Support

Representation ID: 15

Received: 06/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

Again statutory requirement so no choice but to support.

Object

Representation ID: 53

Received: 08/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Hume

How much money will SKDC make from the New Homes Bonus Scheme?
Example
Using 22/23 SKDC data of number of houses in each council tax band and using 2023/2024 council tax band rate and the number 14,020 new houses.
If we assume the council tax banding allocation is a relatively similar percentage split for the new builds this will generate a New Homes Bonus total of approximately 145 million in today's prices. 6 years of the average council tax per home. Which averages £10,000 per new house. Is this the motivation for excessive new house building, above actual need?

Object

Representation ID: 281

Received: 18/03/2024

Respondent: Mr PHILIP WILLIAMS

not needed...

Support

Representation ID: 314

Received: 01/04/2024

Respondent: Mr John Bavister

Totally support that SKDC should have an up to date LPA, Why has it taken 4 years to get to this stage when most of the Policies are the same, some with a few narrative changes, Generally there is no improvement in the ambiguous lines in policies that allow circumnavigation by officers and developers. Concluding in Inspectors who revel in such flexibility.

Object

Representation ID: 950

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Adele Crompton-Allan

I think that the SKDC need to think very carefully when choosing which land is appropriate for building. I live in Great Gonerby and the land that has been proposed is SKPR-241 land off church lane. This is scandalous and should be removed and another, more suitable area chosen, such as the land opposite Great Gonerby Memorial Hall on Belton Lane. The impact on residents will be less and the land could be used to run a road through to divert the traffic off of Newark Hill Junction, especially once Alison homes start building there homes off Belton Lane.

Object

Representation ID: 983

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

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

Object

Representation ID: 1259

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Mark Smitheringale

I was only made aware of this by a neighbour who found it by chance and felt obligated to tell surrounding neighbours what’s being proposed and provide feedback. The report is buried in a website not easy to find by the users. A poor start to get public feedback. Been a long time since 2020 and most people had forgot about the original vision. Communication to the areas where development is being considered needs improvement and cover those not computer literate. None of my surrounding neighbours except 1 where aware of this report the day before comment closure

Object

Representation ID: 1706

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Historic England

At present, the evidence base is insufficient to meet the requirements of paragraph 31 of the NPPF.

The evidence base is critical to the preparation of a Local Plan in accordance with the NPPF. There is concern regarding the lack of heritage assessments presented within the evidence base. Much of this information may already be available.
Particularly relevant to site allocations and designations could include the following:-
• Updating conservation area appraisals
• Heritage Impact Assessment for site allocations
• Undertaking characterisation studies
• Producing setting studies – of specific settlements, or specific heritage assets
• Local lists
• Assessments of landscape sensitivity

Support

Representation ID: 1765

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

HBF note that this is consultation characterises the Reg 18 Local Plan consultation as part of a Review and update of the Local Plan rather than a new plan.
HBF also welcomes the Local Plan public consultation events and the ability for these to be watched on-line. This was particularly helpful in explaining the Council’s approach to the Plan Review and we welcome the recognition of the tensions and policy choices that will need to be made, and the policy balance that will need to be struck to ensure development is sustainable and viable.

Object

Representation ID: 1797

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: NHS Property Services

Recommends the Council engage with the NHS, particularly the ICB, on an on-going basis as part of preparing the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). A sound IDP must include sufficient detail to provide clarity around the healthcare infrastructure required to support growth, and to ensure that planning obligations effectively support and result in capital funding towards delivery of the required infrastructure. Related to this, appropriate healthcare costs should be factored into the Local Plan Viability Assessment for relevant typologies. Such an approach means that developers are adequately informed in advance that they may be required to make contributions towards healthcare infrastructure. A separate cost input for health infrastructure in the plan viability assessment would ensure that healthcare mitigation is appropriately weighted when evaluating the potential planning obligations necessary to mitigate the full impact of a development. This is particularly important in situations where a viability assessment demonstrates that proposals are unable to fund the full range of infrastructure requirements.

