Comment

Representation ID: 4459

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian P Bailey

Agent: LRG

Land east of Foston Road, Allington - consider our Client’s land presents an opportunity to create a logical small scale extension to Allington and will help to provide South Kesteven with an additional suitable, available and deliverable site for development which would aid in meeting the Council’s housing requirement.

Plan Period - Although it is welcomed that the Council have amended the start and end date of the plan, we regard further consideration needs to be given as the Plan’s start date is over two years ago

Plan Buffer – Consider the Council should still ensure contingency is provided in the event of under delivery and a 20% buffer should be retained to also consider the implications of the increased standard method figure.

Spatial Strategy - there is a need to rethink the spatial strategy to ensure the Council is getting the most out of the housing market across the District. Proposing allocations in medium size villages such as Allington which are proportionate to the scale of these villages would offer a whole new supply of housing in underutilised housing markets.

Object

Representation ID: 4474

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Savills

Housing Requirement Calculation - Consider that SKDC should be planning for a minimum of 895 dwellings per annum. Fails to make the distinction between the Standard Method setting out a baseline need position2 (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

Comment

Representation ID: 4488

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Proposed allocations include the provision of 3,000 dwellings in Grantham and the provision of 1,350 dwellings in Stamford. Whilst both sites are subject to pending planning applications any delays in obtaining permission or commencing development on site would create significant shortfall in housing land supply. Whilst the inclusion of strategic development sites may be beneficial to ensuring the needs of residents can be met, they also bring significant challenges to delivery. It would therefore be preferable to allocate a more even proportion of sites across the District to mitigate the risk of any under delivery.

It is considered they are concerns with the suitability and deliverability of a number of the sites proposed for allocation within Ancaster. GFW would therefore proposed land south of Fir Tree Lane is considered as an alternative site for allocation within the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4489

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

The Land West of Grantham has the ability to deliver much needed housing, infrastructure, services, and recreational facilities to South Kesteven.

The opportunity to develop this site is achievable in the early years of the plan period following adoption of the Draft Local Plan. The land is available to come forwards to provide a new village in a sustainable location. This will not only deliver much needed homes, but provide new community facilities, recreational spaces, and transport improvements to support and encourage low carbon travel and active lifestyles.

It is therefore proposed the SKDC consider allocating this deliverable and exemplar site in the emerging SKDC Local Plan to assist in bring forwards this new community.

Comment

Representation ID: 4490

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

Vistry welcome the approach taken by the Council to meet the new housing needs which will assist the Plan in being compliant with the NPPF, it is positive the Council have removed the allocations of sites which are not well located or will have impacts on the surrounding networks. We also welcome the consideration of the 2024 affordability uplift to ensure that the housing needs are informed by the most up to date evidence. However, we consider that the previous buffer of 21% should continue to be carried forwards and planned for as set out within these representations.

Housing Buffer - No justification has been provided by the Council for the decrease in the buffer and although the Council meet the 2023 Housing Delivery Test requirement by providing 95% of needed housing, the figures from the last three years indicate delivery is way below the new Standard Method requirement of 886 per annum.

Plan Period - recommend the start date of the emerging Local Plan is amended to commence in 2024 with an end date of 2044. This will therefore be in line with the proposed set 20 year period that has been set by South Kesteven District Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 4495

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning

It is positive to see the Council’s pro-active approach to re-visit the Reg 18 plan in seeking to meet the full local housing need as a result to changes in the NPPF 2024.

The current emerging Plan indicates that there is a need of 886dpa, equating to 17,720. Using the Standard Method calculation, the figure is 894dpa, and therefore the requirement over the plan period should be increased by 160, to a total of 17,880.

Advises that the Council extend the plan period by one or two years to anticipate delays in adopting the Local Plan. This would also result in an increase in the housing requirement by 894 units for one year, resulting in a total of 18,744 or 1,788 for two years to a total of 19,668.

Given the trend in housing delivery at the current rate, and reliance on a small number of large sites, it is suggested that a 20% buffer should be applied.

There is an over reliance on large strategic sites to deliver majority of the homes during the plan period; with particular concerns in relation to timescales for delivery of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks and Spitalgate Heath, and a lack of detail on the Council’s detailed housing trajectory.

Land south of Casthorpe Road, Barrowby should be included in the proposed allocations for the Reg 19 Plan. It is suitable, available and deliverable in the short-term, as well as sustainably located.

Comment

Representation ID: 4499

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning

It is positive to see the Council’s pro-active approach to re-visit the Reg 18 plan in seeking to meet the full local housing need as a result to changes in the NPPF 2024.

