Ropsley and District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement

Submission Version August 2020

Contents

1 Introduction...... 3

2 Legal Basis………………………………………...... 3

3 Our Consultation Statement ...... 4

4 The Neighbourhood Area Designation……………………………………...... 5

5 Household Survey…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……….6

6 Initial External Consultee Notification.………………………………………………………………………...……7

7 Regulation 14: Community Consultation on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan…………....8 to 17

8 Regulation 14: External Consultation on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan…………………18 to 32

Appendices (Pages 33 to 53) Appendix 1 - Designation Report (October 2016) Appendix 2 - Household questionnaire Appendix 3 - List of External Consultees and copy of email from 3rd September 2019. Appendix 4 - Draft Plan Newsletter and Questionnaire Appendix 5 - Social Media for the Draft Plan Appendix 6 - Draft Plan External Consultees email and listing from 14th Feb. 2020 Appendix 7 - Draft Plan Exhibition

1 Introduction 1.1 The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee has been committed in undertaking consistent, transparent, effective and inclusive periods of community consultation throughout the development of the Ropsley and District Neighbourhood Development Plan referred to hereafter as Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and associated evidence base. 1.2 The Neighbourhood Plan Regulations require that, when an NP is submitted for examination, a statement should also be submitted setting out details of those consulted, how they were consulted, the main issues and concerns raised and how these have been considered and, where relevant, addressed in the proposed Plan. 1.3 People from our community have contributed to producing the plan. Everyone who offered their opinions, ideas, arguments or hands on help contributed to the final Plan. At the time of writing the NP, the Steering Committee consisted of people who have volunteered to work together to complete the process. They usually met once a month, or more if needed, to report on progress and to review comments and ideas, as well as look at new ways to engage with the community. The Committee reported back to the Parish Council which approved the Submission Documents. 1.4 The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee received direct support from officers at South Kesteven District Council and independent planning consultants. This support helped to guide and direct the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee, but as noted above, much of the content of the NP was prepared by residents. 1.5 The Steering Committee engaged with the whole community in establishing issues and opportunities, the future vision and our objectives. The benefits of involving a wide range of people within the process, included: • More focus on priorities identified by our community; • Influencing the provision and sustainability of local services and facilities; • Enhanced sense of community empowerment; • An improved local understanding of the planning process; and • Increased support for our Neighbourhood Plan through the sense of community ownership. 1.6 The Neighbourhood Plan process had clear stages in which the Steering Committee has directly consulted the community on aspects of the emerging Neighbourhood Plan, including events, surveys and presentations. Residents were updated on the process with newsletters, the website: http://parishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/RopsleyandHumby/ District Council Website and Facebook. Regular updates were also given to the Parish Council on the progress of the Plan throughout the process.

2 Legal Basis: 2.1 Section 15(2) of part 5 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations (as amended) 2012 sets out that, a consultation statement should be a document containing the following: • Details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan; • Explanation of how they were consulted; • Summary of the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; and • Description of how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant, addressed. 2.2 The NP for Ropsley and District will cover the period 2019 until 2036. The NP proposal does not deal with county matters (mineral extraction and waste development), nationally significant infrastructure or any other matters set out in Section 61K of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3 Our Consultation Statement 3.1 This Statement outlines the stages which have led to the production of the Ropsley and District NP in terms of consultation with residents, businesses in the parish, stakeholders and statutory consultees. In addition, this statement provides a summary and, in some cases, detailed descriptions of the numerous consultation events and other ways in which residents and stakeholders were able to influence the content of the Plan. The appendices detail certain procedures and events that were undertaken, including producing questionnaires and running consultation events. The consultation stages in this statement are summarised in the Figure 1. Fig. 1 Consultation stages for the Ropsley and District Neighbourhood Plan Timing Event Attendance/Responses 12th November 2015 PC Meeting – decision to prepare a NP Parish Councillors and public gallery 28th July 2016 Designation application and SKDC consultation No comments (designation 13th Oct.)

July 2017 Household survey (389 questionnaires) 100 questionnaires returned. Presentation on outcomes at open meeting on 6th December 2017 3rd Sept. 2019 Notice of NP preparation to external 10 responses (5 substantive) consultees and; invitation to comment. 14th February to 28th Draft Plan Consultation (Regulation 14) Newsletter / questionnaire (43 returns) March 2020 Exhibition (attendance - 112) 30 External/Statutory Consultees Open PC Meeting.

4 The Neighbourhood Area Designation 4.1 The first stage in the statutory process was for the boundary of the Neighbourhood Plan, (the Neighbourhood Area), to be formally designated by the Local Planning Authority. As the appropriate ‘Qualifying Body’ Ropsley & District Parish Council applied to the District Council to designate the Neighbourhood Area on 28th July 2016. The proposed boundary of the neighbourhood area followed the parish boundary. The application was advertised in accordance with statutory requirements and representations invited on the proposed boundary. The designated was approved on 12th October 2016 and the area is shown in Figure 2 (below). The Designation Report can be on South Kesteven District Council’s webpage: http://www.southkesteven.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=19121&p=0 Figure 2: Ropsley and District Neighbourhood Plan Area

5 Household Survey (July 2017) 5.1 In July 2017, the Steering Committee consulted the local community to establish what people believe was important about living in Ropsley District, to understand what they felt is good about the area, what needs protecting, and what needs improving. Of 389 questionnaires(2 per household) 100 (24%) were returned. See summary below and Appendix 2. For details of the outcomes see PC website, (Community Update 6th Dec. 2017): http://parishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/Files/Parish/742/Neighbourhood_Plan_Presentation_for_Dec_6th__Final_Ver sion.pdf

5.2 On why people enjoy living in the Parish, the following received most support: - Ease of access to Grantham; - Feeling safe; - Peace and quiet; - The beauty of the countryside and green spaces – beautiful walks; - Village life – parks, great pub, clubs and school; - Community feeling.

5.3 There was a request that any development should be in-keeping with the character of the village. 67% of people wanted to see some development (67%) but this was limited/contained to 2-bed starter and 3 bed homes.

5.4 The responses showed that the following matters were things that people disliked and they thought did not contribute to their enjoyment of living in the village: - The condition of the roads; - Isolating – not very much happens; - Inconsiderate neighbours; - No shop in any of the villages, with comments supporting the provision of a village shop; - Poor broadband; - Lack of public transport; and environmental issues such as dog mess, litter and vacant properties

5.5 People stated that the following issues and features of the natural environment should be regarded as important issues when development proposals are considered: - Traffic and parking; - Changes to the villages and the green spaces; - Effect on the countryside around the villages; - Effect on the school and leisure facilities; - Nature conservation and biodiversity.

5.6 Most respondents were also keen to see both access to the countryside and footpaths protected when considering any development proposals. There were additional comments relating to the need for: - Better infrastructure; - Sustainable development in keeping with the surroundings; - Mindful that all communities contribute to the need for housing.

5.7 When considering development proposals in the Parish, respondents rated the following aspects of the built environment as being the most important to protect: - Managing the size of the village, to retain its quality and identity; - Maintaining historical quality; - Taking accounts of the distinctive building style.

5.8 There was strong support for traffic management measures to reduce speed levels through the village. In terms of service improvements, respondents most wanted to see better: - Internet/broadband provision; - Improved public transport; - Improved surface water drainage. 6

6 Initial External Consultee Notification 6.1 The Steering Committee was also keen to inform external consultees of the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan in advance of formal consultation on the Draft Plan. Accordingly, an email notification was sent to 47 organisations and people on Sept. 3rd 2019 (see Appendix 3). Ten responses were received, of which five were substantive. The key points, which were taken into account in the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, were:

6.12 Historic England (HE): HE commented that Neighbourhood Plan Area encompasses Ropsley Conservation Area and includes a number of important designated heritage assets. In line with national planning policy, it will be important that the strategy safeguards those elements which contribute to the significance of the heritage assets so that they can be enjoyed by future generations of the area. HE recommended liaison with the planning and conservation team at SKDC together with the staff at Lincolnshire County Council archaeological advisory service who look after the Historic Environment Record.

