Object

Representation ID: 171

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

Would need to see comprehensive master plan to make an informed decision

Object

Representation ID: 582

Received: 17/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Mark Tupholme

Land is often flooded already without disturbing the land and watercourses. Roads are already severely damaged by large HGVs driving down them like a bypass so traffic and noise considerations to new residences. Roads unsuitable for residential properties - unless being widened and improved as part of the development. Wildlife area - has specific owl habitats nearby and should not be disturbed. Bourne already struggling with sufficient resources (doctors, dentists, school places etc.) so a further increase in population will worsen this situation. Town already dead due to majority commuters residing and shopping elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 587

Received: 20/03/2024

Respondent: Mr Brian Moran

Land North of Mill Drove mentions connectivity to the town: it should include footway/cycling and integrating with Carr Dyke. The last proposal for the Carr Dyke is in the ether. Ref. [redacted] – LCC Cycling Officer, 2023. Integration should include an extension south towards Market Deeping. East along the Bourne Eau towards Tongue End, to allow for more nature facilities. West towards Toft Tunnell.

Support

Representation ID: 603

Received: 26/03/2024

Respondent: J Key

Number of people: 2

Surprised that only two areas. - which are on the Eastern side - of Bourne, were shown on the draft, so these two areas appear to be satisfactorily placed.

Object

Representation ID: 785

Received: 21/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Mark Marsden

Housing density too high, not sympathetic with neighbouring properties.
Development should not be built next to a HIGH RISK FLOOD AREA.
Population will increase by 392 residents (172 x 2.28 occupancy = 392.16) causing vast increase in traffic, serious road safety issues, noise and disturbance.
Bourne cannot sustain this population growth, residents health and well being requires an increase in public services doctors, dentists, police and local services. Play parks and open spaces do not help residents waiting for a heart operation, cancer treatment, hip/knee replacement or dentistry.
Significant risk of sea flooding hence ER signs pointing West.

Object

Representation ID: 853

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: BDW Cambridgeshire .

Agent: Carter Jonas

It is requested that Site Allocation SKPR-83 is reassessed for consistency with policies in draft SKLP and national policy, particularly in terms of delivery of community facilities, accessibility by sustainable modes of transport, and loss of Grade 2 agricultural land.

Object

Representation ID: 1078

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

Only acceptable if a true brownfield site, else should not happen

Support

Representation ID: 1394

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Roy McKinney

I support the allocation policy SKPR- 83 for housing development on land north of Mill Drove.

Object

Representation ID: 1728

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Car Dkye Scheduled Monument to the north of the site. The Car Dyke continues south from the scheduled section and forms the western boundary to the site, assessment is certainly required – note bronze / iron age / roman evidence (field walking / excavation / geophysical survey around Meadow Drain 100m grid ref 510800/321100 – this also raises the likely archaeological potential – this allocation is likely to have setting impact upon the SM to the north https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1004959 visually and potentially in terms of impacts of buried remains. The development looks to cross the Car Dyke to attach to existing development. There is concern regarding this site.
If suitable to be taken forward, revisions to policy SKPR-83 will be required; the scheduled monument is not referenced within the policy.

Object

Representation ID: 1761

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Martin Hill

On the proposed additional 457 houses for the Mill Drove area of Bourne, a substantial upgrade of Meadow Drove south of Mill Drove would seem a necessity to help take the resulting extra traffic movement.

Support

Representation ID: 1787

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

The Bourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group supports the allocation of land to the north-east of the town as this accords with the locational growth strategy recommended to, and agreed by, the Town Council and set out in the Housing Sites Assessment Background Paper (October 2023). However, the Steering Group has several comments regarding the development principles.
- Benefit in preparing a single masterplan for both SKPR-53 and SKPR-83.
- Dwellings should front onto open space proposed alongside dyke
- Part of the site adjacent to Bourne Academy should be reserved to facilitate expansion.
- Considers essential that the development principles highlight the need for strong links across Car dyke for pedestrians and cyclists.

Object

Representation ID: 2487

Received: 08/04/2024

Respondent: Mr j wherry

Agent: Mr John Dickie

Objection to the following proposed allocations - SKPR-53 – Land at Mill Drove and SKPR-83 – Land North of Mill Drove.
Further observations regarding the demonstrable suitability of Bourne site SKPR-111 – land off Beaufort Drive. This site achieves a higher 'score' than both SKPR-53 and SKPR-83 by virtue of ;
Agricultural land grading
Archaeology - the Beaufort Drive site has already been the subject of an extensive archaeological investigation – CGMS Desk Based Assessment.
Utilities - Level 2 Utility Study Utility
Highways clear support for S19/2134 and S19/2111
Short term deliverability

Object

Representation ID: 2489

Received: 08/04/2024

Respondent: Mr John Dickie

The Beaufort Drive site - SKPR-111 – is measurably more appropriate for an Housing Allocation than SKPR-53 – Land at Mill Drove and SKPR-83 – Land North of Mill Drove.
We suggest that the above ‘Red’ assessments for SKPR-111 are not appropriate.
Applying a more rigorous assessment would result in SKPR-111 having a higher/better ‘score’ than SKPR-53 and SKPR-83.
This site is within Flood Zone One whilst SKPR-53 and SKPR-83 have FZ Two and Three constraints. From a sequential test aspect, SKPR-111 represents a far more appropriate site for allocation as it has a lower probability of flooding.