Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3059
Received: 11/07/2025
Respondent: Ian Lings
As a Local Plan is taken forward towards the Regulation 19 stage with the preparation of Draft Policies and Site Options, and it has to be prepared in relation to the policies in the new NPPF, how do you ensure that the LDF informs and aligns with things like corporate and community plans, creates opportunities for the attraction of economic investment, produce policies and proposals for affordable housing, help grow the economy including town centres and employment sites economic development and town centres and advance the delivery of sustainable development?
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3060
Received: 15/07/2025
Respondent: South Holland District Council
I write in response to the above consultation on behalf of South Holland DC.
They have no comments to make on the proposed allocations.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3120
Received: 06/07/2025
Respondent: Barry Hancock
Thank you for your email about regulation 18. I am happy to say more about any environmental aspects of the LP, but I am not sure about regulation 18 and how it may affect our natural environment if at all. Please keep me posted on the progress of the LP.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3121
Received: 07/08/2025
Respondent: Newark & Sherwood District Council
Newark and Sherwood Council have reviewed the proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations and we have nothing to comment on.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3143
Received: 22/08/2025
Respondent: Mrs Anna Kelly
Congratulations to all who complete the obstacle course and make it to the process of commenting on this consultation. This has not been an easy or straight forward consultation to comment on. Accessibility? Questionable
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3174
Received: 23/08/2025
Respondent: Sam Duncomb
I moved to a village for a reason. Peace and quiet away from traffic and to enjoy the countryside. The current infrastructure cannot support such a gross number of new homes.
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3234
Received: 24/08/2025
Respondent: David Green
Traffic Congestion – The Cross-Roads in the village is a rat-run for all vehicles including HGV’s travelling through to Melton, most do not travel at 30mph. Increased traffic will cause major issues.
When the A1 is blocked the village becomes gridlocked, more houses will cause more traffic. Many near misses and accidents have occurred over the years.
The infrastructure already in the village will not support more houses. We are already lacking school places, doctors’ appointments and a Police presence.
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3331
Received: 25/08/2025
Respondent: Mrs Joanne Cropper
Development of 86 houses not in keeping with Church Lane and surrounding area. Traffic detrimental impact on church lane and Grantham Road. Negative impact on peaceful area of church and pinfold, plus impact on wellbeing of villagers and wildlife. Destruction of ancient and historic hedgerows and byway. Destruction of community area, opportunity to meet people and grow friendships. 86 houses worth of traffic using church lane, which is a single carriageway restricted byway, cannot be safe or feasible.
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3376
Received: 26/08/2025
Respondent: Mrs Susan Olver
No thank yoi
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3386
Received: 26/08/2025
Respondent: Mr Tim Arnold
Stop front-loading all development in larger communities. Allow smaller villages to grow by one acre a year.
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3423
Received: 26/08/2025
Respondent: Mrs G Smart
I strongly object. The proposed number of additional homes will adversely affect the village atmosphere. The local school is already oversubscribed. Widening Obthorpe Lane to the correct standard impossible without use of land from current gardens.
Most local drivers using Obthorpe Lane are courteous to walkers,cyclists and each other but increasing traffic increases danger to pedestrians and cyclists from accidents, air and noise pollution. Increased footfall potential to harm the SSSI at Dole Wood.
The proposed exit onto Obthorpe Lane is dangerous as in a dip.
Increased traffic and congestion at Horseshoe crossroads would increase accident risk.
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3427
Received: 26/08/2025
Respondent: David Prescott
• The decision is based on flawed, inadequate, misleading and incorrect information
• The site is not appropriate or suitable for residential use.
Object
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3715
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Ms Lisa Porter
The infrastructure cannot cope as it is. Increased demand on health and social services, schools, etc makes the plan untenable. I'm really concerned about environmental impact on wildlife, flooding, pollution, littering. Increased traffic to already congested roads, delivery vehicles such as Amazon adding to the household numbers. Noise levels of all the traffic, people and animals (dogs barking). All these things put existing homeowners at risk with their physical and mental wellbeing and will result in loss of enjoyment of home life.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3769
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Hayley Ansell
The village is getting so big now and we literally have no room at the school now.
This will no longer be a village if we don’t stand up and say something about more houses being built!
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3773
Received: 25/04/2024
Respondent: Mr Stephen Holland
My submission to the current Consultation will challenge the sustainability of Thurlby and Northorpe as a settlement, based on the Sustainability Assessment (SA) undertaken by AECOM on behalf of SKDC.