6.13 Lincolnshire County Council: The guidance produced by LCC will be helpful towards our consideration of heritage, but otherwise it seems to refer more to larger scale, more strategic matters related to site allocations.

6.14 Natural England: Although Natural England does not have any specific comments at present, the annex that they provided which covers many environmental issues and opportunities that can be considered in a Neighbourhood Plan. This should support our approach to nature conservation sites, landscape character and Local Green Spaces.

6.15 South Kesteven DC: The Council provides useful information on the constraints and designations that we will need to take account of, namely: • Parts of Ropsley are situated within a minor level 2 flood risk zone; • The Ropsley & District is within a Minerals safeguarding area (Limestone); • Ropsley and Braceby have Conservation Areas; • There is a Local Wildlife Site (Hurn Wood) south west of Ropsley; • There is a Scheduled Monument (Ring Dam medieval fishpond) east of Ropsley.

6.16 Reference was also made to the publication of the main modifications for the new Local Plan and that these should be examined to see if there is any impact on the policy context for the Neighbourhood Plan.

6.17 Anglian Water: There is existing water supply and sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure within the Parish and the comments refer to the need for consultation if site allocations are made, which is unlikely. However, it will be helpful to keep them involved.

6.18 Highways England: This organisation requested future consultation.

It was taken as good practice to include the majority of organisations in future rounds, unless they specifically requested to be excluded.

7 (Regulation 14) Consultation on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan Public/Local community 7.1 The Draft Plan was published for a 6-week consultation from Frid. 14th February to Sat. 28th March 2020. A newsletter and the Parish Council website (as required by Reg. 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations 2012), gave details of where and when the Draft Plan could be inspected and how to make representations. A questionnaire was included in the newsletter. • A copy of the questionnaire and newsletter was delivered to all households in the NP area. • Posters were distributed to all notice boards in the NP area. • Documents were made available in hard copy format at the local Public House and online on the Parish Council website. • Drops off points for the questionnaire were made available at the Pub, at the exhibition and residents were able to scan and email them in. • An NP Facebook page was regularly updated on; how to access documents, exhibition dates and drop off points. https://www.facebook.com/ropsleydistrictnp/ and Appendix 2. • The email list of interested parties was kept up to date as per Facebook. • There was a 'Mini Exhibition' held before the PC meeting on Mon. 9th March. The Draft NP were advertised with a large banner in a prominent roadside position near the Village Hall • Two exhibitions were planned for Saturday February 22nd and Tuesday March 17th where members of the public could look at all the documents and talk to members of the steering group and the consultant. Unfortunately, the March exhibition had to be cancelled in line with Government advice regarding Covid- 19. The exhibition included a presentation: https://www.facebook.com/ropsleydistrictnp/videos/2606609979573189/

7.2 A summary of the amendments made to the Plan as a result of comments received is given below in paragraphs 7.3 to 7.16. Thereafter, paragraphs 7.17 to 7.25 include statistical details of the responses, using tables, graphs and text.

Summary of Changes to the Draft Plan

Vision and Objectives

7.3 There was no disagreement with the Vision and Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Response. There is, therefore, no basis for amendments to these elements of the Draft Plan.

7.4 For Objective 6 (To enable appropriate small-scale residential development, with a range of house types and sizes to meet the needs and aspirations of local people), there was an agreement level of 67%. Eight respondents (19%) were neutral, one form (2%) was left blank and five respondents (12%) disagreed. Despite the higher level of disagreement to this objective, there was still a substantial measure of support. Response. This objective accords with the intent of the new Local Plan and there is no need for amendment.

7.5 Eleven comments were submitted on the Vision and Objectives and two on background material/evidence. Most demonstrated support for the content of the Draft Plan and no amendments are necessary. However, one comment on background material and evidence although positive, noted omissions in the Character Study, this is considered in more detail below:

- Para. 4.11, suggested insertion “There are two large Conservation Areas (CA) within the village. The older buildings are of stone and pantile/slate construction and later buildings of several different styles.” Response. The CA comprises two parts, but in terms of designation it is a single area and an amendment is not necessary, however, the useful description which follows has been added.

- Para. 4.14: Insert: “an award-winning public house (The Green Man), which is also a restaurant, tearoom and houses the post office etc. A New Village Hall is currently under construction and is due to be in use by late 2020”. Insert near end of para. “The village is well served with mains drainage, fibre optic high-speed broadband and a regular bus service.” Response: The qualities of the PH may change over time and the village hall text has been updated already. However, the reference to services is helpful and has been added, but to Para. 4.8 rather than 4.14.

- Para. 4.18: Insert: “The verges on many of the roads and lanes connecting with Ropsley have been identified as of ecological value. These verges, on each side of the road by Ropsley Rise Wood, have been designated by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust as a Roadside Nature Reserve (No. 49) with 209 recorded species. Other roads have been surveyed by the Wildlife Trust ‘Life on the Verge’ Project and found to be quality sites for Limestone Grassland species, e.g. the roads linking Ropsley to Braceby, Oasby and to Ropsley Rise Wood”. Response. This is relevant but was also made by the Wildlife Trust and text has been added.

- Section 7: Social (Community Cohesion) 7.3 Insert ……existing facilities such as school, public house, village hall “and church with Rectory.” Response. Agreed and wording added.

Planning Policies

7.6 There was over 80% agreement on 15 of the 18 Planning Policies (R&D1 & 5 to 18) and there is no need for amendment based on these explicit levels of agreement. The other three policies had lower levels of support, albeit that each had majority support: - R&D2 New Housing in Ropsley village: 31 agree (72% ), 6 (14%) disagree & 2 (5%) neutral. - R&D3 Housing in other settlements: 26 agree (60%), 5 (14%) disagree & 12 (28%) neutral. - R&D4 Residential extensions: 34 agree (79%), 3 (7%) disagree & 6 (14%) neutral.

7.7 With almost 80% support for R&D3 and 4 (now entitled residential extensions & conversions) and only 7% disagreement. Response. It is not considered that amendment is necessary to the policy.

7.8 Some 86% of respondents supported/felt neutral about Policy R&D2. Comments made by WLDC and subsequent clarification that any development must be within the built form of the village (see External Consultation report). In addition, the Policy is fully in accordance with the new Local Plan, the intention of which is only to enable very limited new development. Response. It is not considered that any changes are necessary to the Policy.

7.9 Seven comments were submitted or recorded on the Planning Policies. Of these several effectively support the Policies on: Sustainability (R&D1) Open Spaces and Local Green Spaces (R&D 10&11), and the importance of road verges and traffic issues (R&D 12,13 & 17). A comment concerns the need for improved broadband to support businesses (R&D 16). Response. It is felt that the Policy as worded, already promotes the need for good services. Similarly, another comment expressed the need for a time limit on work on residential extensions. Response. whilst planning legislation allows for planning conditions to require the start of (permitted) works within a given period, it cannot influence the actual time taken for construction and so, no amendment can be made to Policy R&D4. A further comment is on the range of goods that a village shop, should one to be opened, could sell. Response. Again, this falls outside the remit of planning policies and no amendment can be made.

7.10 One comment relates to the need to support local farming. Response. This is accepted, but amendments have already been made to reflect the concerns of Ropsley Farms, see External Consultee Report and no additional changes are necessary.

7.11 There is also a comment on 4 policies, as set out and considered below: “I agree in principle to the proposals outlined in R&D 2, 10, 13 & 15, but with the caveats that I propose in my attached comments sheet and discussed at the exhibition on 22 Feb. I agree with most of the comments on the Formal Planning Policies but, I have ticked “Disagree’’ with four where I consider that significant matters have been omitted.

