Object

Representation ID: 16

Received: 06/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

Reference to the Local Plan dated January 2020 which this update builds upon doesn't uphold the key principles set out in the summary.

Object

Representation ID: 54

Received: 08/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Hume

The Prime Minister stated on Prime Ministers question time on Wednesday 6th March that houses should be built on brown field sites and this should be at the heart of all planning for local authorities. Houses should not be built on farmland. Why are there large developments on farmland in the Local Plan?

Object

Representation ID: 254

Received: 11/03/2024

Respondent: Ms Anna Welch

Please clarify your proposed methodology for site selection. The highest possible graded farmland at site SKPR-71 with inappropriate road access, already dangerous village junctions, proven flood risk, conservation, green and sustainability issues, the disastrous adjacent SPA pipeline, surrounding quarrying, controversial Teal Way development and lack of infrastructure…surely makes it a no brainer! Detail submitted by email.

Object

Representation ID: 315

Received: 01/04/2024

Respondent: Mr John Bavister

These plots of land if developed would transform overnight a rural village to a sprawling urban bed and breakfast
site. Carlby does not possess sustainable infrastructure to carry development as such. This does not mean there will not
be any development within the SKDC policies.
The Draft Site assessment report is indecisive. It States “As per the proposed spatial
strategy of the local Plan review - no sites are being allocated within identified 'smaller villages’.” That other more
suitable sites have been identified rather than stating that the Carlby sites are not policy compliant.

Object

Representation ID: 433

Received: 10/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Sophie Yuill

I object because it is very for a community to have green space and I worry for the environment for our future generations.

Object

Representation ID: 434

Received: 10/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Gale Cotterell

I object to this proposal because we have very little green space left in our town, we have few facilities to cater for a larger population and the area would prone to flooding which would have to be filtered away from the site and into an already high level river. Our town is in need of green space which can be developed with trees, nature and a place for people to walk.

Object

Representation ID: 512

Received: 15/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rhona Repton

The width and scope of proposed Development Sites across the District suggests a naive, scattergun approach to Residential Planning by an Organisation that doesn't appear to bear the better being of the local populations at heart. Surely, there are enough development opportunities already earmarked within the District - Poplar Farm, Rectory Farm, RAF Spittlegate, Stamford Quarry Farm and many, many more, PLUS the opportunities opened up within the Grantham Southern Relief Road - between 2021 to 2041. Just liaise with Brownlow Esates. They hold the answers. Spare your Residents - if you care? If not, where are your loyalties, SKDC?

Object

Representation ID: 984

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

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

Object

Representation ID: 1766

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

BNG should be a significant factor in emerging Plans such providing clear advice and guidance for certainty. BNG should be fully considered in relation to site allocations, to understand requirements for a site to be allocated and impact on viability and other policy requirements and considerations. Consider the impact on what level of housing densities are achievable and number of new homes needed. Importance to understand the BNG costs and impacts on the viability of the site and ability to delivery against other policy requirements such as affordable housing or S106.

Object

Representation ID: 2087

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Preferred site allocations, other than the allocations the Council is proposing to carry forward from the adopted Local Plan, will be identified at the next stage of plan preparation which is scheduled for winter 2023. We would comment that this date has of course now passed.

Object

Representation ID: 2254

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Alan Steel

I also object to the Site Assessment Methodology. It is stated that site selection needs to follow a robust assessment process and that major and minor criteria are applied to each site. This robust assessment process is then completely nullified by the possible addition of a “narrative” which can prevent sites with red Major Criteria being rejected. This makes the whole process subjective and not objective/robust because sites are selected or rejected according to “narratives” or “measures to mitigate” red majors, thus basically disregarding the robust assessment process altogether and choosing sites the Council wants to choose. (By contrast, Peterborough City Council’s recent draft site assessment methodology states “Any site scoring a Red against a major criterion will be rejected from the site assessment”. This is a truly robust assessment process!)

