Object

Representation ID: 22

Received: 06/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

I find that the current proposal undermines the key objectives set out in the January 2020 local plan and therefore I can't be confident that this revision will provide the essential and complementary health and wellbeing facilities that make Grantham a desirable place to live and work.

Object

Representation ID: 56

Received: 08/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Hume

Why are we using the Governments standard allocation method to determine housing requirement? The Governments own White paper states 'the standard method should be a starting point not a housing target'. Why are we not an exception area? What criteria has been used to decide this? We cannot be expected to have the same housing need and building requirement as an inner city or large conurbation. The standard method gives every authority the same target. This is unworkable and unrealistic in reality.

Object

Representation ID: 61

Received: 08/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Hume

2.7 'Housing growth levels must be informed by the evidence of assessed need.' What is the assessed need and what evidence has been used to determine this? How many people are on the housing list and how many homes are required?

Object

Representation ID: 847

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Mclean

I object there are no jobs, increased flooding, pollution, congestion sort out the centre of town leave nature alone

Object

Representation ID: 990

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

This is not true, the area does not need anywhere near this level of additional houses!

Support

Representation ID: 1190

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Max Sawyer

Additional housing is required, but careful consideration must be given to where. The priority must be brownfield sites, rather than agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 1231

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Robert Parker

The adherence to the Governments standard method is not consistent with the population growth, 14,020 is greater than the population growth and therefore is excessive. the plan should be for approximately a third of this figure

Object

Representation ID: 1362

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Rebecca Geeson

Improve existing housing and make use of brownfield sites if any further housing is really needed. This rural nature of this town needs to be protected.

Object

Representation ID: 1769

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

HBF welcomes the Council’s early review of the Local Plan and its recognition of the need to plan for housing growth across the district. We welcome the Council’s starting point for setting the housing requirement for South Kesteven as the standard method plus a 20% buffer. However, HBF would also support more housing than the standard method housing requirement in order to support economic growth, provide a range and type of sites, deliver increased affordable housing and to support small and medium house builders. There remains a need to provide a range and choice of sites, a need for flexibility and viability considerations to be taken into account and a need for the Council to consider whether higher levels of open-market housing are required in order to secure the delivery of affordable housing and/or support economic growth. HBF suggest that each of these reasons on its own could justify an increase in the housing requirement for South Kesteven and the Council should consider planning for an additional amount of housing to address each reason in turn.

Object

Representation ID: 1852

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Manthorpe Construction Limited

Agent: Stantec UK Ltd

The housing need figures using the government’s standard method of 14,020 should be viewed as a minimum need figure by the Council and all opportunities for development should be maximised. The provision of a 20% buffer above the minimum need requirement is welcomed and supported by our client as it will provide flexibility in housing land supply. Additionally, it is considered that the Council should be pursuing options above the minimum need requirements to ensure that a sufficient supply of housing can be delivered in sustainable locations during the Plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 1861

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Bloor Homes Ltd and Ham Nominees

Agent: Stantec UK Ltd

The housing need figures using the government’s standard method of 14,020 should be viewed as a minimum need figure by the Council and all opportunities for development should be maximised. The provision of a 20% buffer above the minimum need requirement is welcomed and supported by our client as it will provide flexibility in housing land supply. Additionally, it is considered that the Council should be pursuing options above the minimum need requirements to ensure that a sufficient supply of housing can be delivered in sustainable locations during the Plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 2088

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

It will be a major challenge to deliver the strategic infrastructure that will be needed to deliver the housing and employment growth, such as new Primary Substations and enhanced capacities at sewage treatment works. We very much support the concept of having an Infrastructure Delivery Plan.