R&D 2 – New Housing in Ropsley Village The paragraph in Braceby section relating to Conservation Areas should be included, i.e. ‘The need to respect Conservation Areas and their settings, such as they would be protected and enhanced by the proposed dwelling(s).’ Response. Duplication of policies should be avoided, but it is reasonable to add wording to clause (c) of the policy “…taking into account, the Conservation Area, Listed Buildings and Local Heritage Assets, in accordance with Policies R&D7,8 & 9;” R&D 10 - Open space and Recreation An area of open space has been omitted in Ropsley, i.e., ‘The open green area opposite the War Memorial green; a grassed area with bench for reflection and flagpole’. Response. Agreed, add wording to Policy R&D 11. “It also covers a grassed area over Chapel Hill (with a seat and flagpole). It was originally a village pond.” R&D 13 - Nature conservation & biodiversity Suggest it includes: ‘the wide grass verges along the roads interconnecting the villages as part of the network of wildlife corridors’. Response. Agreed and noted, but this matter has been covered by the amendments resulting from the comments by Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust. R&D 15 - Local businesses and employment I suggest this includes a requirement that adequate off-road parking (relating to the business) is provided.” Response. Agreed, add “parking and servicing” to Clause (a).

Community Aspirations

7.12 All five of the Community Aspirations received 86% to 98% agreement, but almost all other comments were neutral with only one respondent expressing disagreement (to CA5). Response. No amendments are necessary in response to the questionnaire returns.

7.13 Ten comments were made on the Community Aspirations. Of these, several concerned the potential trading position of a local shop, were one to open. It is not necessary to amend the Plan to reflect these, but they can be held on record by the Parish Council, should any opportunities for a local shop emerge. One comment stated that farmers and landowners should be included as partners in nature conservation and countryside management. Response. This complements the changes that have been made to some policies resulting from the comments made by Ropsley Farms (see External Consultation Report) and the following text is to be added to the explanation for Community Aspiration 5 (Tree & hedge planting and habitat creation/management): “Landowner and farmer engagement will also be critical and the Post EU reform of farming subsidies may offer future opportunities.” Two other comments concerned local fundraising and (separately) the election of councillors, but neither justifies any further amendments to the Plan.

Other (General) Comments on the Draft Plan

7.14 Eleven further comments were submitted of which four offered gratitude for the work done by the Steering Group and general support for the Plan. This was very welcome. Others (four) referred to avoiding green field development, fundraising for tree planting and the need for a diverse countryside supporting plentiful and rare flora & fauna. Response. These reflect the intent and philosophy of the Plan and no amendments are necessary. One concerned the possibility of a Grantham supermarket opening a “satellite” in Ropsley. Response. In commercial terms this is unlikely to occur, and no amendment is needed to the Plan.

7.15 One, well made, comment refers to the increasing number of electric vehicles, requiring charging points and updated of power lines and for any new houses to have charging facilities. Response. Reference to “electric vehicle charging points” has been added to Policies R&D1 to R&D4, in the policy or in the explanation.

7.16 A substantive comment was made by a longstanding resident noting over eight decades of change. It notes, listing examples, that Ropsley once had over 30 local business to serve the community. Response. Whilst describing wider changes in society, it may also be interpreted as justification for trying to protect and enhance what is left – as such that is supportive of the approach that is taken in the Plan. Reference is also made to the pressure that might arise for new development in the Parish, as Grantham expands to and new roads are built. Response. This reflects the intent of Plan, to protect the identity and character of the Parish and no amendment is needed. Reference is also made to a need for traffic management and reduced speed limits. Response. “including traffic management,” has been added to the explanation for Policy R&D 18.

Questionnaire Outcomes

7.17 Around 360 questionnaires were issued and 43 returned (12%). The overwhelming majority of comments were positive, supporting the Vision & Objectives, Planning Policies and Community Aspirations, see below .

Vision and objectives

Our Vision is that: In 2036 Ropsley & District (comprising of Ropsley, Agree – 43 (100%) Braceby, Sapperton, Little Humby and Great Humby) will be five distinct, Disagree - 0 sustainable and vibrant rural settlements, surrounded by attractive open Neutral - 0 countryside. Ropsley & District will contain communities that value and look after their historic buildings and the natural environment. Whilst physically separate from Grantham there will be good links to the employment, services and facilities the town offers. Objective 1: To protect the distinct identity of Ropsley and District and Agree - 43 (100%) within it, the individual nature and setting of its five settlements. Disagree - 0 Neutral - 0 Objective 2: To define, protect and enhance the distinctive landscape of Agree – 43 (100%) Ropsley and District. Disagree - 0 Neutral - 0 Objective 3: To protect and enhance built environment (heritage) assets, Agree – 43 (100%) archaeological sites and natural environment assets. Disagree - 0 Neutral - 0 Objective 4: To maintain and develop local services and facilities to Agree – 43 (100%) ensure a sustainable and viable community. Disagree - 0 Neutral - 0 Objective 5: To encourage and enable sustainable development Agree – 41 (95%) including energy efficient buildings, active travel and access into the Disagree - 0 countryside. Neutral 2 (5%)

Objective 6: To enable appropriate small-scale residential development, Agree – 29 (67%) with a range of house types and sizes to meet the needs and aspirations Disagree – 5 (12%) of local people. Neutral – 8 (19%) Left blank – 1 (2%)

Vision & Objectives - Numbers 11 50 40 43 43 43 43 43 41 30 29

Vision & Objectives - Percentages 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 1 8 80% 5 60% 43 43 43 43 43 41 40% 29

20%

0% Vision Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Agree Disagree Neutral Left Blank

7.18 Comments made on the Vision and Objectives

1. “The Green Man under its present management acts as a central hub, as does the Church and Village Hall – not just for Ropsley but also for the surrounding villages.” 2. “I agree we need development, but it needs to blend in & not stretch the village’s infrastructure & overwhelming roads etc.” 3. “I would like to see provision for some renewable energy sources to provide for the villages. Brownfield sites should be favored for development.” 4. “Not really covered in the plan. I would like to see a cross section of the Parish form a ‘group’ including farmers, set up in the next 10 years to look at; sustainability, local produce and alternative energy.” 5. “Ref. Objective 5 – Access into the countryside must not be at the cost of increased rural crime and wildlife crimes.” 6. “New builds and/or improvements, should reflect local social/economics of home dwellers. Not….expensive overpriced homes no one except millionaires could buy!” 7. “A greater focus on renewable energy sources.” 8. “Please do not build on green sites.” 9. “Before any further development occurs in Ropsley, urgent attention is needed to flooding on Water Lane (junction of Chapel and Peck Hill) and to the collapsed soil and water trap in the Hall Field. The sewerage system also needs updating to cope with any increase in population.” 10. “We cannot sustain additional housing with current school, bus shop services.” 11. “I agree with further development but hope the NP will protect character in keeping with the rural area.” 7.19 Comments made on background material and evidence:

1. “Most of the objectives are current – infilling is acceptable. School parking is a danger to be considered. 2. “Please see attached sheet with comments on significant omissions in the Ropsley character assessment & in Section 7: Social (community Cohesion). As follows: Section 4: Character assessment…..ROPSLEY The description of Ropsley has several significant omissions. These can be verified and should be included in order to provide a more accurate picture and a better balance with the descriptions of the other hamlets within the District. I make the following suggestions: - 4.11: Insert: There are two large Conservation Areas within the village. The older buildings are of stone and pantile/slate construction, later buildings of several different styles. 4.14: Insert: an award-winning public house (The Green Man), which is also a restaurant, tearoom and houses the post office etc. A New Village Hall is currently under construction and is due to be in use by late 2020. 4.14: Insert towards the end of the paragraph The village is well served with mains drainage, fibre optic high- speed broadband and a regular bus service. Insert 4.18 The verges on many of the roads and lanes connecting with Ropsley have been identified as of ecological value. These verges on each side of the road by Ropsley Rise Wood have been designated by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust as a Roadside Nature Reserve (No. 49) with 209 recorded species. Other roads have been surveyed by the Wildlife Trust ‘Life on the Verge’ Project and found to be quality sites for Limestone Grassland species, notably the roads linking Ropsley to Braceby, to Oasby and to Ropsley Rise Wood. Section 7: Social (Community Cohesion) 7.3 Insert ……existing facilities…..village hall and church with Rectory.

