Object

Representation ID: 8

Received: 01/03/2024

Respondent: p eassom

In Stamford, Ryhall Road and connecting residential streets will be affected by traffic using the proposed west-east road. Recommend that our council enlists people with expert knowledge and people with local knowledge to scrutinise the traffic models on behalf of the people of Stamford.

Support

Representation ID: 224

Received: 10/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 729

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Paul Martin

SKPR-57 is too far from Grantham town centre. Active Travel will not work from here. Site not within town boundaries.
LCC say "Overall mitigation required probably too great for site". This has seemingly been completely ignored.

Object

Representation ID: 779

Received: 21/04/2024

Respondent: Jane Bateman

Traffic is already a problem in Stamford and with the number of houses expected to be built as part of the various housing developments it will only get worse. We need to get people out of their cars. Far more needs to be done to improve public transport (i e bus services all round the town and more frequent including on Saturdays and Sundays; an improved train service through Stamford with more frequent services than hourly, later services on a Saturday evening and earlier services on a Sunday).
More safe cycle and pedestrian routes.

Object

Representation ID: 1215

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Adam Brookes

I would like to see that where policies seek good cycling infrastructure, reference is made to the Department for Transport Local Transport Note LTN 1/20 Cycle infrastructure design. This will help to ensure that where development proposals are being assessed in reference to cycling infrastructure, it is being judged against comprehensive, high-quality guidance. This will in turn help to ensure that more suitable cycling infrastructure is provided and so contribute to the plans aims and objectives.

Object

Representation ID: 1573

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mike Howes

i am very concerned at the lack of safety on the A151

Support

Representation ID: 1789

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

The policy commitment of SKDC to work with delivery partners to support and promote an efficient and safe transport network which offers choice, reduces the need to travel by car and encourages the use of alternative modes of transport is strongly supported. However, while the policy is related to new development, it should be recognised that there are significant existing transport issues within the town of Bourne which need to be addressed, including the following, Town centre traffic, reducing the need to travel by car, and promoting cycling.

Support

Representation ID: 1934

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Canal and River Trust

Developments on the western edge of Grantham may need to provide off-site improvements that could include improvements to the towpath as a sustainable transport route to/from Denton/Harlaxton into Grantham.

Support

Representation ID: 1945

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & Barratt Developments PLC

Agent: Pegasus Planning Group

Our client’s site, Land south of Harrowby Lane, Grantham offers an opportunity delivery well connected and sustainable growth to the east of Grantham, further supporting the expansion of infrastructure on this side of the town. Development here would be supported by a detailed Transport Assessment and Travel Plan to ensure travel is minimised and sustainable travel is maximised.

Support

Representation ID: 2333

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

National Highways notes that the policy focuses on securing transport infrastructure through financial contributions. However, we would recommend the text be amended so the delivery mechanisms under the Highways Act 1980 through Section 278 Agreements are also included for the delivery of highway mitigation.
Section 106 contributions can be an effective way of securing developer investment towards necessary highways mitigation. However, securing the ‘forward funding’ of highways schemes in the timescales necessary to deliver growth cannot be guaranteed, and any shortfalls in funding could jeopardise the delivery of a scheme. As such, there is a risk to highway authorities in accepting a S106 contribution which allows the development to proceed without necessarily having the required mitigation in place.
A Section 278 agreement is an alternative method of securing highway improvements which puts the developer (or consortium of developers) in control of the highway scheme delivery, and subsequently more in control of when their development can come forward. For schemes on the SRN, National Highways would oversee the delivery of the highways scheme via the Section 278 process, but it would be fully designed, funded, and delivered by the developer.
Where contributions are the most suitable mechanism for securing highway infrastructure improvements, it may still be necessary to use Grampian conditions to restrict occupation of a development until the highway infrastructure has been delivered. This would be used to prevent an otherwise unacceptable safety impact or severe residual cumulative impact in terms of highway capacity, to ensure compliance with paragraph 115 of the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 2449

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mulberry Land and the Machin Family

Agent: Mulberry Strategic Land

A review of the existing provision for Lorry Parks, and parking has identified that the A1 does have existing provisions for such facilities, however there is very limited lorry parking available within and around Grantham.

Land at Oakdale Farm (ref: SKPR-182) is allocated for employment purposes, which we fully support. Given the scale of the land and the relationship with both the local and strategic road network the site is uniquely placed to provide a new Lorry Park. The indicative masterplan has identified the necessary land which would provide around 150 spaces however there is significant opportunity to increase this scale. Such facilities are becoming more important when it comes to attracting investors and operators away from more established routes such as the M1 which is much more mature as a market and has greater number of trucks tops.

Support

Representation ID: 2461

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Saint Land and Development Ltd

Agent: Marrons

We welcome the passage of Policy ID2 as set out in the Draft Local Plan which states that new development will be required to contribute to transport improvements in line with appropriate evidence, including the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, the Local Transport Plan and local transport strategies.

Support

Representation ID: 2541

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands

Agent: Savills

DWH generally supports this policy and that the viability assessment referred to includes infrastructure improvement costs in the assessment. This is in accordance with the PPG Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 10- 001-20190509 ‘plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure (such as that needed for education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure)’. However, the specifics on what the infrastructure requirements are have not been set out as such therefore it is not clear what the figures are based on.

Object

Representation ID: 2593

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Gonerby Hill Foot Community Group

Response to ID2: Transport and Strategic Transport Infrastructure reference SKPR-57
Point a) says located where travel can be minimized. Site allocation SKPR-57 is some distance from the town centre and will involve vehicular use. The vast majority of the residents would not be prepared to walk or travel from that distance away. The allocated site is not built within Grantham’s boundaries, but is a rural allocation some distance from local facilities and the town centre.
Point e) “Do not severely impact on the safety and movement of traffic on the highway network… provision of new or improved highway infrastructure”. Lincolnshire County Council Highways has already stated in the site assessment survey that this “Overall mitigation required probably too great for site”. It is inconceivable that planners would ignore such a clear signal from LCC that this site is not appropriate, and the infrastructure required would be too great an ask.