Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 4474

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Savills

Housing Requirement Calculation - Consider that SKDC should be planning for a minimum of 895 dwellings per annum. Fails to make the distinction between the Standard Method setting out a baseline need position2 (i.e. not the complete housing requirement), and the housing requirement which includes additional uplifts for reasons such as economic growth, affordable housing need or cross boundary requirements for example, as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance

Object

Representation ID: 4475

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Savills

The site is considered to be a highly sustainable location for future major residential development and this warrants continued inclusion in the emerging local plan.
- To ensure consistency 3,000 dwellings should be consistently referenced as a minimum.
- The policy does not include justification in respect of the requirement for: “substantial tree planting” on the site.
- Do not consider that SKDC has provided robust justification of the requirement for an 8ha employment generating area within the allocation.
- Further elaboration is required on what is envisaged by SKDC in terms of meeting housing needs for “all stages of life”.
- Criterion h) should be updated
- Question the necessity of criterions m, n & o on the basis of them making reference to other policies in the plan.
- Criterion i includes a cycle path to Grantham. Practical considerations such as topography should be taken into account. Reference should be made to such links being provided where required and feasible.
- Criterion ii makes reference to an overall increase in biodiversity across the whole site. This reference should be removed,
- Reference to the Belton House Park Setting Study was not included in the adopted plan. It is not apparent what has changed for SKDC to consider such wording should be included now.
- DIO are prepared to undertake a Minerals Assessment to support any application in accordance with the Minerals and Waste Plan, there is no requirement for there to be a policy requirement in the Local Plan to produce such evidence as this amounts to duplication of policies and thus conflict with NPPF Para 16f.
The Draft Site Assessments Document 2025 is a useful tool, however its lacks evidence to justify the conclusions in line with paragraph 36 of the NPPF.