Object

Representation ID: 67

Received: 08/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Hume

The infrastructure is at capacity in most areas, the road surfaces are appalling, the traffic is congested, the majority of schools are at capacity and over subscribed. There are long waiting times for Doctor and Hospital appointments and 45% of people in Lincolnshire cannot get an NHS dentist. Looking at the planned developments just in Grantham, with the surrounding larger villages and smaller villages within the catchment area the population will be approximately 80,000. Health services and a fully functioning hospital with A&E services is a MUST HAVE. How are you going to fix it now, never mind later?

Support

Representation ID: 220

Received: 10/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 745

Received: 20/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Paula Davies

Being evident that the current infrastructure, within the larger villages, is at/or exceeding capacity, especially concerning Transport and Health provisions, the infrastructure development plan should dictate heavily towards this Spatial strategy, not be an after thought.

Object

Representation ID: 914

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Scott Arntson

Traffic congestion is already an issue and with 2000 additional homes will be a nightmare. Local NHS services are already stretched to breaking point. Lack of planning for the issues above make this plan unrealistic in the extreme.

Object

Representation ID: 956

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Adele Crompton-Allan

There are no Jobs in Great Gonerby for the people who will live in these 86 dwellings SKPR-241, Grantham needs to sort out the hospital before building more houses. The Bridge across the train track from Barrowby Gate to Gonerby Hillfoot needs to be done, fine the developers for not completing what they have stated they will do. When the A1 diverts off due to an accident, the traffic will back up all the way from North Parade traffic lights into Great Gonerby, it can't go anywhere, build the bridge, traffic can go onto the A52 out the way, simple.

Object

Representation ID: 1086

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

No destruction of the countryside is sustainable, if it wasn’t there, there would be no need for this.

Support

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

The need for infrastructure to be provided in a timely manner alongside growth and development is fundamental to achieving sustainable development and the Regulation 18 document correctly identifies that. Paragraph 13.1 of the Regulation 18 document provides examples of relevant infrastructure and we are broadly supportive of the types outlined but also acknowledge that each community across South Kesteven is unique and will require different provision at different times over the plan period.

Object

Representation ID: 1341

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Tall

Before you embark on this folly, get the roads in order, sort out the drainage and sewage and for goodness sake sort out the much promised relief road. It is bad enough not having a proper A& E out of hours service, however this mis management and ridiculous funding of vanity projects is a waste of time. I doubt whether you will do anything as I have no faith in the present incumbents to do anything constructive for anybody.

Support

Representation ID: 1370

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

The summary box on page 235 of the Regulation 18 document details that “An Infrastructure
Delivery Plan, including an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, is being prepared and will inform
the policy once finalised.” We are concerned that the details of these important evidence base documents is not provided at this stage of the plan making process to allow for engagement and representations to be made on approach, requirements and timescales envisaged.

Paragraph 13.16 of the Regulation 18 document confirms that the Council will continue to seek developer contributions through Section 106 and may consider the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy or a replacement tariff following the Governments national
review. Although we broadly support this approach, the Local Plan needs to provide an indication as to the level of Section 106 that may be requested for different types of
development in different parts of the plan area. Without this clarification, the Council’s Viability Appraisal is flawed because assumptions used in relation to Section 106 may not be accurate and therefore could be under or over stating requirements that need to meet the tests for
planning obligations.

Support

Representation ID: 1390

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Roy McKinney

Bourne appears to be the only major conurbation between Peterborough and the Humber Bridge which does not have a relief road of any sort. The age and layout of the main north to south road (A15) through the town centre creates serious congestion at all times of the day. An equally busy east - west route only adds to the problem.
It would be appreciated if SKDC and Lincolnshire County Council could review the situation and produce a plan, that does not require additional long-term housing development to deliver an answer to the problem.

Object

Representation ID: 1492

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Carl Killgren

I question the traffic projections of the Stantec model relating to Stamford North. The projected traffic flow outcomes are not commensurate with the size of the development and a link road which hopes to draw traffic away from the town centre. The emphasis pushing people towards greener modes of transport lacks any rigorous foundation.
As the Exeter Fields site is being put forward for increased housing, if given the go ahead, it will skew any traffic impact assessments particularly relating to the A1/A606/ Sidney Farm Lane node and the already dangerous A1 on and off slips.