7.20 Responses on the Formal Planning Policies

R&D 1 - Sustainable development Agree Disagree Neutral principles (9%) responses were left blank 35 (81%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

R&D 2 - New housing in Ropsley village Agree Disagree Neutral 31 (72%) 6 (14%) 6 14%)

R&D 3 - New housing in other settlements Agree Disagree Neutral 26 (60%) 5 (12%) 12 (28%)

R&D 4 - Residential extensions Agree Disagree Neutral 34 (79%) 3 (7%) 6 14%)

R&D 5 - Landscape character and openness Agree Disagree Neutral 43 (100%) 0 0

R&D 6 - Key views Agree Disagree Neutral 40 (93%) 0 3 (7%)

R&D 7 - Designated heritage assets Agree Disagree Neutral 41 (95%) 0 2 (5%)

R&D 8 - Local (non-designated) heritage Agree Disagree Neutral assets 37 (86%) 0 6 14%)

R&D 9 - Archaeology Agree Disagree Neutral 41 (95%) 0 2 (5%)

R&D 10 - Open space and recreation Agree Disagree Neutral 41 (95%) 2 (5%) 0

R&D 11 - Proposed Local Green Spaces Agree Disagree Neutral 41 (95%) 0 13

2 (5%)

R&D 12 - Countryside management Agree Disagree Neutral 43 (100%) 0 0

R&D 13 - Nature conservation & Agree Disagree Neutral biodiversity 39 (90%) 2 (5%) 2 (5%)

R&D 14 - Community facilities & local Agree Disagree Neutral services 43 (100%) 0 0

R&D 15 - Local businesses and Agree Disagree Neutral employment 40 (93%) 2 (5%) 1 (2%)

R&D 16 - Telecommunications and Agree Disagree Neutral broadband 40 (93%) 0 3 (7%)

R&D 17 - Transport and active travel Agree Disagree Neutral 40 (93%) 0 3 (7%)

R&D 18 - Countryside access & rights of Agree Disagree Neutral way 43 (100%) 0 0

Formal Planning Policies

100% 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 20 20 20 0 20 0 10 0 0 0 4 6 6 03 0 6 0 0 2 2 03 03 2 2 12 0 80% 6 3 5 60% 43 43 43 43 40 41 41 41 41 39 40 40 40 40% 35 37 31 34 26 20%

0% R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D R&D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Agree Disagree Neutral Left Blank 14

7.21 Comments on Policies

1 “I agree in principle to the proposals outlined in R&D 2, 10, 13 & 15, but with the caveats that I propose in my attached comments sheet & which were discussed with members of the Steering Group and Planning Advisor on 22 Feb. 2020 at the Village Hall. I agree with most of the comments in the list under Section 3 Formal Planning Policies. However, I have ticked “Disagree’’ with four where I am of the opinion that significant matters have been omitted, please see below. R&D 2 – New Housing in Ropsley Village The paragraph in Braceby section relating to Conservation Areas should be included, i.e. ‘The need to respect Conservation Areas and their settings, such as they would be protected and enhanced by the proposed dwelling(s).’ R&D 10 - Open space and Recreation An area of public open space has been omitted in Ropsley, i.e., ‘The open green area opposite the War Memorial green; a grassed area, bench for reflection and flagpole’. R&D 13 - Nature conservation and biodiversity I suggest this includes: ‘the wide grass verges along the roads interconnecting the villages as part of the network of wildlife corridors’. R&D 15 - Local businesses and employment I suggest this includes are requirements that adequate off-road parking (relating to the business) is provided.” 2 “Policies may be light on renewable energy and sustainability given our current climate crisis.” 3 “Ropsley & Humby have green spaces in village centres, these need to be retained/ maintained.” 4 “R&D 16 Broadband in Braceby is non-existent. Data by mobile broadband is limited, which during this Coronavirus self-isolation is proving problematic. R&D 17 Large/numerous PX lorries destroy roads & damage verges between Braceby & Sapperton.” 5 “Re R&D12 & 13 the Community must work with and support local farmers, who have created the landscape, recognising their private ownership rights & commercial drivers to earn an income from the land, but to encourage and help with lateral thinking, new ideas and balance and bio-diversity.” 6 “R&D 4: Can time limits be put on newbuild/extensions Dreadful eyesore near St Peters when Tom’s Cottage was redeveloped. Looked like a tip for several years! Can we please put a time limit? 2 years max.!!!” 7 “A sustainable village shop area could sell locally produced goods (jams, honey and milk).”

7.22 Community Aspirations Agree Disagree Neutral CA 1 - Community assets (inc. shop) - 1 blank 38 (88%) 0 4 (9%) CA 2 - Resource and services guide - 1 blank 37 (86%) 0 5 (12%) CA 3 - Volunteering - 1 blank 38 (88%) 0 4 (9%) CA 4 - Local heritage - 1 blank 42 (98%) 0 0 CA 5 – Trees, hedges & habitat creation - 1 blank 40 (93%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)

Community Aspirations Community Aspirations 50 100% 42 1 1 1 01 1 38 37 38 40 1 40 95% 1 4 5 4 90% 30 0 0 0 42 20 85% 40 38 38 10 4 5 4 80% 37 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 75% CA1 CA2 CA3 CA4 CA5 CA1 CA2 CA3 CA4 CA5

Agree Disagree Neutral Left Blank Agree Disagree Neutral Left Blank

7.23 Comments on Community Aspirations

1. “CA1 If the village was to increase to twice its size, a shop would be at a loss: small turnover and high cost of purchasing small amounts of stock. Only 6 miles from 5 supermarkets.” 2. “CA1 Could The Green Man be helped to develop an essentials shop or alternatively have an automated vending machine at the Village Hall car park for essentials? CA5 Must be done in consultation with farmers.” 3. “CA5 PX Farms need to work more closely with the community & the Wildlife Trust in protecting the verges and reducing heavy traffic / lorries through the villages.” 4. “CA3 – Not for SKDC to use as an excuse to cut existing services to the bone, stating that the “community” can fill the gap, yet wanting to increase our property tax by inflation+ yearly.” 5. “I have not been made aware of any fundraising events for anything.” 6. “We definitely need a local shop, if only for basic needs e.g. milk, bread, even with limited hours.” 7. “Very much agree with a locally sourced produce shop for basics e.g. butter, milk and bread.” 8. “We need a shop.” 9. “I feel neutral about a shop close to Grantham, noting increased traffic & not sustainable.”

7.24 Any other comments on the Draft Plan

1. “No development on greenfield sites.” 2. “There are many large supermarkets in Grantham, plus Spa & Londis. Maybe they should be approached to get an express style shop in Ropsley.” 3. “Could we raise money for tree planting?” 4. “More legal powers must be granted to allow Councils to stop houses from being left empty and neglected for years and years.” 5. “Much work and thought has gone into the plan. It is up to us as local people to work to enhance our villages.” 6. “We have a lovely district and it’s good that there is a robust plan to keep it that way, while meeting the evolving needs of our community. Thank you for your hard work.” 7. “Ropsley & District is a unique area incorporating a strong community bond, unspoilt and diverse countryside supporting plentiful and rare flora & fauna. It is important that the area continues to provide for young and vibrant families. 8. “Communication, balance & tolerance in all things will be key to a great community and ensuring this plan is a success. Well done all those involved.” 9. “Many thanks to all the members of the Steering Group and their advisors on the excellent work that has been carried out. As mentioned in my comments in Section 2&4, the areas that I have marked as “Disagree” relate solely to the matters that I consider have been omitted and are detailed in the attached appendix. 10 “An item you may not have taken into account is the increasing number of electric vehicles coming which will require charging points and the updating of village power lines…. Any new houses will need charging points. 11 “One thing our local Villages and Councils need to be alert to, are the incentives offered by large companies in exchange for planning consent, on the outskirts of our villages when the bypass is completed and development starts on the housing estate and shopping complex at the camp site. Speed reduction signs are required at each end of the main street, plus one or two visits from the police camera van. This may encourage tractors to slow down at harvest time. We as villagers need to be aware of electing councillors who cost us money to go on introduction courses, then return with big ideas only to leave the village with a mess for someone else to sort out. This list may be of interest how Ropsley was once self-supporting…” Two Public Houses Fish Monger Coal Merchant Post Office Post Man (Not connected to the Post Office)

Two Carpenters Wheel Wright Two Milk Men Two Undertakers Two Stone Mason Builders Cobbler Tailor Three Butchers and a Slaughter House Doctor Nurse Midwife Steam Trashing Contractor Two Bake Houses Insurance Agent Garage and Petrol Pumps Six Farms Six Shops, one with delivery service School Headmaster (Shot himself) A Water Reservoir All the above people were making a living locally, now many of these types of business are owned by large companies, which means very little benefit to the local economy. It’s a changing world.”