The current emerging Plan indicates that there is a need of 886dpa, equating to 17,720. Using the Standard Method calculation, the figure is 894dpa, and therefore the requirement over the plan period should be increased by 160, to a total of 17,880.

Advises that the Council extend the plan period by one or two years to anticipate delays in adopting the Local Plan. This would also result in an increase in the housing requirement by 894 units for one year, resulting in a total of 18,744 or 1,788 for two years to a total of 19,668.

Given the trend in housing delivery at the current rate, and reliance on a small number of large sites, it is suggested that a 20% buffer should be applied.

There is an over reliance on large strategic sites to deliver majority of the homes during the plan period; with particular concerns in relation to timescales for delivery of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks and Spitalgate Heath, and a lack of detail on the Council’s detailed housing trajectory.

Grantham is viewed to be the sub-regional centre, with a view to accommodate most of the growth. Phase 2, Somerby Hill should be included in the proposed allocations as it available and deliverable in the short-term, as well as sustainably located.

Comment

Representation ID: 4511

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: David Wilson Homes East Midlands and Hallam Land

Agent: Pegasus Group

Plan period - Considers that the Plan period should be extended to at least 2045 in order that plan can be positively prepared and is supported by necessary evidence to justify the policies within the Plan.

Buffer – considers the Local Plan to include a 20%: as set out in the adopted plan, previous consultation and as set out by The Local Plans Expert Group report.

Settlement Hierarchy Review – The proposed hierarchy in Chapter 4 of the consultation Local Plan is unjustified and not sound. Grantham should be shown at the top of the hierarchy and it is clear that it performs a different and more important role and function than any other settlement in the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 4521

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Land First

Agent: Boyer Planning

Consider that the Council’s emerging approach is not sound. Welcome that the Council have acknowledged the need to plan for a higher housing requirement due to the new standard method. However, consider that a realistic start date to the Plan needs to be considered, along with retaining a 20% buffer to increase resilience, and producing a detailed breakdown of the housing trajectory and an assessment of the timescales for each allocation to come forward.

Do not consider that the Council’s emerging approach is sound as further allocations are required in suitable Large Village locations such as Barrowby. Barrowby is a sustainable location and is suitable for further growth within the District. We consider that a balanced approach should be undertaken by the Council so that housing growth is spread across the identified settlement hierarchy. This will assist in the deliverability of the Plan through the provision of choice and competition in the market, will assist in supporting local services, and will support rural communities with new market and affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 4530

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Land First

Agent: Boyer Planning

Consider that the Council’s emerging approach is not sound. Welcome that the Council have acknowledged the need to plan for a higher housing requirement due to the new standard method. However, consider that a realistic start date to the Plan needs to be considered, along with retaining a 20% buffer to increase resilience, and producing a detailed breakdown of the housing trajectory and an assessment of the timescales for each allocation to come forward.

Do not consider that the Council’s emerging approach is sound as further allocations are required in suitable Large Village locations such as Thurlby. Thurlby is a sustainable location and is suitable for further growth within the District. We consider that a balanced approach should be undertaken by the Council so that housing growth is spread across the identified settlement hierarchy. This will assist in the deliverability of the Plan through the provision of choice and competition in the market, will assist in supporting local services, and will support rural communities with new market and affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 4541

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Support the approach put forward by the Council and consider this to be consistent with national policy however we consider the following recommendations which have been detailed above would assist in aiding the plan to be capable of being found sound when examined by a Planning Inspector. We consider the Council need undertake further work in relation to the housing trajectory and support additional sites to meet housing needs due to the potential delay of some of the proposed allocations.
Plan period - Recommends the start date is amended to 2024 and to reflect this the end date 2044, in line with the proposed set 20 year period defined by the Council.
Buffer - The Council should still ensure contingency is provided in the event of under delivery and a 20% buffer should be retained.

Comment

Representation ID: 4557

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

Housing requirement - The housing requirement could, and should, exceed the minimum local housing need. In South Kesteven, these include: Alignment of homes and jobs and delivery of Affordable Housing.

Settlement Hierarchy - we remain concerned that the review considers only the District’s villages and does not revisit the Market Towns or Grantham as the Sub-Regional Centre. This is a significant omission. As highlighted in our previous representations, there are clear differences in the relative sustainability credentials of the Market Towns which should reasonably inform the settlement hierarchy.