Support

Representation ID: 1639

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Sports England

Sport England welcomes the inclusion of leisure and green infrastructure in the list of the main items of infrastructure to be considered. Sport England has provided comments on the Draft Infrastructure Plan. The emerging Playing Pitch Strategy will provide evidence on the need for additional facilities because of the increase in population. However, as mentioned above, this Strategy relates to outdoor sports facilities. The Council does not have a robust and up to date assessment of the need for indoor sport and recreation facilities as required by paragraph 102 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 1782

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Development can only be required to mitigate its own impacts and cannot be required to address existing issues and shortfalls in provision. It would be unreasonable and fail the CIL tests for developers to be expected to pay to address existing deficiencies.

Support

Representation ID: 1918

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Environment Agency

We would like to add that the Environment Agency will continue to support and liaise
with all risk management authorities on flood risk matters. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) will be key to this section and Policy ID1. We are supportive that water and drainage of the IDP will include flood risk management. We expect the developer to work with AWS to contribute to any developments if needed for proper discharge of sewage and wastewater.

Object

Representation ID: 1983

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Colin Vincent

a) How is it possible for the public to appraise a local plan when the council have not yet considered road and infrastructure updates?

b) The Bourne and Stamford areas have absorbed more than a reasonable amount of development in a relativelyshort time consequently local surgeries cannot cope and to compound matters one has closed.

c) Also part of Stamford Hospital is for sale instead of expanding it (Government policy is to open new Walk-In Centres The local road infrastructure is inadequate. How will they cope with the extra traffic generated by the future predicted developments? we can only hope they work from home

d)Small villages in the area have become rat runs thus damaging the verges and footpaths as it is difficult for a car and a lorry or even two cars to pass in place. Commercial vehicle tonnage and length has recently increased this will only compound the situation.

e)We can only assume the extra workforce created by these developments will no doubt wish to work in Peterborough which will increase even more volume on an inadequate road system.

f) The logical solution would be to create a NEW town/village adjacent to the A1 which would greatly decrease the amount of pollution generated.

Support

Representation ID: 2305

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Department for Education

Annual housing requirement of 14,020 will place additional pressure on social infrastructure such as education facilities. The Local Plan will need to be ‘positively prepared’ to meet the objectively assessed development needs and infrastructure requirements.

Supports the principle of South Kesteven District safeguarding land for the provision of new schools to meet government planning policy objectives as set out in paragraph 99 of the NPPF.

South Kesteven District should also have regard to the Joint Policy Statement from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Education on Planning for Schools Development3 (2011) which sets out the government’s commitment to support the development of state-funded schools and their delivery through the planning system.

Support

Representation ID: 2325

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

As per Dft Policy 01/2022 paragraph 34, the transport evidence should provide a means of demonstrating to the examining inspector that planned growth is deliverable, and that the funding, partners and relevant processes are in place to enable the delivery of infrastructure; or that there is a realistic prospect that longer term investment can be secured within the timescales envisaged.
As such, following the completion of the Strategic Transport Assessment, any highways infrastructure necessary to support Local Plan growth should be set out in an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). This should identify what, when, where and how/by whom infrastructure is required, as well as estimated costs and funding sources.
With regards funding, please see our later comment with respect to Policy ID1 related to infrastructure provision.

Support

Representation ID: 2389

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: National Grid Electricity Distribution (South West) PLC

Agent: Lucy White Planning Limited

The Government is committed to achieve net zero by 2050. The shift towards electricity to heat our homes and power our cars is critical to achieving this goal and the National Grid is playing a crucial role in meeting this commitment by increasing capacity to meet the growing demand for electricity. As a result of the increased demands for energy within our existing towns and cities, the capacity of the National Grid is limited and may not be able to accommodate further development without deliver of new infrastructure, including new sub-stations.

NGED strongly recommends that local planning authorities contact them at the earliest possible opportunity for confirmation of the National Grid’s capacity to accommodate planned growth in their area. If capacity is limited, LPAs should explore alternative locations for growth which may be less constrained or allocate land, in consultation with NGED, to accommodate a new sub-station. NGED should also be involved in the masterplanning of any development allocation which includes a large sub-station.

The timescales for delivery of a new sub-station and the implications for occupation of new homes should be taken into account in preparing the LPA’s housing trajectory.