Also, it is recorded in the Site Assessment methodology that SKDC conducted site visits to get a better understanding of the character and context of the surrounding area and impacts potential development may have. Where is the data/evidence/reports on these site visits, especially for Site SKPR-144? If SKDC had a better understanding of the character and context of the area, this site would not have been put forward for development.

Support

Representation ID: 2274

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

A Site Assessment has been carried out to demonstrate where there is suitable land for development. The assessment has used the Red Amber Green (RAG) method which we agree is appropriate in finding the most suitable land for development.

Object

Representation ID: 2291

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Central Lincolnshire Local Plan team

Para 1.17, last sentence, should the next stage say “scheduled for winter 2024”.

Support

Representation ID: 2306

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Department for Education

The next version of the Local Plan should seek to identify specific sites which can deliver the early years, school and post-16 places needed to support growth, based on the latest evidence of identified need and demand in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (2018).

The department recommends the Council consider highlighting in the next version of the Local Plan that:
- specific requirements for developer contributions to increase the capacity of education infrastructure through expansion or new facilities will be confirmed at application stage to ensure the latest data on identified need informs delivery; and that
- requirements to deliver schools or nurseries on some sites could change in future if it were demonstrated and agreed that the site had become surplus to requirements, and is therefore no longer required for educational use.

Object

Representation ID: 2475

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Charmaine Morgan

Call for Sites with regard to Gypsy & Traveller sites. The lack of available formal gypsy and traveller sites is extremely concerning and leaves the council open to accusations of failing to comply with the Equalities Act. The recent refusal of applications by Gypsies and travellers highlight the need for formal sites to be identified as a matter of urgency. Even if compulsory purchase of land, in suitable locations is required.

There was a general concern during public meetings that there are no formal sites for gypsies and travellers within SKDC with those consulted considering this should be addressed.

Object

Representation ID: 2551

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: F.H Gilman & Co in Administration

Agent: Lambert Smith Hampton

The assessment criteria of the Site Assessment Report should be amended to distinguish between sites that are in proximity to the wide range of shops, services, facilities and public transport, and those that are only served by limited shops and services in rural locations.

Object

Representation ID: 2563

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Carol Bond

Para 3.16 in the Draft site assessment document states that ‘All identified settlements are expected to play a role in meeting South Kestevens’ future growth needs’. This means that less suitable sites in some villages will be chosen ahead of more suitable sites in other towns or villages in order to ‘spread the load fairly’.

Object

Representation ID: 2564

Received: 20/03/2024

Respondent: Londonthorpe and Harrowby Without Parish Council

In the site assessment document there are a number of sites that are listed that as being located in the Grantham Parish, they actually sit in the Parish of Londonthorpe and Harrowby Without. SKPR-65, SKPR-73, SKPR-81, SKPR-82, SKPR-96, SKPR-98, SKPR-179, SKPR-187, SKPR-238, SKPR-269 and a proportion of SKPR-278 as far as I can see.

Object

Representation ID: 2566

Received: 04/04/2024

Respondent: David Prescott

The site assessment process and document is very crude with insufficient granularity to properly reflect the impact of the site and its alleged sustainability. As an example, it has a blanket green for access to public transport for what is in fact a poor rural standard bus service which will not provide for the transport needs of any residents of the suggested new development. It is a poor substitute for a fully reasoned case based on proper local input.

The output is unconvincing in its site selection with an obvious but unexplained site ranking shown by some sites being proposed to be taken forward and other “with merit” being left for now, but which presumably will appear in future local plans.

Object

Representation ID: 2603

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Agent: Marrons

In respect of the evidence which has underpinned selection of the preferred sites, there are no significant flaws in terms of the process of how this has been undertaken, but we take issue with some of the conclusions made in respect of the effects of developing SKPR-283 for housing, which are in a number of ways unsupported by evidence and we would encourage the local planning authority to supplement and revise its assessment.