Proposed Housing and Mixed-Use Site Allocations

Object

Representation ID: 4468

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

• Site SKPR-7 is significantly larger than the original Cabinet proposal, raising transparency concerns.
• Doesn't properly account for over 3,000 homes already delivered on Elsea Park, placing additional strain on local infrastructure.
• A15 is heavily trafficked, particularly when acting as diversion route for A1. SKPR-7 would exacerbate congestion at a blind bend within a national speed limit zone, raising road safety risks.
• Highways Lincolnshire highlight unsuitable access- SKPR-7 having moderate impacts, in comparison SKPR-60 only has minor impact and benefits from partial access.
• Includes contaminated land, within 1.5km of ancient woodland, isolates residents west of Raymond Mays Way. Services (schools, shops, GPs, bus stops) inaccessible without a car. Public transport is limited after 6pm and at weekends, entrenching car dependency- unsustainable development [NPPF para. 105–106].
• Pedestrian and cycle connectivity hasn't been adequately planned. Without crossings into town, SKPR-7 would encourage private car use, undermining SKDC’s climate commitments.
• Breaches long-established western boundary at Raymond Mays Way, threatening Bourne Woods, and extending urban sprawl.
• Poorer performance than SKPR-60 across multiple criteria (deliverability, highways impact, access, contamination, medical services, proximity to wildlife sites).

[See attachment for further information]

Support

Representation ID: 4469

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

REF SKPR-60:

This site was not included on the Portal, despite the obvious advantages below. We also raise a significant concern about transparency and democratic deficits with such sites being disregarded without public consultation

• SKPR-60 is preferable to SKPR-7. It has partial access in place, no contaminated land, and adjacency to existing commercial development (McDonald’s, Shell).
• It is deliverable in the short term (0–5 years) compared with SKPR-7 (5–10 years).
• Your assessment records a minor impact on highways, in stark contrast to the moderate impacts of SKPR-7.
• SKPR-60 has equal or lesser proximity to woodland than SKPR-7, with surrounding areas already featuring development.
• Both sites share the same surface water flood risk.
• Despite these advantages, SKPR-60 has been rejected without explanation. The omission of a “Findings” section in your consultation materials has hindered proper resident engagement. We request complete transparency and reassessment.
• A listed building is referenced within 500m of SKPR-60. Bourne Town Council cannot identify this structure and seeks clarification.

Conclusion: Bourne Town Council supports the allocation of SKPR-60 as a more sustainable and deliverable site than SKPR-7.

[See attachment for further information]

Object

Representation ID: 4470

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

REF SKPR-59

• The Tribunal decision against Aldi on a nearby site found significant harms relating to location, wildlife and suitability. These reasons apply equally to SKPR-59.
• Including SKPR-59 risks inconsistency with recent planning decisions.

Conclusion: Bourne Town Council objects to SKPR-59.

Support

Representation ID: 4471

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

• At 35 dwellings per hectare, these four sites together could deliver 1,957 homes — exceeding Bourne’s allocation of 1,037 while keeping growth on the east side of the town, in line with the Bourne Neighbourhood Plan evidence.
• This direction of growth was identified as preferable by residents during Neighbourhood Plan consultation and should be respected [NPPF para. 29].
• While highways improvements will be needed (e.g. widening Meadow Drove), these are no more extensive than those required to make SKPR-7 viable.
• These sites integrate more easily with the town, ensuring walkable access to schools, shops, and services, aligning with sustainable development principles.

Conclusion: Bourne Town Council supports allocations SKPR-83, SKPR-99, SKPR-84, and SKPR-53 as preferred alternatives to SKPR-7.

Support

Representation ID: 4472

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

• At 35 dwellings per hectare, these four sites together could deliver 1,957 homes — exceeding Bourne’s allocation of 1,037 while keeping growth on the east side of the town, in line with the Bourne Neighbourhood Plan evidence.
• This direction of growth was identified as preferable by residents during Neighbourhood Plan consultation and should be respected [NPPF para. 29].
• While highways improvements will be needed (e.g. widening Meadow Drove), these are no more extensive than those required to make SKPR-7 viable.
• These sites integrate more easily with the town, ensuring walkable access to schools, shops, and services, aligning with sustainable development principles.

Conclusion: Bourne Town Council supports allocations SKPR-83, SKPR-99, SKPR-84, and SKPR-53 as preferred alternatives to SKPR-7.

Support

Representation ID: 4473

Received: 27/08/2025

Respondent: Bourne Town Council

SKPR-99, SKPR-84

• At 35 dwellings per hectare, these four sites together could deliver 1,957 homes — exceeding Bourne’s allocation of 1,037 while keeping growth on the east side of the town, in line with the Bourne Neighbourhood Plan evidence.
• This direction of growth was identified as preferable by residents during Neighbourhood Plan consultation and should be respected [NPPF para. 29].
• While highways improvements will be needed (e.g. widening Meadow Drove), these are no more extensive than those required to make SKPR-7 viable.
• These sites integrate more easily with the town, ensuring walkable access to schools, shops, and services, aligning with sustainable development principles.

Conclusion: Bourne Town Council supports allocations SKPR-83, SKPR-99, SKPR-84, and SKPR-53 as preferred alternatives to SKPR-7.