Object

Representation ID: 1996

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Bridget Rosewell

The Evidence Base - I note that the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is missing and there is no full assessment of the methodology for the Settlement Hierarchy. The paper referred to is not in the evidence base. The Plan needs both of these and show how they have been used in order to be able to be assessed. Without them it is not sound

Object

Representation ID: 1998

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jill Groutage

Draft Local Plan – Site Assessment Report – February 2024 – concluded the site adjacent to the A15 (Baston Fields) would be a suitable location for housing development, yet the same report found other sites in close proximity would not be suitable. The Main findings for all of these sites being - Site has been identified to fall within an area affected by a minerals and waste policy from the adopted Lincolnshire County Council Minerals and Waste Plan (2016).

The Baston Fields site has also been identified in the mineral and waste plan. The report failed to mention land south of Greatford Road and west of King Street has been nominated as potential sites for the working of sand and gravel in the recent call for sites for the MWLP and Land to the west of King Street, approximately 500m south of site is allocated/has planning permission for sand and gravel extraction (MS25-SL Manor Farm), yet these were considerations in finding neighbouring sites unsuitable, furthermore, the site boarders a flood risk catergory3 area

The Local Draft Plan has a number of statements which are at odds with Site Assessment Report – February 2024 in finding this site suitable for housing development

Object

Representation ID: 2005

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Gordon Flint

Has SKDC adopted the recent reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)?I cannot see that it has and therefore I need to ask why are we being consulted on a local plan that has not been produced to the reformed NPPF?

Object

Representation ID: 2064

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: South Lincolnshire Green Party

We are concerned that the consultation is opaque. There is no guidance on how to interrogate the documentation. Wild Justice has recently won a court case against Defra for not providing a comprehensible consultation, so clearly the courts are concerned about consultation being valid. We cannot see the difference between the attachments, “Climate Change Study”, “Legislation and “Carbon Reduction".
Some of the evidence base is very old e.g. the Landscape Character Assessment (dated 2007, but written in 2005). It’s mentioned that this should be used as a baseline for assessing agricultural policies, so a refresh would be helpful in assessing this.
We note that in the Supplementary Planning Document (para 2.16.3) refers to the Living Landscapes Approach. This document was dated 2014 and I have been unable to verify that it is still current.

Object

Representation ID: 2255

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Alan Steel

The consultation process for this review of the Draft Local Plan has not been robust. There have been no face-to-face meetings or consultation “road shows” with residents which should be an integral part of the consultation process. The two online consultations were mere presentations and the questions purportedly asked during the live event were all answered by the presenters reading a prepared script, so how could the questions have just been submitted during the event? Furthermore, no-one I know had any of the questions raised that they had submitted.

Object

Representation ID: 2474

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Charmaine Morgan

The Draft Local Plan document does not represent a 'new' plan but rather is adopting an existing plan and adding further enhancements to it.

Object

Representation ID: 2505

Received: 16/03/2024

Respondent: Anthony Upward

We demand that the planning process for the proposed development be conducted with the highest levels of engagement and transparency. This includes a comprehensive public consultation phase, where community feedback is actively sought, listened to, and incorporated into planning decisions. We insist on the publication of detailed plans and assessments related to the development's impact on local infrastructure and services, ensuring that all stakeholders have access to information and a meaningful opportunity to contribute to the discussion.

Object

Representation ID: 2511

Received: 26/03/2024

Respondent: Antony Swindell

We demand that the planning process for the proposed development be conducted with the highest levels of engagement and transparency. This includes a comprehensive public consultation phase, where community feedback is actively sought, listened to, and incorporated into planning decisions. We insist on the publication of detailed plans and assessments related to the development's impact on local infrastructure and services, ensuring that all stakeholders have access to information and a meaningful opportunity to contribute to the discussion.