Representation ID: 2336

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Claypole Parish Council

The Parish Council considers that Policy EN6 of the Local Plan Review is unsound, and it fails to meet the test of soundness relating to the tests of ‘justified’, ‘effective’ and ‘consistent with national policy’ as set out in paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

This policy as currently written is inconsistent with national policy set out in the NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance in relation to non-designated heritage assets. The Claypole Neighbourhood Plan identifies non-designated heritage assets which are an important part of the village built form. Our full explanation is set out in the attached technical paper.

Support

Representation ID: 2414

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

The draft policy is considered to be in line with the requirements set out within the NPPF, and is set out in relation to each type of heritage asset, this is considered appropriate, and the policy is therefore supported.

Support

Representation ID: 2537

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands

Agent: Savills

DWH support Policy EN6 and the wording which states ‘development that is likely to cause harm to the significance of a heritage asset or its setting will only be granted permission where the public benefits of the proposal outweigh the potential harm’ and consider it to be in accordance with paragraphs 208 of the NPPF which states ‘where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use’. The rest of the policy is written using wording such as ‘development proposals should aim to’ [Savills Emphasis] which is in a way that is in accordance with paragraph 16 (b) of the NPPF which states ‘plans should be prepared positively, in a way that is aspirational but deliverable’.
Site is also proposing to provide facility land which is a community benefit.

Object

Representation ID: 2586

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Gonerby Hill Foot Community Group

Response to EN6 The Historic Environment. reference SKPR-57

Considering there are other sites away from the BeltonHouse NT estate that could be used I see no reason this development should be allowed so close to this leading NT Grade 1 listed national treasure.