Spatial Distribution - The settlement hierarchy itself provides a broadly appropriate framework for the distribution of growth. However, the Council does not appear to have applied it when determining the spatial apportionment of housing. The Council provides no explanation of its approach to the spatial strategy. A strategy that increases growth in the smallest Market Town and the larger villages whilst effectively ignoring Stamford (the District’s second largest and one of its most sustainable settlements) cannot credibly be regarded as delivering a sustainable pattern of growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 4571

Received: 03/10/2025

Respondent: National Highways

Any potential site that is anticipated to have an impact on the SRN in the area is recommended to be subject to consultation with National Highways and appropriately assessed in line with the DfT Circular 01/2022 to determine the extent of their potential impacts on the SRN in the area. Depending on the scale of likely impact on the SRN in the area, the applicant/developer may need to identify suitable mitigation measures (if required). We would also expect a Transport Assessment (TA) and Travel Plan (TP) to be submitted for all proposed site allocations.

It is to be noted that the cumulative impact of the proposed site allocations also needs to be assessed in line with the Circular, for understanding the likely traffic impacts on the SRN in the area in terms of capacity & safety, as well as identifying any possible mitigation measures (if required).
National Highways recommends that a robust transport evidence base in the form of a Strategic Transport Assessment (STA) be produced to support the development of the Local Plan, which should be reflected in the Regulation 19 evidence. We would therefore welcome further engagement, to support the development of the evidence-based assessments of the plan’s infrastructure requirements and the potential impacts of the allocations on the SRN.

Comment

Representation ID: 4574

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP (in its capacity as the Administrator of F.H. Gilman & Co

Agent: Lambert Smith Hampton

SKDC’s commitment to undertaking this focussed consultation as a means of meeting its increased housing requirement is welcomed. However, it is also considered entirely necessary when taking into account the requirement to treat the standard method as a minimum calculation for establishing housing need over the plan period to 2043. It is therefore incumbent on SKDC to explore the intensification (in terms of area / extent) of existing draft allocations, as well as seek additional sites for consideration. The consultation also presents the opportunity to critically review mixed-use site allocations (and areas more generally) where there is potential to reconsider fragmented and illogical allocations for employment use, in favour of residential development which would better respond to the District’s increased housing requirement and reflect a more logical and sustainable pattern of development.

Comment

Representation ID: 4576

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Anglian Water

Overall AWS considers that the identified sites have a good potential to deliver the required housing numbers during the Plan period. Given that we assess the prospect of delivering 894 homes a year by 2029/30 as Amber due principally to supply side constraints including construction sector capacity, the uplift in housing numbers would need to deliver in the second, third and final quarters of the Plan period. In locations with constrained WRC capacity, such as the Deepings, AWS will submit investment Plans to regulators in line with the water sectors mandated five-year investment planning cycle. That investment, if approved, would be undertaken in the 2030s and so we recommend that allocations are phased in line with the capacity identified in the Plan’s WCS.

Comment

Representation ID: 4595

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Anglian Water

AWS recognises the social and economic needs for residential growth in larger villages and in the main this can be supported following the sustainability hierarchy which seeks to utilise existing infrastructure capacity first. The RAG table (3.12 above) identifies that growth at five of the villages/ WRC catchments can use existing WRC capacity. New homes at Billingborough, Colsterworth, Corby Glen, Harlaxton and Long Bennington at the scale proposed is therefore a lower carbon/ more sustainable location for growth. Two villages – Ancaster and South Witham – would if applications came forward currently using 2024 flow data, result in an AWS objection to protect the water environment. Growth in Ancaster and South Witham should therefore be phased for later in the Plan period to enable AWS to seek regulator approval to invest in WRC capacity.
Two other villages – Claypole and Edenham – have planned AWS growth schemes for the WRC and so if applications came forward before those schemes were operational (by 2030 at the latest) then a pre-occupation condition would be required to ensure the additional WRC capacity was in place to protect water quality.
Barkston, Barrowby and Great Gonerby are in the Grantham catchment, Baston and Langtoft are in the Deeping WRC catchment and Morton and Thurlby in the Bourne catchment and so are considered above in the respective Market Town comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 4610

Received: 11/08/2025

Respondent: LCC Strategic Planning

Highways – reiterate concerns in relation to site SKPR-7 regarding access and insufficient connectivity to the town centre for sustainable modes.

Education – the additional developments proposed are likely to have an impact on Education Infrastructure in the planning areas. LCC would look to secure land and/or capital from developers to ensure that the impact is mitigated.

Electricity Infrastructure – Could be potential power constraints at some of the proposed sites that may benefit from early engagement with the DNO.

Flooding - Additional proposed developments may increase the risk of flooding and/ or complexity of existing drainage networks.