7.25 Age Group of people completing questionnaire

Age group? <18 - 2 (5%) 18/24 2 (5%) 25/35 1 (2%) 36/50 - 3 (7%) 51/65 10 (23%) >65 - 18 (42%)

AGE GROUP <18 18-24 5% 6% 25-35 3% 36-50 8%

>65 51-65 50% 28%

Age Group 20 18

15 10 10

5 3 2 2 1 0 <18 18-24 25-35 36-50 51-65 >65

8 Regulation 14: External Consultation on the Draft Neighbourhood Plan

8.1 An email notification was sent to 29 organisations and individuals on 14th February 2020. Six weeks was allowed for comment with agreed extensions where organisations needed to refer comments to committees etc. There were 14 responses: Lincs. Wildlife Trust, South Kesteven District Council, English Nature, Lincolnshire County Council, Highways England, Cllr. Trotter, Anglian Water, Ingoldsby PC, Natural England, Sport England, Historic England, Healthwatch Lincs. In addition, Ropsley Farms did not submit written comments, but the Steering Group Chairman held a meeting with the management on 5th May 2020 and recorded the discussion. Finally, detailed comments made after the exhibition, by a local resident are considered in the Community Consultation report.

8.2 The comments received are set out in Table 1 (below), which also includes proposed amendments to the Draft Plan. The full list of Consultees and the email sent, with an invitation to comment are set out in Appendix 6.

Table 1

Organisation Response Recommended action NHS (17/02) Thank you for your email and the Health issues are relevant, but in the Dean Odell; opportunity to feedback on your consultation. As absence of planned (large scale) Healthwatch much as Healthwatch Lincolnshire covers the development, it is not realistic to include any Coordinator. whole of Lincolnshire, it’s not an area of the specific policies for new or expanded county we know or much about so would feel facilities. However, references to health couldn’t respond in a detailed manner. This said provision will be made in the Key Issues I do feel that the plan would benefit from section (Social …including for health including looking at local health provision, the services…) and in the Explanation to residents of Ropsley and district will need to Community Aspiration 2 (Local resources access health and social care services outside of and Services Guide)… Access to good quality that area and increases in populations could have health services is particularly important… an adverse effect on access to these services. This might also be extended to health and social care support groups and other volunteer organisations that people access in the area. This also links into any transport and road infrastructure you might be planning to improve access to these services. If there is anything else we can add do let us know.

Historic (19/02) The area covered by it encompasses Ropsley Noted, useful context and past advice from England Conservation Area and includes a number of HE and LCC has been taken into account, Clive important designated heritage assets. In line with noting the importance attached to heritage Fletcher national planning policy, it will be important that the and archaeology. Business strategy for this area safeguards those elements Officer which contribute to the significance of these assets so No amendments necessary. that they can be enjoyed by future generations. If you have not already done so, we would recommend that you speak to the planning and conservation team at South Kesteven District Council together with the staff at Lincolnshire County Council archaeological advisory service who look after the Historic Environment Record. They should be able to provide details of the designated heritage assets in the area together with locally-important buildings, archaeological remains and landscapes. Some Historic Environment Records may also be available on-line via the Heritage Gateway (www.heritagegateway.org.uk

it may also be useful to involve local voluntary groups such as the local Civic Society or local historic groups. Historic England has produced advice which your community might find helpful in helping to identify what it is about your area which makes it distinctive and how you might go about ensuring that the character of the area is retained. See:- https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/plan- making/improve-your-neighbourhood/ You may also find the advice in “Planning for the Environment at the Neighbourhood Level” useful. This has been produced by Historic England, Natural England, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission. As well as giving ideas on improving local environments, it contains further sources of information. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328 084622/http://cdn.environment- agency.gov.uk/LIT_6524_7da381.pdf If you envisage including new housing allocations in your plan, we refer you to our published advice available on our website, “Housing Allocations in Local Plans” as this relates equally to neighbourhood planning. This can be found at https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images- books/publications/historic-environment-and-site- allocations-in-local-plans/heag074-he-and-site- allocation-local-plans.pdf/ Police (19/02) Standard acknowledgment, no specific No amendment necessary comments Lincs. CC (25/03) Only one comment: With regards to public The support, for Objective 5 and Policy Phil Hughes rights of way and environmental and tree related R&D18, is welcomed. No amendment policies the County Council supports the parish. They necessary. have clearly given the subjects significant consideration and it is pleasing to see specific policies concerning them. Highways (11/18) Highways England welcomes the opportunity Noted. No amendment necessary. England to comment on the draft Ropsley and District Scarlett Neighbourhood Plan which covers the period from Griffiths 2020 to 2036. We note that this document sets out a vision for the area and establishes planning policies for the use and development of the land. Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). It is our role to maintain the safe and efficient operation of the SRN whilst acting as a delivery partner to national economic growth. In relation to the draft Ropsley and District Neighbourhood Plan, our principal interest is in safeguarding the operation of the A52 which abuts

the northern boundary of the Neighbourhood Plan area. We understand that a Neighbourhood Plan is required to be in conformity with relevant national and Borough-wide planning policies. Accordingly, the Neighbourhood Plan for Ropsley & District is required to conform to the New South Kesteven Local Plan, which is acknowledged within the submission. We note that no specific housing or employment sites have been allocated in the Local Plan for the Parish, although the Neighbourhood Plan will support small scale employment and housing developments of no more than three dwellings within the main built-up area of Ropsley village. Considering the limited level of growth proposed across the Neighbourhood Plan area we do not expect that there will be any significant impacts on the operation of the SRN. We therefore have no further comments to provide and trust the above is useful in the progression of the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan. Natural (24/02) Thank you for your consultation on the above Noted. No amendment necessary. England dated 14 Feb. 2020. Danielle Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Priestner, Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural Consultation environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed Team for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Natural England is a statutory consultee in neighbourhood planning and must be consulted on draft neighbourhood development plans by the Parish/Town Councils or Neighbourhood Forums where they consider our interests would be affected by the proposals made. Natural England does not have any specific comments on this draft neighbourhood plan. However, we refer you to the attached annex* which covers the issues and opportunities that should be considered when preparing a Neighbourhood Plan. For any further consultations on your plan, please contact: (*standard Neighbourhood Plan guidance). South (27/03) Please find attached the formal comments Kesteven DC from SKDC on the Draft Version of the Ropsley and (Jake Horton District Neighbourhood Plan. It would now be our – Policy preference for us to have a meeting with yourself and Officer) on the members of the Neighbourhood Plan group, in behalf of LPA order to go over any underlying issues or address any of the questions you might have over the comments received. However, given the current climate I would anticipate that it might be a while before we are able to do this. Therefore, if a conference call would be appropriate we could set something up within the upcoming weeks?

