Comment

Representation ID: 2879

Received: 12/08/2025

Respondent: Natural England

Natural England welcome the additional criteria requiring landscape buffers/green infrastructure to be provided to the north of the site; and the requirement for development to seek to improve biodiversity and avoid, or minimise, impacts on Woodnook Valley SSSI and the adjacent and nearby Local Wildlife Sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 3049

Received: 19/08/2025

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

The reduced scale of 3000 homes and the wording in g) seeking the retention of as much existing woodland as possible including recently planted areas, as well as the provision of new areas of woodland, is welcome.
We would like to see a canopy cover target for the site as a whole, and recommendations on the use of native tree species from biosecure UK sources.
We reserve the right to object to future planning applications should the impact on woodland be unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 3354

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Barberry Grantham Limited

The site is not currently available and it is not certain when it will become available. As such, it cannot be considered at the current time.

Comment

Representation ID: 3470

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Environment Agency

The proposed site allocation will be connecting to Marston Water Recycling Centre. Therefore, we recommend the following is included as a principle:

'Additional treatment capacity is required at waste water treatment works and new discharge permits are required for water quality targets. This should be incorporated early on in the development of scheme specifics, as part of a scheme wide delivery strategy which demonstrates that capacity is available or could be made available to serve the development subject to phasing'.

We welcome principles G, M and N and O

Support

Representation ID: 3636

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Buckminster

BTE supports the allocation of the PWGB site, the garden village principles and its linkages with the SHGV site.
The allocation should be amended to be commensurate with SHGV and so require: contribution to the proposed A52 Active Travel Corridor to maximise sustainable travel opportunities with green and sustainable linkages between these two sites; pro-rata GSRR contribution; be developed to GV principles; design code; single outline for entire site; on site renewable energy provision; allotment provision.
PWGB must contribute to the education campus provided by the SHGV site which will jointly serve PWGB along with the necessary Sixth-Form provision

Comment

Representation ID: 3804

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Town & District Councillor Charmaine Morgan

Number of people: 2

This is an important logistical military site with a history reaching as far back as WW1.
Originally used by the Royal Flying Corps it was subsequently used as an RAF base and airfields on the site were used to support the D Day Landings and other important operations.

Key material considerations would be:-
a. The preservation of the woodland area
b. The availability of local resources to support the increased population
c. Transport links from the site into Grantham
d. Contributions toward Grantham Town Centre
e. Access community centre, educational and medical facilities in the new developments
f. The impact of increased car traffic on residents
g. Impact on drainage
h. The housing mix
i. Impact of increased population on access to sports and leisure amenities
j. Quality of the housing built design and use of renewable energy on site
k. Preservation of and reuse of the existing heritage assets
l. Threat to the Grantham Green Bowl landscape
m. The provision of additional reliable regular affordable buses
n. Provision of vehicle charging points on homes and communal spaces

Object

Representation ID: 3820

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

Heritage and Landscape Impacts:
Regarding site proposed allocation at site SKPR-65 - indicative unit numbers up to 3000 including employment generating area of 8ha, given the extent of the site and the potential impacts on the Belton Estate, The National Trust welcomes the decrease in the indicative number of dwellings from 4000 to 3000 dwellings.

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: 3832

Received: 13/08/2025

Respondent: Sport England

Prince William of Gloucester Barracks (up to 4000 units)
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: 3944

Received: 23/07/2025

Respondent: Department for Education

We welcome the references made within the document SKPR-65: Prince William of Gloucester Barracks 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.

Object

Representation ID: 4014

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Mr William Lee

1. Either the jubilee woods must be excluded from the allocation map or a policy stating that a minimum 75% of the original planted area should remain. There is no reason why the development cannot be planned around these.

2. The baseline analysis for the site choice is defective: it does not distinguish the land from within the fence to the pure agriculture outside the same to the north. That is not brownfield rather Grade 2 agricultural land that needs an exceptional reason and alternative options looking at in ranking the decision to allocate or not.

3. 8ha of employment land is not necessary and is out of character for a residential scheme that only needs a local centre.

4. The deliverability of any houses in the 5 years is questionable given the MOD not having finally decided whether to keep the Barracks operational or not. In terms of sustainability it would be better anyway to work with the existing characterful buildings and their locked in carbon, refurbishing for future residential or the existing use. Potentially the allocation could just be on the open land east of the buildings, within the fence.

Comment

Representation ID: 4448

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: Roman artefacts, along with history as RAF Camp on site.

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.
Protected wildlife site at Hills & Hollows- shouldn't lose Jubilee Woodland. Important that wildlife link is maintained, area of land further south retained for link to Woodnook Woodlands.

Major flooding in Grantham last winter; reservations unless major retainment ponds installed.
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/Recreational serve best use of land. One of the best locations for housing land-wise- excluding woodland loss. Must be open spaces throughout, with trees- push for well-furnished play/recreation areas.

Bungalows/affordable housing is priority.

Comment

Representation ID: 4460

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Mr Ian P Bailey

Agent: LRG

Although we support the overall approach proposed by the Council, we do not consider that the allocation of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks will be deliverable in its current form.

