Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 2344

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Marrons

We broadly support the identification of Plan Objective 2, however, recommend the deletion of the phase “a sufficient number” because clearly, if the LPR is to achieve the District’s wider economic aspirations, it must deliver a number of jobs over the minimum required. Plan Objective 2 should also refer to developing the District’s established key industries and capitalising on established regional specialisms, drawing on the Greater Lincolnshire Local Industrial Strategy.

We broadly support Plan Objective 3 however, recommend that the phraseology is re-considered, as providing merely “adequate and appropriate” supply of land and premises is unlikely to achieve aspirational and transformational economic growth to underpin the improvement of the local economy.

We strongly support Plan Objective 6, which seeks to facilitate and enhance the role of Grantham as an important Sub-Regional Centre by ensuring the town is the main focus for new employment.

Object

Representation ID: 2345

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Marrons

We broadly support the identification within the Vision of Grantham as the Sub-Regional Centre and support the strengthening of the town’s role in this regard, through the apportionment of employment growth. We would recommend that the Vision is adapted to refer to the significance of the A1 corridor in the vicinity of Grantham as a key driver of economic growth, as this would be consistent with the underlying ambitions of the LPR and its evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 2346

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Marrons

We consider the LPR’s approach to the overall provision of employment land to be fundamentally sound. We would nonetheless recommend that Policy SP1 be modified to include reference to the overall level of employment provision to be delivered within the plan period, as well as setting out a broad distributional strategy for meeting that need. In addition, we would recommend that the local planning authority produces an Employment Land Topic Paper or an addendum to the 2024 ELS to clearly explain and justify the LPR’s aspirational approach to economic growth.

Support

Representation ID: 2347

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Marrons

We support Policy E2’s identification of SKPR-202 for employment development. The allocation complements the LPR’s spatial strategy and is deliverable for employment growth, with no materially adverse impacts arising. The draft allocation is also justified against the LPR’s site selection evidence base.

The site assessment evidence supports the proposed allocation of SKPR-202 for employment development and illustrates that the selection of this site is soundly based and justified. We would note, however, that there are several inaccuracies in the assessment which we would encourage the local planning authority and its consultants to revisit as part of the next stage of consultation.

Inaccuracies noted include the proximity to key services and facilities, the measurement in respect of proximity to shops is inaccurate.

Object

Representation ID: 2602

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Marrons

We support the thrust of the LPR in respect of its approach to the allocation of employment land and it is welcome that the LPR is allocating over the need suggested by the ELS, which in our view considerably underestimates the level of need for employment land in the District.

The ELS does not take account of the LPA’s aspirational approach to economic growth as underpinned by various aspects of the economic evidence base, does not account for “larger than local” strategic demand across the FEMA nor historic suppressed demand, which is considerable. These are material shortcomings and to underpin the LPR’s approach, we recommend that economic land needs are revisited.