Barrowby Neighbourhood Plan

Comment

Representation ID: 4779

Received: 13/03/2026

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council

Thank you for consulting us on the submission version of the Barrowby Neighbourhood Plan.

We have reviewed the draft, and wish to confirm that with the exception of our comment relating to the position of the flood risk map within the document, our comments made at the previous stage remain.

Overall, the plan is clearly well considered and is in general conformity with the South Kesteven Local Plan and the Local Transport Plan.

We do, however, have some comments to make in relation to the Neighbourhood Plan:

Objective 3: Celebration of Barrowby's history and character.
Consider amending the final sentence to include "setting" alongside "character" and "appearance." This would align with well‑established planning language and better reflect the importance of heritage assets in their landscape context. Suggested revision:
“… ensuring that new developments contribute positively to its character, appearance, and setting."

Objective 7 and policies.
There seems to be an omission regarding the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policies for public rights of way, which seek to enhance and protect the rights of way network. The plan should seek to create connections between paths to create a wider off‑road network and of possible align to the draft public rights of way improvement plan that is currently out for public consultation.

Section 2: Our Heritage
To strengthen the plan's emphasis on local distinctiveness and the character of the neighbourhood area, it is recommended that a schedule of non‑designated heritage assets be included, where appropriate. This would support consistency in how heritage assets are referenced across the plan and align with national guidance on the historic environment.

Paragraph 2.51.
While the final sentence of this paragraph is true, we have some reservations regarding its inclusion as it may receive pushback from some parties.

Paragraph 2.52.
Minor correction, amend to read “There is only one scheme of specialist …”

Paragraph 2.53.
Again, a minor correction, amend to read “is 158”

Paragraph 2.54.
Both figures provided are over 50%, is this correct?

Policies 1 and 2: Sustainable Development and Good Design.
The plan promotes sustainability and good design but currently lacks reference to the role of existing and historic buildings in achieving these aims – particularly through retrofitting. To align with national guidance and strengthen the plan's relevance to the existing building stock, consider including a short clause encouraging the sensitive retrofitting (or sensitive reuse, where applicable) of traditional and historic buildings to improve energy performance while conserving architectural character. This could be included in either Policy 1 (Sustainable Development), Policy 2 (Good Design), or within the accompanying Design Codes and Guidance.

Policy 5: Conserving Our Historic Environment.
Policy 5 takes a predominantly protective stance focused on resisting loss or unsympathetic change. While this is important, it could be strengthened by also encouraging positive, heritage‑led development. The following enhancements are suggested:

Add a clause to support development that sustains or enhances heritage assets and their settings.
Reference the importance of adaptive reuse where loss is proposed.
Encourage proposals to demonstrate how they respond to the asset’s setting, key views, and contribution to local character, and sense of place.

Consider explicitly referencing “sense of place” within either the green box policy wording or the justification text at paragraph 6.29. This would reinforce the value of the historic environment in shaping community identity and align with national policy language.

Policy 6: Important Views.
The map and accompanying descriptive schedule of views (1–11) are excellent, but most of the views seem to be weighted towards internal green spaces within the village. Additional outward‑facing views – especially those towards Barrowby from footpaths, rural roads, and the wider landscape – could further reinforce the rural identity of the village and its separation from Grantham, Sedgebrook, and Harlaxton.

Views involving listed buildings, such as Casthorpe Farmhouse or Barrowby Lodge, could be considered to highlight intervisibility and setting (if applicable).
A wider acknowledgment of kinetic views – where the experience of a view changes as people move through the landscape – would better reflect how character is perceived in real life.

Suggested addition to supporting text (following 6.34):
In addition to fixed viewpoints, some views are experienced sequentially as people move through the landscape. These kinetic or unfolding views contribute to Barrowby's rural character, reinforce its setting, and maintain a sense of separation from surrounding settlements.

Views, Ref1.
Is this not “from the north west to the village”?

Additional Comments
NSIPs and Strategic Infrastructure.
The plan currently makes no reference to Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) or other large‑scale proposals that may impact the area. Although such development lies beyond the direct remit of neighbourhood planning, a short statement setting out community expectations for managing such proposals would be helpful and has been suggested for other NPs in the region. Suggested addition (e.g., in Section 6 or Community Aspirations):
Any major development proposals or NSIPs affecting the Neighbourhood Area should demonstrate how they have considered the character, landscape setting, and heritage assets of Barrowby. This includes protecting the visual and physical separation of the village from Grantham and other neighbouring settlements, and avoiding the introduction of urbanising effects into the surrounding countryside.

Grantham SUEs.
We would note that boundary of the Parish means that large parts of the Rectory Farm development, which is east of the A1, is located in Barrowby Parish — but for purposes of design, planning, neighbourhood facilities, ped & cycle connections we have been considering integration and connection of this development with the main part of Grantham — as it is in effect a SUE for Grantham and not part of Barrowby.

Finally, this is more of a formatting matter but maps 5 and 6 are currently under incorrect subheadings.