Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 1453

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

Whilst some of the changes to policy SP4 are welcomed ,criteria (d) is too restrictive and discourages growth in sustainable locations. The nimbyism that prevails in many villages. who are very inactive and relucent to consider sensible growth .is a limiting factor. Very few villages would support any additional growth even though it is needed. Village growth must be controlled but allowed as demographics change and with more home working, there is insufficient opportunities for people wanting to benefit from living ,working and enjoying the benefits of living in more rural locations.That affords a healthier lifestyle. More choice is needed.

Object

Representation ID: 1460

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

We would like to record in addition to our earlier comment on criteria (d)that we act for a number of clients who have edge of village sites that are suitable and are available. Plans/forms have been submitted in the call for sites process and to name a few villages , that includes;
Carlton Scroop
Allington
Thurlby
Oasby

Proving local(what is that?) need is problematical and very subjective.
We would wish to engage further with the planning team on some village sites to demonstrate the obstacles and hurdles that landowners and developers face when trying to satisfy this very restricting criteria.

Object

Representation ID: 1462

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

We act for the owners of the site at Manthorpe which has planning consent for 480 houses and that should be shown in the plan as an allocated site.It does not appear to be shown as a site that features in the delivery of the housing targets and its status should be recorded and supported.Other strategic and consented sites are included and the Manthorpe site should be one of those.

Object

Representation ID: 1466

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

In addition to our initial observation, we feel the plan should be changed by including the Manthorpe site in the table above and shown as an allocated site in Figure 17 which shows the allocated sites in Grantham North.The Site at Manthorpe is a more sustainable site than other new sites which has been added to the plan since the initial Local Plan was finalised.

Object

Representation ID: 1473

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

As officers know, we act for the Lely family who own the California Gardens site at Gonerby Hill Foot ,which adjoins the Barrowby Gate site that continues to deliver much needed housing growth in Grantham .The table and plans do not appear to be consistent and the Barrowby Gate site, to include out clients land ,which is available for development,and we are in contact with ethe owners of the remaining land on the Barrowby Gate site, should be shown as an allocated site in the table above and on the plans in the Plan document. Particularly Figure 17 page 146.

Object

Representation ID: 2219

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

Proposes additional site for allocation for residential development at ‘Land at Woodland House, Bourne’.

Object

Representation ID: 2220

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

Proposes site for allocation for residential allocation for a flexible C2 (Residential Institutions)/C3 (Dwelling Houses) use at ‘Land to the East of Coriander Drive, Bourne’.

Object

Representation ID: 2236

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

Proposes additional site SKPR-230 – Land at East of A1, Colsterworth for allocation for Class E/B1/B2/B8 and Rural/Quasi-agricultural industrial development.

Object

Representation ID: 2237

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

Proposes land at Stornoway to be included within the SKPR-286 employment allocation so that all the land to the south of Gorse Lane be considered as one.