Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan

Support

Representation ID: 1312

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Please refer to formatted version of representations submitted via email in relation to this Consultation.

Support

Representation ID: 1313

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Policy ID1: Infrastructure for Growth outlines the Council expectations for ensuring that the necessary infrastructure provision is provided at the appropriate time and in a suitable location. It is important that the policy and supporting text recognise that as part of development opportunities the provision of infrastructure is not solely within the “gift” of the developer/applicant. In most instances, the Section 106 obligation can provide the land and/or funds to aid the provision of infrastructure but often the service provider (such as education, highways etc) are responsible for the delivery of the infrastructure. As a result we suggest the policy wording should be updated to highlight those other bodies involved with bringing forward infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 1314

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Paragraph 13.16 of the Regulation 18 document confirms that the Council will continue to seek developer contributions through Section 106 and may consider the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy or a replacement tariff following the Governments national review. Although we broadly support this approach, the Local Plan needs to provide an indication as to the level of Section 106 that may be requested for different types of development in different parts of the plan area. Without this clarification, the Council’s Viability Appraisal may be challenged because assumptions used in relation to planning obligations may not be accurate and therefore could be under or over stating requirements that need to meet the relevant tests for planning obligations.

Support

Representation ID: 1315

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

The need for infrastructure to be provided in a timely manner alongside growth and development is fundamental to achieving sustainable development and the Regulation 18 document correctly identifies that. Paragraph 13.1 of the Regulation 18 document provides examples of relevant infrastructure and we are broadly supportive of the types outlined but also acknowledge that each community across South Kesteven is unique and will require different provision at different times over the plan period.

Support

Representation ID: 1316

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We consider this site to be over ambitious given the size and layout of the land. Within the adopted Local Plan there is no requirement for the site to deliver any employment provision and this has only now been included as part of the Regulation 18 Draft Plan. We consider further works need to be undertaken to understand the suitability of employment provision at this location and is the rationale for allocating this site given the potential issues in respect of suitability and deliverability.
We also consider the timescale for the Spitalgate Heath Garden Village to be unrealistic due to the delays faced by the Grantham Southern Relief Road.
Therefore, to successfully continue to support Grantham’s economy, and in turn the wider District economy it is crucial further employment sites in the area come forward which are available, deliverable and achievable, and have been properly assessed for employment purposes as per the most up to date evidence. We consider our Client’s site at Land South of Gonerby Lane, Gonerby Moor (SKPR-100) to be able to provide the necessary strategic employment provision within the sub-regional centre which is required in order to sustain the economic prosperity in the Grantham Sub-Regional Centre.

Support

Representation ID: 1317

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We support the density being sought in and around the Grantham Sub-Regional Centre and agree that by targeting growth.
Consider Spitalgate Heath mixed-use development to be over ambitious given the size and layout of the land. Considers further works need to be undertaken to understand the suitability of employment provision at this location and is the rational for allocating this site given the potential issues in respect of suitability and deliverability. We also consider the timescale for the Spitalgate Heath Garden Village to be unrealistic due to the delays faced by the Grantham Southern Relief Road.
Therefore, to successfully continue to support Grantham’s economy, and in turn the wider District economy it is crucial further employment sites in the area come forward which are available, deliverable and achievable, and have been properly assessed for employment purposes as per the most up to date evidence. We consider our Client’s site at Land South of Gonerby Lane, Gonerby Moor (SKPR-100) to be able to provide the necessary strategic employment provision within the sub-regional centre which is required in order to sustain the economic prosperity in the Grantham Sub-Regional Centre.

Support

Representation ID: 1318

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We support the density being sought in and around the Grantham Sub-Regional Centre and agree that by targeting growth.
Consider Spitalgate Heath mixed-use development to be over ambitious given the size and layout of the land. Considers further works need to be undertaken to understand the suitability of employment provision at this location and is the rational for allocating this site given the potential issues in respect of suitability and deliverability. We also consider the timescale for the Spitalgate Heath Garden Village to be unrealistic due to the delays faced by the Grantham Southern Relief Road.
Therefore, to successfully continue to support Grantham’s economy, and in turn the wider District economy it is crucial further employment sites in the area come forward which are available, deliverable and achievable, and have been properly assessed for employment purposes as per the most up to date evidence. We consider our Client’s site at Land South of Gonerby Lane, Gonerby Moor (SKPR-100) to be able to provide the necessary strategic employment provision within the sub-regional centre which is required in order to sustain the economic prosperity in the Grantham Sub-Regional Centre.

Support

Representation ID: 1320

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

The Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Interactive Map which supports this policy outlines the known existing areas of high biodiversity value and target for habitat creation.

We agree with the designations of this mapping, our Client’s site is not included as part of this designation which we support due to the nature of this land being farmed historically, therefore not generating a high biodiversity value on the site.

We consider as part of any development which may come forward on the site that this be an opportunity to introduce increased biodiversity on the site as the baseline is currently very low.

Support

Representation ID: 1321

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We consider the Landscape Character Assessment which is 17 years old should be updated to ensure robustness of the evidence base. In relation to the Point of the Compass Assessment, we consider the landscape has in fact altered over this time period. In particular, in relation to the Client’s site at Gonerby Moor and the Landscape Assessment produced by the Client (Appendix 3), this outlines how proposed development can be accommodated on this Site without detriment to localised or wider visual amenity and the integrity of the receiving landscape character can be respected and protected.

Furthermore, the outline planning permission granted for the Downtown development (Council Ref: S17/2155) which includes 20,479 sqm of retail, restaurants, café and garden centre uses will, once implemented, significantly alter and urbanise the landscape around this junction of the A1. In line with the Initial Landscape and Visual Assessment produced in relation to the site this also recognises the development of the solar farm to the south and railways which have significant impact on the landscape character of the area.

Support

Representation ID: 1322

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We generally support the reasons for release as detailed within Policy E6, however we consider the Council’s approach to Policy E6 could be more flexible in allowing the release of certain employment land. It is clear the Council have identified sufficient land to meet the employment requirement of the District, therefore smaller sites in more urban built up areas would perhaps be better suited to meet the housing needs of the District instead of employment. This supports the aspirations of the NPPF for seeking employment land which is well located and which is attractive to businesses. Therefore, if the land is not attractive to businesses in a certain location then it is potentially viewed as more beneficial for this to be released.

We also consider, that if the Council deems Policy E6 as necessary to protect employment sites across the plan period, then it is important that they allocate those sites which they know have a high chance of delivery and success for employment purposes. In line with this, the part of the Grantham Southern Gateway which has been released from employment purposes should be removed from the allocation in order to adhere to this Policy.

We therefore consider our Client’s site to be more suited over smaller sites as does not run the risk of being brought forward for other uses due to the strategic scale of the site and connections to the strategic road network.