Object

Representation ID: 2819

Received: 10/08/2025

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

This would be neither a garden nor a village, it would be a massive housing estate on countryside, that will destroy both large areas of farmland and the character (such as it has) of Grantham.

Comment

Representation ID: 2875

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcome the provisions for green infrastructure provisions; recognition of the biodiversity opportunity mapping; and the protection of SSSI Woodnook. We welcome the changes that have been listed as they will provide additional opportunities for linking Green Infrastructure and improvement to the health and well-being of residents i.e:
• an active travel route from the site into Grantham and the railway station;
• reference to its location within the Witham Valley;
• a pedestrian link into Grantham;

Object

Representation ID: 3351

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barberry Grantham Limited

Spitalgale Heath is not deliverable and will not deliver the proposed housing as anticipated. To ensure a five year supply of housing is provided, alternative sites such as the land at Belton Lane should be allocated instead.

Comment

Representation ID: 3467

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Environment Agency

We support Principle M regarding waste water treatment capacity. The Water Cycle Study should be used to inform Phasing so that capacity is available in time to serve the development.

Support

Representation ID: 3637

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Buckminster

We support the policy and proposed changes, save that adjustments to reflect the current revised planning application and discussions with the Council are needed. Indicative Unit numbers should be 3400 rather than 3700. Policy paragraph d) should be rephrased to read “The development will provide up to 28000 m2 of employment space including class E, B2 and B8 uses” to accord with the agreed description of development.

Object

Representation ID: 3652

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr roland bolton

The indicative total number of homes is 3700 with some 1,512 anticipated to be constructed by 2043.
There remain outstanding objections planning application since 2014 (S14/2169) including form Anglian Water (25 March 2025).

This is a serious constraint which will require considerable investment in infrastructure to overcome. Until funding and a timescale for the necessary infrastructure to be delivered is clearly set out this cannot be considered to be a sound allocation in terms of being sustainable and deliverable.

Remove 1,512 homes from the total deliverable in the plan period

Comment

Representation ID: 3805

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Town & District Councillor Charmaine Morgan

Number of people: 2

I am very concerned at the location of this development on the edge of the River Witham and its impact on both the ecosystem

The early EIA recognised the importance of this stretch of the River Witham because of its wide bed and steep sides which create a unique environment for wildlife habitat.

Fragmentation of woodland undermines the ecosystem, reducing foliage coverage for small mammals, who become more at risk from predators.

The provision of a riverside walk sounds very attractive, but may undermine an already fragile river edge AND impact on the privacy of residents living in Holly Close, Fircroft and Bridge End Grove, whose living space will be at eye level and a relatively short distance from a riverside path.

The original plan for a tree lined route through the former Barford estate was ruined

-Clearing the river bank
-Security - Local police struggle to maintain patrols in Dysart Park where there have been a number of ASB and other issues reported.
-Concerned at the loss of agricultural land for housing
-Material Planning considerations raised for SKPR65 also apply.

The recent development on Somerby Hill identified 4 new streams not previously recorded.

Object

Representation ID: 3819

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: National Trust

Heritage:
• Grade I Listed Belton House with a number of Listed Buildings and structures associated with the house
• Grade I Listed Grantham House within central Grantham.
• Grade I Listed Woolsthorpe Manor within Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth.

Landscape Character:
The potential allocation sites fall within Landscape Character Areas

We have concerns that this development site, and proposed site SKPR-278, given the indicative number being 3,700 dwellings and 11ha of employment land, may detrimentally affect the significance, character and setting of Belton House and the Registered Park and Garden. The National Trust believes that the proposed allocation sites would likely be visible from key viewpoints at Belton House and the surrounding parkland

The extensive scale of the proposed sites, the impression from Belton House and parkland may well be of large-scale urbanisation which would adversely affect their views and setting and the overall character landscape.

Conclusion:
The potential allocation sites would therefore appear not comply with the following national and local policies

The National Trust therefore objects to the proposed allocation sites SKPR-65 and SKPR-278 and would ask that you identify other areas for the proposed housing and employment which would not compromise the setting of the nationally important heritage site.

