Support

Representation ID: 222

Received: 10/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 379

Received: 05/04/2024

Respondent: Stamford Civic Society

Policies ID1 and ID2 seek to ensure that all necessary infrastructure including highways and transport strategies are provided at the right time by developer contribution. However, the final paragraph of ID1 recognises that viability issues may result in “prioritising provision”. This means that it is extremely unlikely that developer contributions through s106 and CIL will meet all the requirements for infrastructure in the plan period. The relevant public authorities must therefore make adequate provision to meet the shortfall which may be anticipated.

Object

Representation ID: 388

Received: 05/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Laura Upson

We need to see the infrastructure first. There is a lot of distrust after it didn't materialise on other developments in Stamford, Bourne and Oakham. SKDC has to hold developers to account and get it built first to ensure it does get built.

Object

Representation ID: 565

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Dr John Deag

The text on "viability considerations" is weak - almost an invitation to developers to apply for a revised viability assessment! There is extreme cynicism about how they avoid responsibilities previously agreed to. There appears to be no barrier in the NPPF to prevent local authorities setting out what they will take note of should a re-assessment of viability be requested after planning has been granted. Examples given in full submission include overall profitability of the company (and any holding company), dividends paid, profit per house, and salaries and bonuses paid to senior executives. Remember the alleged £77million Persimmon executive bonus?

Object

Representation ID: 869

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jane Freeman

The existing infrastructure is woefully inadequate, and I have no confidence whatsoever that developers will be held to account by SKDC to pay for what is promised and in a timely manner.

Object

Representation ID: 1088

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

I cannot support a ‘plan’ that advocates widespread destruction of the local countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 1155

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr RICHARD CLEAVER

The policy needs a clear definition of "infrastructure" and a clear definition of "amenities" and should then set out clearly the policy for each of them.

Object

Representation ID: 1288

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Steven Giullari

Relief road around Bourne

Support

Representation ID: 1290

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy ID1: Infrastructure for Growth outlines the Council expectations for ensuring that the necessary infrastructure provision is provided at the appropriate time and in a suitable location. It is important that the policy and supporting text recognise that as part of development opportunities the provision of infrastructure is not solely within the “gift” of the developer/applicant. In most instances, the Section 106 obligation can provide the land and/or funds to aid the provision of infrastructure but often the service provider (such as education, highways etc) are responsible for the delivery of the infrastructure. As a result we suggest the policy wording should be updated to highlight those other bodies involved with bringing forward infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 1313

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy ID1: Infrastructure for Growth outlines the Council expectations for ensuring that the necessary infrastructure provision is provided at the appropriate time and in a suitable location. It is important that the policy and supporting text recognise that as part of development opportunities the provision of infrastructure is not solely within the “gift” of the developer/applicant. In most instances, the Section 106 obligation can provide the land and/or funds to aid the provision of infrastructure but often the service provider (such as education, highways etc) are responsible for the delivery of the infrastructure. As a result we suggest the policy wording should be updated to highlight those other bodies involved with bringing forward infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 1371

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy ID1: Infrastructure for Growth outlines the Council expectations for ensuring that the necessary infrastructure provision is provided at the appropriate time and in a suitable location. It is important that the policy and supporting text recognise that as part of development opportunities the provision of infrastructure is not solely within the “gift” of the developer/applicant. In most instances, the Section 106 obligation can provide the land and/or funds to aid the provision of infrastructure but often the service provider (such as education, utilities) is responsible for the delivery of the infrastructure. As a result, it is unreasonable to expect that development proposals provide the necessary infrastructure at an appropriate time as this fails to acknowledge the range of parties that need to align and be involved with bringing forward the infrastructure

Object

Representation ID: 1756

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

Policy ID1, and particularly its final paragraph, is not strong enough within the context of the national Planning Practice Guidance on viability. Moreover, national guidance puts responsibility on site promoters to engage in plan making to ensure that proposals can be policy compliant, accounting for development costs. LCC suggests the final paragraph of ID1 is strengthened to advise that only ‘particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage’. In making this change, SKDC should consider the Planning Practice Guidance wording and the associated list of ‘particular circumstances’. It is appreciated that it is not possible to identify the precise infrastructure requirements for the whole plan period but LCC welcomes the early consideration of the infrastructure requirements, specifically of the site allocations. This should be considered beyond Highway infrastructure and look at the land holistically in terms of all requirements on the land such as drainage, sewerage, energy and clean water. The IDS will be integral to ensuring the long term sustainability of the plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1788

