Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations

Comment

Representation ID: 4479

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

There remains significant technical objections to the proposal. Notably the highways officer has raised concerns over highways safety and pedestrian connectivity.

Anticipated that the highway cannot accommodate additional development of this scale, whilst also providing pedestrian connectivity to local services.

The site is likewise located less than 100m to the north of Goldholme Stone Quarry. Inevitably the quarry operations will generate dust and noise implications for the surrounding area.

Further development along Wilsford Lane will result in significant extensions to the south eastern part of the village.

Considers there are concerns with the suitability and deliverability of a number of the sites proposed for allocation within Ancaster. GFW would therefore proposed land south of Fir Tree Lane is considered as an alternative site for allocation within the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4480

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

The identified site is irregular in shape owing to the site constraints and area of flood risk along the eastern boundary. It is considered the site provides an important visual break within the existing built form which may be better repurposed as recreation space for existing and future residents.

Given the known flood risk constraints of the land (illustrated in the image below) it is considered the site may be unsuitable and not feasibly deliverable for future residential development.

Considers there are concerns with the suitability and deliverability of a number of the sites proposed for allocation within Ancaster. GFW would therefore proposed land south of Fir Tree Lane is considered as an alternative site for allocation within the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4481

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Upon review of the land ownership details it is considered access from the adopted highway at St Martin’s Way may not be feasible. It is understood the grassed area is in the ownership of a third party resulting in a potential ransom situation and as such the development may not be deliverable. The dimensions of the available land also appear to present challenges for accessing the site.

The site is located approximately 30m from the railway line which may result in amenity concerns with regard to noise, making the site undesirable for future development.

Considers there are concerns with the suitability and deliverability of a number of the sites proposed for allocation within Ancaster. GFW would therefore proposed land south of Fir Tree Lane is considered as an alternative site for allocation within the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4482

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

The lane is currently narrow and poorly designed. It is therefore anticipated that the highway cannot accommodate additional development of this scale.
Further development along Wilsford Lane will result in significant extensions to the south eastern part of the village.

It is considered the clustering of development within the south eastern part of the village will impact views from the surrounding area and may likewise impact views through to the conservation area.

Considers there are concerns with the suitability and deliverability of a number of the sites proposed for allocation within Ancaster. GFW would therefore proposed land south of Fir Tree Lane is considered as an alternative site for allocation within the Local Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 4483

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Proposed allocation of 874 Dwellings. Potential technical highways issues do to existing highways capacity constraints, such as carriageway widths and lack of pedestrian connectivity.

It would therefore be preferable to allocate a more even proportion of sites across the District to mitigate the risk of any under delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 4484

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Proposed allocation of 530 Dwellings. Potential technical highways constraints. May only be deliverable in conjunction with SKPR323 enabling widening of the highway.
It would therefore be preferable to allocate a more even proportion of sites across the District to mitigate the risk of any under delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 4485

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Proposed Allocation of 1150 Dwellings. Multiple landownerships creating potential legal delays/constraints. Potential highways capacity issues with additional traffic directed to A52.

It would therefore be preferable to allocate a more even proportion of sites across the District to mitigate the risk of any under delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 4486

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Proposed allocation of 441 Dwellings. Multiple landownerships creating potential legal delays/constraints. Significant highways upgrades would be required to accommodate this scale of development.

It would therefore be preferable to allocate a more even proportion of sites across the District to mitigate the risk of any under delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 4487

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Proposed allocation of 455 Dwellings. Multiple landownerships creating potential legal delays/constraints. This scale of development would significantly extend the built form to the south, alternating the character of the settlement raising potential landscape impact constraints.

It would therefore be preferable to allocate a more even proportion of sites across the District to mitigate the risk of any under delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 4488

Received: 28/08/2025

Respondent: R.H. Lamyman Ltd

Agent: GFW (Planning, Architecture and Development)

Proposed allocations include the provision of 3,000 dwellings in Grantham and the provision of 1,350 dwellings in Stamford. Whilst both sites are subject to pending planning applications any delays in obtaining permission or commencing development on site would create significant shortfall in housing land supply. Whilst the inclusion of strategic development sites may be beneficial to ensuring the needs of residents can be met, they also bring significant challenges to delivery. It would therefore be preferable to allocate a more even proportion of sites across the District to mitigate the risk of any under delivery.

It is considered they are concerns with the suitability and deliverability of a number of the sites proposed for allocation within Ancaster. GFW would therefore proposed land south of Fir Tree Lane is considered as an alternative site for allocation within the Local Plan.