Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 2097

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

The box titled: Summary of Proposed Changes sets out: The required mix of bedrooms for market and affordable housing has been updated (Table 4), informed by the Local Housing Needs Assessment. Whilst the table shows the indicative mix, the text could perhaps clarify that use of Table 4 is not advisory/indicative per se but mandatory on all schemes.

Object

Representation ID: 2098

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

On Spitalgate Heath this will mean some 74 plots. We would expect the Whole Plan Viability Assessment to take account of the costs of servicing plots and then allowing 12 months for them to stand undeveloped whilst waiting for a customer/buyer. Aspirations for unusual or ‘grand’ designs are not likely to suit the Garden Village where there is a mandated design code and desire for coherence.

Object

Representation ID: 2099

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Requires for new residential development above a threshold of 10 or more dwellings will be granted subject to a target of at least 10% of new dwellings being developed as ‘Accessible and Adaptable. It is expected the costs of this will be covered in the Whole Plan Viability Assessment.

Support

Representation ID: 2100

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Supported in principle.

Support

Representation ID: 2101

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Supported in principle.

Object

Representation ID: 2102

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

We object to paragraph d as it singles out this development area from all others by requiring ‘attractive landscape edges’. These will naturally be proposed as part of a landscaping plan. In particular we would not want such on the western boundary which has a line of powerlines along it, and as we are supporting Hanbury Property’s separate representation that the field to the west should be allocated to make the A1 West allocation a unique site due to quantum for the East Midlands Region, supporting the case for a transformation of Grantham’s economy over time. We object to the wording in j. as to building heights respecting the sensitivities of the surrounding landscape: modern B2/B8 buildings are high and bulky by nature, and some people will maintain can never respect the landscape. The 440KV powerlines and the raised lit new A1 junction have reduced the sensitivities of this area, but landscaping will help mitigate the setting of the inevitably large buildings in prospect to meet the nature of the demand for such space. We cannot have an implicit building height restriction lower for example than for the consented B2/B8 scheme (ex CartarRE and now Brookfield) immediately to the south-east and east of the A1 as part of the same Southern Gateway allocation. If the Hanbury area is added they are offering substantial landscaping to soften the western, south and northern edges. The whole northern boundary with Gorse Lane along the existing allocation does need tree belt treatment given the few residential receptors there

Object

Representation ID: 2103

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Allocating 3 sites at Gonerby Moor, also served by the A1 totalling 172.7ha may mean that the E1: SKPR 286 (GR-SE1) - Grantham Southern Gateway Strategy Employment Opportunity of (118.19 hectares) fails to materialise in a timely fashion. The latter is located sustainably closer to Grantham town centre (2.95km distance) compared to Gonerby Moor’s 4.6km from Grantham town centre. The reason for the ‘new strategic corridor of the Gonerby Moor area’ does not appear justified. Indeed unlike the ‘unique’ Southern Gateway’ the Gonerby Moor area rightly does not have its own policy, and the latter should be downgraded as such on the Key Diagram plan. £130m+ of public money is being invested in the GSRR which facilitates much of the Southern Gateway, and the business case will have been premised on a return on that investment. The Gonerby Moor allocations will put back that return coming forward.

Object

Representation ID: 2104

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

The plan on page 62 ought to be updated to show the completed Phases 1, 2 and pt Phase 3 of the GSRR, and the balance of Phase 3 in construction but with the route set. The acreages of the allocation SKPR-286 are likely to be overstated because of the land take for Phases 1 and 2.

Object

Representation ID: 2105

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

We object to the eastern half of SKPR-259 (formerly EMP G23) not being considered distinctly from its western half. The latter is on raised ground and included within the active Invictas Works industrial area. The former has a dedicated separate access from Albert Street, is a brownfield site, but beside the river and Dysart Park. It should be regarded as a non-preferential site if lost to its previously designated employment use eg if it came forward for residential use.

Support

Representation ID: 2106

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Policy DE1 which is summarised in the boxes on pages 120, 121, 122, and 123 is supported.
Moden Methods of Construction (MMC) may need to be increasingly employed to achieve Zero Carbon buildings. It could be that there is not a neat fit with point b and it could be the same for points 1. a and c. MMC may be a better fit with point 6 a-c.