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

While the policy is related to the provision of infrastructure required as a result of new development, it should be recognised that there are significant existing infrastructure issues in Bourne. The BPNP Steering Group has outlined key issues in relation to transport infrastructure in its response to Policy ID2. Other issues include schools which are recognised as being at or close to capacity by the Local Education Authority and difficulties accessing healthcare and dentists. Further comment on the provision of school infrastructure has been made in response to the proposed housing allocations: Policy SKPR-53 Land at Mill Drove and Policy SKPR-83 – Land North of Mill Drove.

Object

Representation ID: 1796

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services

Welcomes the recognition of health infrastructure as essential infrastructure, with an expectation that development proposals will make provision to meet the cost of healthcare infrastructure made necessary by the development. Recommends that the Local Plan have a specific section in the document that sets out the process to determine the appropriate form of developer contributions to health infrastructure. The Local Plan should emphasise that the NHS and its partners will need to work with the Council in the formulation of appropriate mitigation measures. Recommends engaging with relevant Integrated Care Board (ICB) to add further detail within the Local Plan and supporting evidence base (IDP) regarding the process for determining the appropriate form of contribution towards the provision of healthcare infrastructure where this is justified. Provides suggestions to processes as a starting point.

Support

Representation ID: 1933

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

This policy requires ALL development to demonstrate sufficient infrastructure capacity (including blue green infrastructure) to support and meet the essential infrastructure requirements. On the western edge of Grantham there are various employment allocations that may need to provide off-site improvements to blue green infrastructure, such improvements could be considered within the canal corridor.

Support

Representation ID: 1944

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & Barratt Developments PLC

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

Infrastructure is critical to successful growth and this policy approach is supported and is aligned with the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations. Our client’s site, Land south of Harrowby Lane, Grantham offers an opportunity to deliver significant new infrastructure for the benefit of existing and new residents.

Object

Representation ID: 2147

Received: 05/04/2024

Respondent: Geoff Dunmore

The current sewer system in Towngate West struggles to cope with current demand,this winter property in Towngate West has been flooded from sewage rising up through inspection chambers. the plan should clearly show the timing for an improved and larger capacity sewage works which must be implemented before any further development is carried out.

Object

Representation ID: 2422

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy ID1 outlines the Council expectations for ensuring that the necessary infrastructure is provided at the appropriate time and in a suitable location. It is important that the policy and supporting text recognise that as part of development opportunities the provision of infrastructure is not solely within the “gift” of the developer/applicant. In most instances, the Section 106 obligation can provide the land and/or funds to aid the provision of infrastructure but often the service provider (such as education, utilities) is responsible for the delivery of the infrastructure. As a result, it is unreasonable to expect that development proposals provide the necessary infrastructure at an appropriate time as this fails to acknowledge the range of parties that need to align and be involved with bringing forward the infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 2460

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Saint Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Marrons

We are supportive of Policy ID1 which states that all development proposals will be expected to demonstrate that there is, or will be, sufficient infrastructure capacity (including blue and green infrastructure) to support and meet the essential infrastructure requirements arising from the proposed development.

We would welcome an acknowledgement of the delivery of an excess or a significant improvement in local infrastructure that could enable additional sustainable development.

Support

Representation ID: 2540

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands

Agent: Savills

DWH are generally supportive of this policy. However, it is important that all statutory consultees provide realistic assumptions on contributions that will be sought for proposed allocations in order to avoid the need for further viability assessment at the decision making stage (PPG Reference ID: 10-002-20190509). Currently the Viability Assessment just notes an assumption of S106 Agreement costs of £20,000 per unit. It is unclear from the Assessment whether this is based on what has been requested by consultees or just experience by the Consultants elsewhere.