Comment

Representation ID: 3829

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Sport England

Spitalgate Heath – Garden Village
The proposed changes to this policy do not address Sport England’s previous comments on this policy. This policy should be amended as sets out in our previous comments to ensure that existing sports facilities are retained or replaced and the development contributes to meeting the demand generated for sporting provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 3942

Received: 23/07/2025

Respondent: Department for Education

We welcome the references made within the document SKPR-278: Spitalgate Heath – Garden Village which require the provision of sufficient school places as part of these developments. 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. The site allocation and associated safeguarding policies should also seek to clarify requirements for the delivery of new education infrastructure, including when it should be delivered to support housing growth, the minimum site area required, any preferred site characteristics, and any requirements for safeguarding additional land for future expansion where need and demand indicates this might be necessary. Establishing these requirements within the plan is particularly important for securing sites at an appropriate value when additional land or standalone sites for schools need to be purchased, as DfE ‘Basic Need’ funding allocations do not factor in the costs of site acquisition.

Comment

Representation ID: 4418

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Forestry Commission

Several of the proposed allocated sites are either adjacent to or have mixed deciduous woodland on site.
In particular: SKPR-323, SKPR-278, SKPR-280, SKPR-279, SKPR-278 and SKPR-247.

Recognized under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as being the most threatened, requiring conservation action.

These are already small, fragmented woodlands which without careful mitigation could be affected by neighbouring developments.

Careful consideration should be given to these woodlands, including how they can be protected and enhanced, with improvements to habitat connectivity.

Paragraph 187b of the NPPF (December 2024) states:
“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland.”

Consider specifying the protection of priority habitats such as mixed deciduous woodland.

The Forestry Commission encourages local authorities to consider the role of trees in delivering planning objectives as part of a wider integrated landscape approach.

•Promoting the use of home grown timber used in construction as a sustainable building material, therefore reducing the embodied carbon emissions of new builds.

Comment

Representation ID: 4421

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: Forestry Commission

Several of the proposed allocated sites are either adjacent to or have mixed deciduous woodland on site.
In particular: SKPR-323, SKPR-278, SKPR-280, SKPR-279, SKPR-278 and SKPR-247.

Recognized under the UK Biodiversity Action Plan as being the most threatened, requiring conservation action.

These are already small, fragmented woodlands which without careful mitigation could be affected by neighbouring developments.

Careful consideration should be given to these woodlands, including how they can be protected and enhanced, with improvements to habitat connectivity.

Paragraph 187b of the NPPF (December 2024) states:
“Planning policies and decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural environment recognising the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, and the wider benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services – including the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land, and of trees and woodland.”

Consider specifying the protection of priority habitats such as mixed deciduous woodland.

The Forestry Commission encourages local authorities to consider the role of trees in delivering planning objectives as part of a wider integrated landscape approach.

•Promoting the use of home grown timber used in construction as a sustainable building material, therefore reducing the embodied carbon emissions of new builds.

Comment

Representation ID: 4452

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Londonthorpe and Harrowby Without Parish Council

Public transport access, roundabout/traffic lights, road connections required prior to construction to cope with extra traffic.

Archaeological survey needed: Roman artefacts.

Health services full, so must be provided on site/shared between Spittlegate Garden Village: Doctors Surgery & Dentist minimum.

Schools are at/near capacity: provide at very early stage of the development, and linked with Spittlegate Garden Village site. Nurseries also provided.

Community Centre Building, shops. Cash machine should be priority.

Where will employment come from? Some service jobs on estate, and some warehouse jobs- many will travel for work to get jobs!

“Biodiversity Element” on site, not moved away.
Improve River Witham as a wildlife corridor. Retain Millenium Woodland, maintain wildlife link through land further east on site.

Major flooding in Grantham last winter; reservations unless major retainment ponds installed high up and down by Witham.
Prevent damage like when Springs hillside were diverted.
Non-permeable areas and effluence will exacerbate flood risk, unless Anglia Water system is updated.

Planned Allotments serve best use of land. One of the best locations for housing land-wise. Must be open spaces throughout, with trees. Retain playarea on Bridge End Grove or upgrade via S106. Retain recreational areas from Outline with Outdoor Fitness Equipment.