Detailed Comments Formatting The document does not appear to have page numbers. Noted, agreed paragraph numbers will be It would be helpful if paragraph numbers were added checked and page numbers added. to the entire document. Paragraph 3.5 The Council suggest that this paragraph Agreed, text updated Is now no longer needed as the New South Kesteven Local Plan was formally adopted on the 30th of January 2020. The Core Strategy, SAP DPD and the saved policies form the 1995 Local Plan are all now outdated. The section regarding LCCs minerals and waste Core Agreed, text updated Strategy would now be better incorporated into a revised paragraph, along with information around the newly adopted Local Plan. Paragraph 3.6 + 3.7 The Council suggest rewording Agreed, text updated these two paragraphs to reflect the New Local Plans adoption on the 30th of January 2020 (also in line with comments made around paragraph 3.5) Paragraph 3.9 The Council suggest removing the Agreed text deleted words “clear community support” as it could be misleading - community support only applies to a section of policy SP4 (edge of settlement) and is not a policy requirement of SP3 (infill development) or SP5 (open countryside). Additionally, Paragraph 2.1.12 does not exist within the adopted SKDC Local Plan – did this mean to reference para 2.12? Paragraph 3.10 Paragraph 1.1.13 does not exist within Noted and corrected the adopted SKDC Local Plan - did this mean to reference para 2.13? Additionally, the Council suggests changing the first Noted and corrected sentence to say “provides further clarification to edge of settlement developments” as this is what is being described. Paragraph 3.12 Suggest changing the word “include” Agreed text amended to “included” Paragraph 3.14 The Council suggest changing the Agreed text amended word “settlement boundary” to “built up part of the Agreed text amended settlement” as not to not give the wrong impression that there is a settlement boundary for Ropsley, which would not be in general conformity with policy SP4. Paragraph 3.15 In addition, to SP4 it is also worth Agreed, NPPF reference added and second noting that NPPF paragraph 77 states that Local sentence deleted Planning Authorities should support opportunities to bring forward rural exception sites that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs and consider whether allowing some market housing on these sites would help to facilitate this. These are known as “Rural exception” sites. The Council suggests deletion of the second sentence as it appears that there has been no evidence work done by the NP group to establish this.

Paragraph 3.16 The Council suggest changing the last Agreed text amended sentence of the paragraph, as The Prince William of Gloucestershire Barracks is now policy GR3-H4 and is set to deliver a minimum of 3500 to 4000 units in total (with an estimated 1775 being delivered in the New Local Plan period.) Paragraph 4.3 Appears to repeat of what is already Noted Paras 4.3 and 4.4 deleted said in paragraph 1.6? Paragraph 4.4 Appears to repeat what is already said in paragraph 1.7? Paragraph 7.6 The Council would suggest changing Agreed text amended the wording of the last sentence to say “focus on the development of 2-3 bed homes” as it appears that there has been no evidence work done by the NP group to establish that only this type of bedroom housing is required. General Comment – Formatting Suggest making the Agreed, background colour added boxes for policy text in a different colour, this is to add some distinction between them and the supporting text. Policy R&D1 General formatting - Policy criteria Noted, formatted and “e.g.” added should all line up with each other F) Suggest adding in the word “such as” after “transport modes”

Policy R&D2 (D) The Council has concerns that this a) Noted, amend “d) it is not located policy criteria is too restrictive as there is no indication outside the described built form of as to what “open land” uses are important to the form the village such that development and character of the village (minus what is established would harm its character;” in the Open Space & LGS policy’s). The Council suggests changing wording to “is not located outside the described built form of the village” G) Suggest changing “good access by car” to “suitable Agreed, change made. access” to make the policy clearer. I) Would suggest the removal of the word “which” Agreed, words deleted. after “where the design” Noted and agreed Second paragraph under policy R&D2 The council suggests changing the word “settlement Noted and reference added boundary” to “built up part of the settlement” as not to not give the wrong impression that there is a settlement boundary for Ropsley. Additionally, policy SP4 has a criterion within it that states that any edge of settlement development must be adjacent to the existing pattern of development so it might also be helpful if this is incorporated into the text. The Council has concerns that the paragraph is negative (i.e. assuming that no edge of settlement development will meet the criteria of (SP4) suggest a more positive rewording. Policy R&D3 The Council believes this policy could be Noted, Policy title changed to “New Housing clearer, as Policy SP5 is restrictive on new dwellings in (and other development) in other locations.” the open countryside. It appears that this criterion is It is not intended to promote housing in the suggesting that new housing development is allowed hamlets in these settlements – is this the intention of the

22 policy for the Settlements of Humby, Braceby, Great Humby and Sapperton? The council would suggest adding an explanation as to Noted and agreed, examples added what “other development” is in the supporting text of the policy A) Would suggest changing the word “dwelling” to Agreed and amended “development” E) Would suggest changing the word “The proposal” Agreed and amended to “Proposals” F) This criterion would need to be supported by the Noted appropriate evidence The Council has concerns over the last paragraph – Disagree. It is possible to remove PD rights This is because the removal of PD rights can only be by planning conditions, but “will” is done through Article 4 directions or conservation area amended to “may” in the policy and specific requirements. explanation expanded Policy R&D4 (e) Would suggest rephrasing “enjoyed Agreed and amended by occupiers “as the wording is too subjective and difficult to implement from a decision-making standpoint. Would suggest changing it say “amenity of Agreed and amended occupiers” Policy R&D5 The Council suggest changing “open attractive” to just “attractive” in the first sentence. A) The council questions what the difference is Noted, amend to “a reduction of the current between “visual” and “physical” separation? physical separation;” Second paragraph under policy R&D5 First sentence – the LP allocates two sites to the Noted and amended south and east of Grantham for around a total of 3425 houses over the plan period. Second sentence – The strategic employment site is Noted and amended now 118ha in size and is located west of the A1 near Spittlegate Heath. Policy R&D6 The Council suggests the policy could be worded more positively by potentially adding some wording in there which suggests that development Noted, wording added to policy. which enhances or improves views will be supported. Policy R&D8 The Council would suggest that the Agreed, amended to; “Proposals involving a second sentence of the first paragraph needs non-designated heritage asset should rewording, as it does not flow very well. demonstrate how they would contribute to The council suggests changing “resisted” in the third the conservation, preservation and sentence of the first paragraph to “not be supported” enhancement of the architectural or historic interest of the building or structure in question” and “resisted” deleted: “not be supported” added.

Policy R&D9 (A) The Council suggests that some Agreed reference added to “(a) as recorded supporting text is added to direct where information by Historic England & Lincolnshire County on these archaeological deposits can these be found. Council

Policy R&D10 Second sentence first paragraph - The Agreed “permitted” replaced with Council suggests changing “permitted” to “supported” “supported” – to make the policy sound more positive.

Suggest adding a sentence to say that development Agreed “Whilst development which which enhances or improves open space areas will enhances or improves existing features will also be supported. be supported…”

Third sentence – The Council suggests that this Disagree, this provides a local focus for the sentence is not needed as it is already covered PC to ensure that appropriate funding is through OS1 or alternative S106 arrangements (where available applicable)

E) Would suggest changing the word “incidental” to Agreed “incidental” replaced with “informal” “informal”

Would suggest adding in a location of the “village Agreed, locations added to policy wording. greens” in both Sapperton & Little Humby to give more context.

Policy R&D11 General comment - The Council Noted, see below, revised maps will be suggests it would be beneficial to have the whole produced for the retained LGS table of LGS listed in the policy – as it appears some have been missed off from appendix 3. It would also be helpful to perhaps change the label codes so the LGS are easier to differentiate for (example change all the LGS codes in Great Humby to “GH1” and Braceby to “B1” etc.

Policy R&D11 (Councils comments on the identified LGS); Ropsley Apologies, the land was shown on the plans, G1 –Disagree with LGS allocation; not enough but it was not intended to designate the evidence that it is demonstrably special enough. In area as an LGS, it is covered by Policy addition, the site is an extensive tract of land and not R&D10. well related to the community it serves. G2 – Agree with LGS allocation Noted, agreement is welcomed (See public comments, the area is to be extended)

G3 – Disagree with LGS allocation – site is better Apologies, the land was shown on the plans, suited to being identified as an area of Open Space. but it was not intended to designate it as an LGS: it is covered by Policy R&D10.