There is also a further Sustainability Assessment commissioned by Allison Homes and prepared by BOYER which has been shared with SKDC in support of Allison Homes application. There are several inaccuracies within the report which lead to misleading assumptions which are seen to be positive contributions to the sustainability of Thurlby and Northorpe. This report will also be challenged.
At Thurlby Parish Council meeting on Wednesday 19th August 2025, Allison Homes were invited to make a presentation to Thurlby Parish Council in support of their plans for SKPR-56. The site map shared on a slide to the meeting showed a full plan of the housing with a recreational area to the south of the plot. The indicative number of houses was ninety-one (91). Allison Homes were confident that completion of the site would be by the end of 2027. Building would start in 2026 should the Planning Application be approved. information attached which clearly states what has been changed, deleted or updated subject to the review.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3838
Received: 13/08/2025
Respondent: Sport England
In addition to the site-specific comments provided we would also draw your attention to our comments in our response dated 23rd April 2024 on housing allocations which include existing sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, and housing allocations adjoining playing fields and sports facilities.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3853
Received: 27/08/2025
Respondent: Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust
We have no comments to make on the proposed changes to the following areas: Stamford, Market Deeping, Barrowby, Baston, Claypole, Harlaxton, Langtoft, Long Bennington, Morton, South Witham, Thurlby.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3879
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Home Builders Federation
Timing of the Consultation:
Disappointed that the Council has chosen to undertake this consultation during the summer holidays, which will have has limited the opportunity for our members to fully engage. HBF also welcome the Council’s efforts to in-crease the housing supply and recognise the need to maintain plan-making process timescales
Housing Requirement:
HBF would request that the Council fully considers all of the issues that may result in a need for a higher housing requirement.
Housing Allocations:
HBF agree that it is important that that Council seeks to fully meet the housing re-quirement for South Kesteven in full and agree that this will require further allocations.
Biodiversity Net Gain requirements:
HBF would question the way Biodiversity Net Gain requirements are included within the wording of every allocation
Whole Plan Viability testing:
Is an important part of the plan-making process. However, as noted in PPG (ID: 10-003-20180724) assessing the viability of plans does not re-quire individual testing of every site or assurance that individual sites are viable
Plan Period:
Plan period has been extended to 2043. HBF considers that the Council should ensure that the Plan covers a period of 15 years from the adoption of the Plan.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 3941
Received: 23/07/2025
Respondent: Department for Education
The department notes that significant growth in housing stock is expected in the district in the Local Plan consultation document and anticipates an annual housing requirement of 886 dwellings per year to the end of the plan period in 2043. This 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.
The NPPF advises that LPAs should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of communities and that LPAs should give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools to widen choice in education (para 100).
The department supports the principle of South Kesteven safeguarding land for the provision of new early years. When new schools are developed, local authorities should also seek to safeguard land for any future expansion of new schools where demand indicates this might be necessary, in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance and DfE guidance on securing developer contributions for education.
South Kesteven 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 Development (2011) which sets out the government’s commitment to support the development of state-funded schools and their delivery through the planning system.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4138
Received: 26/08/2025
Respondent: Canal and River Trust
The Trust have reviewed the allocations contained within the document and based on the information available we have no comment to make.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4259
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Taylor Wimpey
Agent: Marrons
Housing Requirement, Spatial Strategy and SA process
The housing requirement could exceed the minimum local housing need in South Kesteven due to alignment of homes and jobs and delivery of affordable housing.
Updated considerations to the overarching strategy should be considered through the current consultation or its supporting evidence base, including through the Sustainability Appraisal addendum (SA).
There may be merit in reviewing the relative balance of housing across the Sub-Regional Centre and the Market Towns, to ensure the strategy reflects both the sustainability and deliverability credentials of each settlement.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4273
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Bettinson Trust
Agent: Savills
Meeting Housing Need
The total need of the plan period should be at least 17,900 dwellings (2023- 2043). The consultation document does not seem to have taken account of any affordable housing uplift, economic uplift or any cross-boundary requirement when calculating the housing requirement.
