Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations

Comment

Representation ID: 4557

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

Housing requirement - The housing requirement could, and should, exceed the minimum local housing need. In South Kesteven, these include: Alignment of homes and jobs and delivery of Affordable Housing.

Settlement Hierarchy - we remain concerned that the review considers only the District’s villages and does not revisit the Market Towns or Grantham as the Sub-Regional Centre. This is a significant omission. As highlighted in our previous representations, there are clear differences in the relative sustainability credentials of the Market Towns which should reasonably inform the settlement hierarchy.

Spatial Distribution - The settlement hierarchy itself provides a broadly appropriate framework for the distribution of growth. However, the Council does not appear to have applied it when determining the spatial apportionment of housing. The Council provides no explanation of its approach to the spatial strategy. A strategy that increases growth in the smallest Market Town and the larger villages whilst effectively ignoring Stamford (the District’s second largest and one of its most sustainable settlements) cannot credibly be regarded as delivering a sustainable pattern of growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 4558

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

SKPR-66 Land South of Old Great North Road has not been proposed for allocation. This is surprising given the District’s acute housing need (recently increased as a consequence of changes to the Standard Method), the absence of significant site constraints, the site’s sustainable location adjacent to Stamford (the most sustainable settlement after Grantham), and the clear evidence of technical and commercial deliverability.

The exclusion of the site stems from flawed site selection evidence, an inadequate Sustainability Appraisal (“SA”), and an unsound housing requirement and spatial strategy.
The Council has published an updated version of its site assessment report, which was previously consulted in in early 2024. Ashberry Strategic Land made representations on a previous iteration of the report and despite these, it remains unchanged from the previous version.

Consider that these constraints can all be overcome Marrons has also reviewed the findings above and compared them to other sites which are proposed for allocations.

Comment

Representation ID: 4559

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

This allocation has been carried forward since the adoption of the South Kesteven Core Strategy in 2010 and again within the current adopted Local Plan 2020 – 2036. Despite its long-standing allocation, no meaningful progress has been made toward delivery. A planning application has been with the Council since 2014, but no decision has been forthcoming, nor is there any evidence of imminent determination. The site is promoted by a Buckminster Estates rather than a developer or experienced promoter, raising significant doubts about the capacity to deliver at the scale and pace required. Based on past trends, it appears highly unlikely that the site will deliver the anticipated 1,512 dwellings within the review plan period as set out within its policy. Furthermore, the delivery of the site is linked to the completion of the Grantham Southern Relief Road (GSRR). This infrastructure project has recently suffered design errors (early 2025) which are expected to delay completion by at least two years, further jeopardising the site’s ability to contribute to the housing trajectory in a timely manner.

Comment

Representation ID: 4560

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

This allocation was introduced through the adopted Local Plan (2020–2036) on the assumption that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) would vacate the site in 2020. That expectation has not materialised. The MoD’s plans have been significantly delayed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and wider geopolitical uncertainty. The most recent indication is that the Barracks may not close until 2028, yet even this is subject to uncertainty and cannot be verified with confidence from the public domain. In the meantime, there has been no real progress towards delivery. The site has not been the subject of a formal planning application, nor has it been subject to any environmental scoping to give assurance of deliverability. Given the current situation and continuing geopolitical uncertainly, it is difficult to see how the site could make meaningful contribution to the housing trajectory within the current plan period. On this basis, allocation SKPR-65 can be seen to fail the NPPF test of effectiveness, as it seems unlikely the site will deliver the 1,890-unit requirement within the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 4561

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Ashberry Strategic Land

Agent: Marrons

The allocation was introduced through the adopted Local Plan (2020–2036). It is known that the site is promoted by Rathbone Trust rather than a developer or experienced land promoter and like the other examples referred to, has made very limited progress in coming forward since its allocation in 2020 and there is significant doubt that this will deliver the number of dwellings anticipated within the Plan period. In the absence of such expertise, there is a significant risk that the site may not progress at the pace or scale necessary to contribute its 680 units meaningfully to the housing trajectory within the plan period.