G4 – Agree with LGS allocation Both noted, agreement is welcomed – could G5 – Agree with LGS allocation be extended based on public comments and local history research. See community consultation. Braceby Disagree with designation not enough Disagree. This is the main “Village Green” in evidence that any are demonstrably special the heart of the hamlet. It used as an open G1 space, with a seat, tree planting and conservation interest G2 G3 and G4 Agreed, but the 3 spaces will be referred to in the character report. They are important to the Con. Area and settings of Listed Buildings. The roadside spaces (W of Church), have biodiversity interest, typical of many locally

Great Humby G1 (Humby) - Disagree with LGS allocation - appears Apologies, the land was shown on the plans, to be just a small patch of Grassland in the middle of a but it was not intended to designate an LGS. road. Would argue that neither this area or its setting needs protection. G2 (Humby)- Agree with LGS allocation Noted, agreement is welcomed Little Humby G1 (Little Humby) - Agree with LGS allocation Noted, agreement is welcomed Sapperton G1 (Sapperton) – Disagree with LGS Disagree. 0.64 ha is not an extensive area allocation; not enough evidence that it is and the community have invested heavily in demonstrably special enough. In addition, it is quite the area (financially and emotionally), an extensive tract of land for the area and the through the creation of a community community it serves. orchard and the volunteer led maintenance programme

Policy R&D13 First para. - The Council suggest Agreed, wording deleted from the Policy but removing the last sentence as its quite broad in its added to the Explanation interpretation and would be difficult to implement on every application that in some way effects one of the listed criteria.

Policy R&D14 (A) The Council suggests there has to be Agreed. Reference added to pre-application some sort of explanation as to how community consultation and/or other local surveys support will be measured (see SKDC policy SP4 for more info) in order to implement the policy more effectively. *Asterix section – The Council thinks this section Assume refer to SP (not E6) otherwise repeats what is already within policy E6 of the SKDC agreed, text updated and moved to the Local Plan, therefore the council suggest removing this Explanation section or quoting what is already in Policy E6. Last sentence of the policy – this is better suited to Agreed. Deleted and added to Explanation being within the supporting text of the policy. Second paragraph under policy R&D14 - New Agreed this is confusing. Delete the provision for community facilities does not always reference have to come forward with larger developments. In addition, residential development in Ropsley is not just explicitly limited to 3 units.

Policy R&D15 (D) The council suggest that this policy Disagree. The criterion could apply to on criterion is removed as it is difficult to see how the farm energy schemes e.g. anaerobic policy can be effectively implemented. digesters that need digestate delivery and waste removal B/ assume E) – The council suggest that this policy Disagree. Clause retained, but clarification criterion is removed. Homeworking is more an added, activity using existing buildings is as incidental consideration and extensions are relevant as extensions or outbuildings adequately addressed in policy R&D3.

Policy R&D 17 Second Sentence – First Paragraph Agreed. The policy has been reworded and doesn’t quite make sense and could use some simplified rewording

The Council would suggest removing the last sentence Agreed to as not to prompt any unnecessarily confusion. This

is because the council does not use a CIL charging levy scheme and Section 106 infrastructure improvements are usually only required from larger developments. S106 is a legal agreement between the applicant seeking planning permission and the Local Planning Authority, which is used to mitigate the impact of new homes on the local community and infrastructure in which they are situated, this would primarily be used to manage the impacts of proposed larger developments and would prove difficult to move onto Ropsley – unless there was a major development in the area. Monitoring, review & implementation – Funding… Agreed, CIL references removed. The The Council would suggest removing the reference to wording “where appropriate” has been CIL as stated earlier the Council does not use this. It is added to the reference to pre-application also worth noting that there are no guarantees the procedures. Parish council will be involved in all pre apps. Anglian (04/03) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Water the Draft Ropsley and District Neighbourhood Plan. (Stewart The following comments are submitted on behalf of Patience) Anglian Water. I would be grateful if you could confirm that you have received this response. Policy R&D2 New housing in the village - Reference is The support is noted and welcomed made to new housing development incorporating Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Anglian Water fully supports the incorporation of SuDs to addresses the risk of surface water and sewer flooding and which have wider benefits including water quality. Policy R&D12 – Countryside Management - Agreed. Add “utility infrastructure” to policy Reference is made to uses other than housing and the and “…essential utility infrastructure should criteria which applied for those located in the be deemed acceptable in principle when countryside. It is unclear whether this policy would located in the countryside subject to meeting apply to infrastructure provided by Anglian Water for other policy requirements” to the Policy our customers. It would be helpful to clarify that Explanation utility infrastructure is acceptable in principle when located in the countryside subject to meeting other policy requirements. Nicola Farr, Thank you for giving the Environment Agency the Sustainable opportunity to comment on the Ropsley Draft Places Neighbourhood Plan. Our work covers a broad range Planning of environmental matters but is focussed on Advisor protection of the water environment and Environment management of flood risk. Neither of these are major Agency issues in the Plan area, hence we do not have many comments to make. We share your objectives 3 (to protect and The support is noted and welcomed enhance…natural environmental assets) and 5 (to encourage sustainable development including energy efficient buildings, active travel and access into the countryside). We welcome Policies R&D 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Agreed, add: “The policy reflects the You may wish to add reference to the expected emerging Environment Bill (March 2020) legislation requiring net gain in biodiversity in R&D 13. which proposes that development should

I note that R&D 13 requires measures to ‘avoid lead to a net gain in biodiversity. Where it is fragmentation’ and that ‘projects to enhance wildlife practical, proposals should seek habitats…will be supported’. This could be opportunities to enhance habitat strengthened by requiring proposals to seek connectivity.” to the Policy Explanation opportunities to enhance connectivity between habitats – if you believe this is appropriate in your local area. Sport (19/02). Government planning policy, within the NPPF The general support and advice is noted and England identifies how the planning system can play an welcomed. Further reference to the NPPF, Planning important role in facilitating social interaction and the role of Sport England and other guidance Administrati creating healthy, inclusive communities. Encouraging have been added to the Policy R&D10 on Team communities to become more physically active Explanation. through walking, cycling, informal recreation and “…NPPF Paragraphs 92(c) and 97(a,b&c) formal sport plays an important part in this process. Where development is proposed that affects Providing enough sports facilities of the right quality playing fields and recreation areas, the Sport and type in the right places is vital to this aim. This England guidance should be followed and, if means that positive planning for sport, protection necessary, advice sought from that from the unnecessary loss of facilities, with an organisation, which has a statutory integrated approach to providing new housing and consultee role.” employment land with community facilities is important. It is essential therefore that the neighbourhood plan reflects and complies with national planning policy for sport as set out in the NPPF with particular reference to Paras 96 & 97. It is also important to be aware of Sport England’s statutory consultee role in protecting playing fields and the presumption against the loss of playing field land. Sport England’s playing fields policy is set out in our Playing Fields Policy and Guidance document.https://www.sportengland.org/how-we- can-help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for- sport#playing_fields_policy We provide guidance on developing planning policy see. https://www.sportengland.org/how-we-can- help/facilities-and-planning/planning-for- sport#planning_applications Sport England works with local authorities to ensure their Local Plan is underpinned by robust and up to date evidence. In line with Par 97 of the NPPF, this takes the form of assessments of need and strategies for indoor and outdoor sports facilities. A neighbourhood planning body should look to see if the relevant local authority has prepared a playing pitch strategy or other indoor/outdoor sports facility strategy. If it has then this could provide useful evidence for the neighbourhood plan and save the neighbourhood planning body time and resources gathering their own evidence. It is important that a neighbourhood plan reflects the recommendations and actions set out in any such strategies, including those which may specifically relate to the neighbourhood area, and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community Infrastructure 27

Levy, are utilised to support their delivery. Where such evidence does not already exist then relevant planning policies in a neighbourhood plan should be based on a proportionate assessment of the need for sporting provision in its area. These should set out what provision is required to ensure the current and future needs of the community can be met and, in turn, be able to support the development and implementation of planning policies. Sport England’s guidance on assessing needs may help with such work. http://www.sportengland.org/planningtoolsandguidan ce If new or improved sports facilities are proposed Sport England recommend you ensure they are fit for purpose, in accordance with our design guidance. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools- guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/ Any new housing developments will generate additional demand for sport. If existing sports facilities do not have the capacity to absorb the additional demand, then planning policies should look to ensure that new sports facilities, or improvements to existing sports facilities, are secured and delivered. Proposed actions to meet the demand should accord with any approved local plan or neighbourhood plan policy for social infrastructure, along with priorities resulting from any assessment of need, or set out in any playing pitch or other indoor and/or outdoor sports facility strategy that the local authority has in place. In line with the NPPF (including Section 8) and its PPG (Health and wellbeing section), links below, consideration should also be given to how any new development, will provide opportunities for people to lead healthy lifestyles and create healthy communities. Active Design guidance can be used to help with this when developing planning policies and developing or assessing proposals. It provides 10 principles to help ensure the design and layout of development encourages and promotes participation in sport and physical activity. It could also be used at the evidence gathering stage to help undertake an assessment of how the design and layout of the area currently enables people to lead active lifestyles and what could be improved. NPPF Section 8: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning- policy-framework/8-promoting-healthy-communities PPG Health and wellbeing section: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/health-and-wellbeing Sport England’s Active Design Guidance: https://www.sportengland.org/activedesign

Councillor (12/03) Apologies, I was extremely busy with the Comments noted. The concerns over the Sarah Trotter “Walnut House”, Ropsley change of use for a planning application were discussed at the Children’s home, I am glad to report that last Wed. it exhibition and in follow up correspondence.