Object

Representation ID: 4475

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Savills

The site is considered to be a highly sustainable location for future major residential development and this warrants continued inclusion in the emerging local plan.
- To ensure consistency 3,000 dwellings should be consistently referenced as a minimum.
- The policy does not include justification in respect of the requirement for: “substantial tree planting” on the site.
- Do not consider that SKDC has provided robust justification of the requirement for an 8ha employment generating area within the allocation.
- Further elaboration is required on what is envisaged by SKDC in terms of meeting housing needs for “all stages of life”.
- Criterion h) should be updated
- Question the necessity of criterions m, n & o on the basis of them making reference to other policies in the plan.
- Criterion i includes a cycle path to Grantham. Practical considerations such as topography should be taken into account. Reference should be made to such links being provided where required and feasible.
- Criterion ii makes reference to an overall increase in biodiversity across the whole site. This reference should be removed,
- Reference to the Belton House Park Setting Study was not included in the adopted plan. It is not apparent what has changed for SKDC to consider such wording should be included now.
- DIO are prepared to undertake a Minerals Assessment to support any application in accordance with the Minerals and Waste Plan, there is no requirement for there to be a policy requirement in the Local Plan to produce such evidence as this amounts to duplication of policies and thus conflict with NPPF Para 16f.
The Draft Site Assessments Document 2025 is a useful tool, however its lacks evidence to justify the conclusions in line with paragraph 36 of the NPPF.

Comment

Representation ID: 4491

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

We do not consider the allocation of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks to be deliverable as shown within its current form. To ensure the trajectory is accurate and does not result in under delivery once adopted, the trajectory should be drafted to reflect this build out rate. This amendment would result in delivery of only 1,350 dwellings being delivered within the plan period if the site is considered suitable to remain as a housing allocation and the MoD vacate the site as currently set in 2028.

Comment

Representation ID: 4496

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: William Davis Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning

Despite the uncertainties of deliverability, the Council have allocated this site, albeit with a reduced number of units. The allocation equates to a significant amount of the identified housing need, despite little justification or evidence provided that this site would be suitable for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 4500

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Bloor Homes

Agent: Cerda Planning

Despite the uncertainties of deliverability, the Council have allocated this site, albeit with a reduced number of units. The allocation equates to a significant amount of the identified housing need, despite little justification or evidence provided that this site would be suitable for development.

Comment

Representation ID: 4522

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Land First

Agent: Boyer Planning

Taking into account timescales for delivery and this starting on site at 2034 at the earliest, this would mean that within the plan period to 2043 only 1,350 dwellings would be delivered on the site. With this in mind, the housing trajectory should be updated to amend the start date of the Barracks and reduce the number of dwellings that could be delivered within the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 4531

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: Land First

Agent: Boyer Planning

When considering timescales, the earliest start on site at 2034 would only contribute 1,350 dwellings within the plan period to 2043. Consider the housing trajectory should be updated to amend the start date of the Barracks and to reduce the number of dwellings anticipated to be delivered within the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 4542

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

We do not consider that the allocation of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks will be deliverable in its current form. To ensure the trajectory is accurate and does not result in under delivery once adopted, the trajectory should be drafted to reflect this build out rate. This amendment would result in delivery of only 1,350 dwellings being delivered across the whole strategic allocation within the plan period if the site is considered suitable to remain as a housing allocation and the MoD vacate the site as currently set in 2028.

Comment

Representation ID: 4560

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

This allocation was introduced through the adopted Local Plan (2020–2036) on the assumption that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would vacate the site in 2020. That expectation has not materialised. The MoD’s plans have been significantly delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and wider geopolitical uncertainty. The most recent indication is that the Barracks may not close until 2028, yet even this is subject to uncertainty and cannot be verified with confidence from the public domain. In the meantime, there has been no real progress towards delivery. The site has not been the subject of a formal planning application, nor has it been subject to any environmental scoping to give assurance of deliverability. Given the current situation and continuing geopolitical uncertainly, it is difficult to see how the site could make meaningful contribution to the housing trajectory within the current plan period. On this basis, allocation SKPR-65 can be seen to fail the NPPF test of effectiveness, as it seems unlikely the site will deliver the 1,890-unit requirement within the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 4564

Received: 26/08/2025

Respondent: Hanbury Properties Ltd

Agent: Harris Lamb

Whilst our client’s previous promotion (SKPR-234) to date has been for employment, the provision of draft allocation SKPR-334 broadens the ranges of uses that the site is suitable for, as there will be a residential allocation immediately adjacent to our client’s site. There is no reason why our client’s site (SKPR-234) could not be allocated for residential use in combination with employment.

The site is located immediately adjacent to Grantham and all the services and facilities which residents would expect to be able to access are within easy reach of our client’s site. The site is clearly in a sustainable location for residential use.

We also note that the Council is proposing to decrease the capacity of the Prince William of Gloucester Barracks site (SKPR-65) from 4,000 to 3,000 dwellings. However, we are concerned about the deliverability of any housing on this site given the ongoing Member of Parliament campaign to save the Barracks which you will no doubt be aware. The Ministry of Defence advised it would be vacating the barracks site during the preparation of the existing adopted Local Plan, and that it would come forward for development. Despite this, the site is not yet vacant and there is still no clear timeframe when the site will become vacant.

Comment

Representation ID: 4581

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Anglian Water

AWS comments for the Garden Village equally apply to: Prince William of Gloucester Barracks, including part iii. regarding WRC and foul network capacity.
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.