Object

Representation ID: 158

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

I would like to see the development proposal regarding the mix of housing as I think this location with it's proximity to Alma Park would suit affordable housing.

Support

Representation ID: 1073

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

For once I agree, this was St Wulframs school and the land should be utilised for housing.

Support

Representation ID: 1762

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Linda Wootten

With reference to our recent meeting concerning the above there was only one plan on the Grantham East Division which is the old Church School / LCC playing fields which is surrounded by housing . I don't have any problems regarding this proposal and haven't heard anything from the local District Councillors against extra housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1966

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Natural England

We would reiterate the importance of establishing a connected network of high quality green infrastructure at the earliest stage of the planning process.

Object

Representation ID: 2074

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

Agent: Robert Doughty Consultancy

The site is expected to deliver 76 dwellings at a density of 30 dwellings per hectare, although the capacity is reduced to take account of the challenging shape of the site. This fact should be highlighted in the Local Plan text setting out the requirements for the site. Any development will be expected to integrate with surrounding environment and ongoing development under RM S22/1928.
Land should be classified as Land predominantly in urban use. Any development proposal would incorporate a new positive drainage system that would address any surface water drainage issues.
Principles A, B and C - public access to the south is slightly more problematic and connections to the wider area are subject to certain challenges.
Principle E – indicated the site is within an area of ‘Green Infrastructure’ it is not clear how areas of GI have been identified or defined. SKPR-62 should not be designated in this way.
Remove principle E as it is redundant after the BNG regulations came into force. The development would be expected t contributed Open Space and the reference to the GI does not add any clarity.
Support the allocation but object to the detailed comments set out above.

Support

Representation ID: 2366

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding Team

- Development of, or exceeding, 91.4m in height above ground level will trigger statutory consultation requirement.
- Development that might result in the creation of attractant environments for large and flocking bird species hazardous to aviation, including the potential for an environment attractive to hazardous bird species to be formed temporarily