Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 2348

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Agent: Marrons

Plan Objective 4, we broadly support however we question whether a plan period to 2041, which only extends the current plan period by five years, would provide for a sufficiently long-term basis for planning in the area.

Plan Objective 6, we would question whether it is appropriate for the Plan Objectives to “ensure” that Grantham is supported as the main focus for new housing. This appears to pre-judge the LPR’s spatial strategy. Under the proposed apportionment of housing within the LPR, Grantham will host 49% of growth to 2041 meaning that, other areas will still have a significant role to play in meeting housing need. We recommend that the role and function of other parts of the Plan Area in the spatial strategy are elaborated upon.

Plan Objective 9 – This objection plays down a key element of national planning policy which is to “boost significantly” the supply of housing, not merely achieving an adequate supply. The provision of housing goes beyond offering a choice in the market but rather defining and addressing needs in a manner that addresses the challenges experienced by the Plan Area and delivers the Plan’s ambition.

Object

Representation ID: 2349

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Agent: Marrons

Policy SP1’s housing requirement is flawed as it has used the minimum Standard Method figure with little substantive consideration as to whether this should be uplifted to account for the factors set out in the NPPF and the PPG. Has the local housing need figure been calculated from the correct base, with the LPR commencing in April 2020 and Policy SP1’s housing requirement has been informed by a fresh calculation in 2023. We recommend that the housing requirement and the duration of the plan period is revisited due to insufficient scope.

We consider the strategic distribution of housing growth proposed by the LPR to be heavily-weighted in favour of Grantham which will provide opportunities but also risks of stalled delivery. It is therefore welcome that the LPR makes provision for a stock-sites in the District’s Larger Villages.

Support

Representation ID: 2350

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Agent: Marrons

We support Policy SP2 as it identifies a robust settlement hierarchy that is justified against the evidence base. We specifically support the identification of a number of Larger Villages which have good levels of services and accessibility and their inclusion within the hierarchy.

In specific regard to Ancaster, we support the identification of this settlement as a Larger Village and generally as a location for proportionate housing growth. This status is clearly substantiated by the evidence base, which ranks the settlement as the second most sustainable village in the district.

Support

Representation ID: 2351

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Agent: Marrons

Overall, we consider that the draft allocations selected have been subject to a reasonable and proportionate assessment and that, in particular, the proposed allocation of Site SPKR-283 is justified by the evidence. That said, there are a number of factors recorded as constraints or as potential negative effects associated with developing the Site which would not, in fact, occur. Accordingly, we consider that the next round of consultation should be supported by a more open-textured, less formulaic assessment of Sites against the SA Objectives which considers actual effects and impacts rather than simple distance.

Object

Representation ID: 2603

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Persimmon Homes East Midlands

Agent: Marrons

In respect of the evidence which has underpinned selection of the preferred sites, there are no significant flaws in terms of the process of how this has been undertaken, but we take issue with some of the conclusions made in respect of the effects of developing SKPR-283 for housing, which are in a number of ways unsupported by evidence and we would encourage the local planning authority to supplement and revise its assessment.