Plan Period
SKDC should be revise the plan period to 2045 or beyond.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4335
Received: 21/08/2025
Respondent: AFS Dean
Agent: STAT Planning
The Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan Table 8 identifies the current distribution of housing in South Kesteven District ‘heavily influenced by the scale of allocations made in the adopted Local Plan’. The table shows a clear over-reliance on Grantham for housing delivery to date; 46% compared to the next nearest 19% across all Larger Villages. Housing distribution is just 4% in Other Settlements. A more balanced approach to distribution needs to be taken to meet the effective test of soundness, supporting housing delivery across the district. Other Settlements need allocations to support their longevity, ensure continued service provision in smaller villages and provide housing availability and choice for all, promoting sustainable development by locating housing where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities in accordance with Paragraph 83 of the NPPF.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4354
Received: 20/08/2025
Respondent: Historic England
The evidence base is critical to the preparation of a Local Plan in accordance with the NPPF. Historic England object to the lack of proportionate assessment provided, contrary to paragraph 36 of NPPF. There is very strong concern regarding the lack of heritage assessments presented within the evidence base, such as as referenced on page 4, paragraph 1.20. In accordance with the NPPF, paragraph 36, proportionate evidence must be produced. 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
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4385
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Strata
Agent: Marrons
Housing Requirement, Spatial Strategy and SA Process
The housing requirement could exceed the minimum local housing need in South Kesteven due to alignment of homes and jobs and delivery of affordable housing.
A strategy that focuses a significant amount of growth within Grantham (despite deliverability challenges) and substantially increases growth in the smallest Market Town (The Deepings) and within the lesser scoring Larger Villages cannot credibly be regarded as delivering a sustainable pattern of growth.
The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) is legally deficient, failing to comply with the SEA Directive and relevant case law. It does not identify or assess reasonable alternatives to the chosen strategy, nor does it provide reasons for rejecting them.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4391
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Phoenix Strategic Land Limited
Agent: Marrons
Housing need and spatial strategy
The housing requirement could exceed the minimum local housing need in South Kesteven due to alignment of homes and jobs and delivery of affordable housing.
SKDC should provide clearer justification for its spatial strategy in light of the updated housing requirements, ensuring that the distribution of growth aligns more closely with the settlement hierarchy
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4428
Received: 28/08/2025
Respondent: Phoenix Strategic Land Limited
Agent: Marrons
The housing requirement could exceed the minimum local housing need in South Kesteven due to alignment of homes and jobs and delivery of affordable housing.
Endorse the fact that Claypole is recognised as a ‘Larger Village’ given the availability of services and facilities. Recommends that relative sustainability credentials of the larger Villages should be used to inform the credentials of the settlement hierarchy.
Considers that SKDC should provide clearer justification for its spatial strategy in light of the updated housing requirements, ensuring that the distribution of growth aligns more closely with the settlement hierarchy
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4430
Received: 30/09/2025
Respondent: Nightingale Land
Plan Period - support the Council’s decision to extend the plan period over a 20 year period to allow for a minimum 15 years from adoption.
Buffer - a larger buffer of sites should be considered given that some sites identified within the consultation document relate to large strategic extensions/garden villages. Whilst these sites can make an important contribution to the overall planning strategy for the area, they will inevitably take longer to deliver due to pre-commencement conditions, infrastructure requirements, land reclamation etc. The Council should therefore consider whether the buffer should be increased to allow further flexibility within its housing land supply to respond to changes in circumstance which may affect housing delivery.
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4432
Received: 27/08/2025
Respondent: National Grid Electricity Transmission
Agent: Fisher German
Following a review of the above Development Plan Document, we have identified one or more NGET assets within the Plan area.
Asset Description - 4VK ROUTE (TWR 001 - 001B): 400kV Overhead Transmission Line route: COTTAM - EATON SOCON - WYMONDLEY 2
Comment
Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations
Representation ID: 4453
Received: 27/08/2025
Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands
Agent: Savills
Local Housing Need – Standard Method quoted is not considered correct. SKDC’s approach to meeting housing needs fails to make the distinction between the Standard Method setting out a baseline need position (i.e. not the complete housing requirement), and the housing requirement which includes additional uplifts for reasons such as economic growth, affordable housing need or cross boundary requirements for example, as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)3
Buffer - To achieve this buffer and meet the ‘housing requirement’ identifed a number of additional sites have been allocated and there have been amendments to site capacities.
Plan period - do not consider it has been extended sufficiently.
Settlement Hierarchy – support Harlaxton being maintained as a Larger Village.
Housing Density Study - Consider that density should be agreed on a site by site basis rather than a blanket figure, which fails to take account of prevailing character and density of existing development. In the next draft density policy, it is considered that the wording ‘on a site by site basis’ should be included and using a range should be considered such as ‘approximately 30-40 dwellings, to be agreed on a site by site basis’.