Bungalows/affordable housing is priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 4461

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian P Bailey

Agent: LRG

Although we do consider the GSRR will eventually come forward and the site will deliver housing, we do not believe the current proposed trajectory of 1,512 homes is realistic or reflects the recent amendment made to the description of development. Therefore, we consider this site should be pushed back and further housing allocations brought forward in order to address short term growth needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 4492

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

Although we do consider the GSRR will eventually come forward and the site will deliver housing, we do not consider that the current proposed trajectory of 1,512 homes within the plan period is realistic or reflects the recent amendment made to the description of development. Therefore, we consider the delivery of dwellings on site should be pushed back and further housing allocations brought forward in order to address short term growth needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 4497

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning

The Draft Plan is unable to shed any light on lead-in times and Guide Build Out Rates due to the scale of the development. There have been some estimates provided; however, there is a concern that these may not provide a true reflection of the realistic build out rates. The Spitalgate Heath planning application was submitted in 2014, it has been over a decade with no decision for the Outline application. Consideration for the timescales for the detailed Reserved Matters applications alongside delivery of infrastructure etc. must also be factored in, and it is unclear at present how this is being considered by the Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 4501

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning

The Draft Plan is unable to shed any light on lead-in times and Guide Build Out Rates due to the scale of the development. There have been some estimates provided; however, there is a concern that these may not provide a true reflection of the realistic build out rates. The Spitalgate Heath planning application was submitted in 2014, it has been over a decade with no decision for the Outline application. Consideration for the timescales for the detailed Reserved Matters applications alongside delivery of infrastructure etc. must also be factored in, and it is unclear at present how this is being considered by the Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 4523

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Land First

Agent: Boyer Planning

Although we do consider the GSRR will eventually come forward and the site will deliver housing, we do not believe the current proposed trajectory of 1,512 homes is realistic or reflects the recent amendment made to the description of development. Therefore, we consider this site should be pushed back and further housing allocations brought forward in order to address short term growth needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 4532

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Land First

Agent: Boyer Planning

We consider that the GSRR will eventually come forward and the site will deliver housing. However, we consider that the current proposed trajectory of 1,512 homes is unrealistic and does not reflect the amended description of development. As a result, we consider that the site should be pushed back, and further housing allocations brought forward to address growth needs within South Kesteven in the short term.

Comment

Representation ID: 4543

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

Although we do consider the GSRR will eventually come forward and the site will deliver housing, we do not believe the current proposed trajectory of 1,512 homes within the plan period is realistic or reflects the recent amendment made to the description of development. Therefore, we consider this site should be pushed back and further housing allocations brought forward in order to address short term growth needs.

Comment

Representation ID: 4559

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

This allocation has been carried forward since the adoption of the South Kesteven Core Strategy in 2010 and again within the current adopted Local Plan 2020 – 2036. Despite its long-standing allocation, no meaningful progress has been made toward delivery. A planning application has been with the Council since 2014, but no decision has been forthcoming, nor is there any evidence of imminent determination. The site is promoted by a Buckminster Estates rather than a developer or experienced promoter, raising significant doubts about the capacity to deliver at the scale and pace required. Based on past trends, it appears highly unlikely that the site will deliver the anticipated 1,512 dwellings within the review plan period as set out within its policy. Furthermore, the delivery of the site is linked to the completion of the Grantham Southern Relief Road (GSRR). This infrastructure project has recently suffered design errors (early 2025) which are expected to delay completion by at least two years, further jeopardising the site’s ability to contribute to the housing trajectory in a timely manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 4578

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Anglian Water

With reference to part m. (page 18) AWS welcomes the requirement to demonstrate ‘wastewater treatment works’ (WRC) capacity. For the residential elements of the Garden Village, if it is developed later in the Plan period then the Policy will need a requirement that developers must demonstrate in liaison with AWS and confirmed by the Environment Agency that additional WRC capacity has been provided. If that capacity has not been provided a condition may be required that homes which would result in exceedance of permitted flow limits at the Marston WRC cannot be occupied until that capacity is demonstrably available and would not increase the risk of harm to the water environment.