(South got rejected on the grounds of unsustainable location, Reference was made to the (draft) Policy Kesteven) not in any of the stated categories of development RD1 and the proposal failing to satisfy the permitted in open countryside in Policy SP5 of the criteria a, c, e, f (school transport?) and g. Local Plan and is an inappropriate form of development in the open countryside. The proposed To reflect the above and the comments development adjoins existing residential properties, made, an additional line is suggested in the and it was considered that the nature of proposed Policy Explanation; “The policy applies to use, with the high level of staff and visitor movements new development and changes of use. It is to and from the property and frequent car parking felt that these should not detract from the manoeuvres within a tightly constrained site, will give quality of life and amenity in residential rise to high levels of noise and disturbance areas in Ropsley and the four hamlets” detrimental to the residential amenities of occupiers of adjoining and nearby residential properties, contrary to Local Plan Policy DE1. The same applicant is now trying to buy Sycamore Cottages in Sapperton, the village is objecting. I do not support it, nor will Cllr Martin Hill and the Parish Council may get involved…I support the NP but would be grateful if you look at putting something in to restrict/stop “Change of Use” applications in unsuitable locations, (villages, hamlets, houses with neighbours?). Ingolsdby PC (28/02) I have asked Councillors for comments by 6 No further comments. No amendment March 2020. No comments made, needed Ropsley (05/03) Notes from Patrick Buckley (SG Chair) of Noted: detail added to Sec. 5 Statistical Farms meeting with Ropsley Farms Management to talk Profile “5.7 The higher percentage employed about concerns over R&D 5. Although complimentary in Elementary Occupations is of interest. It and supportive, recognising the work done on the includes agricultural workers and Skilled Plan, they were unhappy in feeling that the role of Trades is likely to include technicians who ‘farmers’ & ‘agriculture’ was largely overlooked and work supporting farming. Consultation has some of the tone was against agriculture. Conceding highlighted the importance of farming to the they have not promoted a role enough in shaping the local economy (and its influence on the landscape that everyone wants preserved they asked landscape). It is estimated that Ropsley if the plan could address this. Points raised were… Farms employs 8 people directly and indirectly supports at least an equal number Landscape - The shape and form of the countryside of local jobs.” and to 5.11 (Housing) “Other that the Parishioners enjoy is because of the rented” is likely to include farm related husbandry of the farmer. Lincolnshire is accommodation, e.g. Ropsley farms provides predominantly a rural county shaped by farmers, 7 dwellings.” agriculture being the biggest single industry in the county Employment - They surmised that agriculture directly/indirectly is a major employer in the parish. Ropsley Farms employs up 8 + employees directly plus those indirectly Noted, wording added to R&D5 Explanation. Housing - They house 7 in the locality “In addition, a policy stance is needed to Environment and Habitat - The estate spend address the potential impact of other large thousands of £’s on environmental improvements scale built development including, for each year which don’t get seen or recognised – example; solar farms and wind farms. Whilst woodland improvement, conservation strips, the economic importance of modern farming hedgerow improvements, tree planting over hundreds and the way in which it can contribute to of acres landscape quality, is acknowledged, great They then bought up R&D 5 and asked if this wording care must also be taken in the location and could be changed/removed - “In addition, a policy design of new agricultural buildings.

stance is needed to address other large scale built Measures including: the choice of materials, development including, for example; intensive pig and lowering ground levels, on and off site poultry rearing units, solar farms and wind farms.”? landscaping (including possible They said that with Brexit they are anticipating that rewilding/reversion of other land) may be support for UK farmers will drop dramatically (bearing ways of minimising and/or mitigating the the brunt of economic reshuffling), with increased impact of proposals. However, this approach competition from the USA etc. Farmers will be asked should not be used to make something that (in cases forced) to intensify/diversify. Government has an otherwise substantial adverse impact, net zero carbon targets also apply. They don’t have acceptable” any solar or intensive livestock plans for Ropsley but The role of farming will also be don’t want to be restricted. acknowledged in Policies R&D 12 (Countryside Management) and R&D 15 (Local Business and Employment. Lincolnshire (28/03) Our comments make specific reference to Comments welcomed. Add references to the Wildlife Trust national policies NPPF paras. 170, 174 and 175; and to Explanation “It is set within the context Mark the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act provided by Paras. 170, 174 and 175; of the Schofield, 2006 (sec. 40&41). We highlight that the NP achieves NPPF and the NERC Act 2006 (Secs. 40 and Conservation conformity with policies EN2 & EN3 in the S. Kesteven 41) and complements Policies EN2 & EN3” Officer Local Plan 2011-2036 (adopted Jan 2020). A specific section on roadside verges has Road Verges We are very happy to note that in been added to Section 4 - History & Local section 4.23 detailed reference is made to Sapperton Character. Roadside Nature reserve, however we do not see any Agreed, amend to reflect to the importance reference to Ropsley Roadside Nature Reserve which of roadside verges in Policy R&D12 runs along both verges of Risewood Lane along the (Countryside Management) b) sites of southern edge of Ropsley Rise Wood. Furthermore, as ecological value, including roadside verges a result of countywide road verge surveys undertaken and in the Explanation “The importance of by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust since 2009, we roadside verges was highlighted in would stress that a significant length of rural lanes comments on the Draft Plan which were throughout the parish now have verges which are submitted by the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust” designated as Local Wildlife Sites due to their Also, R&D 13 (Nature Con. & Biodiversity): limestone grassland flora. This designation, although “- Particular attention should be paid to any not statutory, is nevertheless a material consideration adverse impacts on roadside verges which in planning, referred to in the NPPF 2019 and NERC have been identified as Roadside Nature Act 2006. Reserves or Local Wildlife Sites” and in the A map of road verge designations for habitat value Explanation “Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust has can be obtained from the Greater Lincolnshire Nature advised that significant length of rural lanes Partnership: https://glnp.org.uk/contact/. More in the parish have verges which are information on Local Wildlife Sites and the designated as Local Wildlife Sites due to their designation process can be found here: limestone grassland flora. This designation, https://glnp.org.uk/partnership/local-sites/. although not statutory, is a material The Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping Study for consideration in planning, referred to in the Central Linc.(2013) shows (Calcareous Limestone NPPF 2019 and NERC Act 2006. A map of Grassland Habitat Opportunity Map road verge designations can be obtained (https://glnp.org.uk/admin/resources/fig-3.4- from the Gtr. Lincolnshire Nature calcareous-grassland-habitat-opportunity- Partnership…” mapping.pdf) how the whole of Ropsley and District Parish was identified as a Calcareous (limestone) Grassland Opportunity Area. In addition, all road verges designated for habitat value (i.e. both Roadside Nature Reserves and roadside Local Wildlife Sites) were identified as ‘targeted opportunities for the creation and restoration of calcareous grassland In addition, text added to the Explanation for habitat, calcareous grassland buffer zones, linear Policy R&D 17 (Transport & Active Travel)

30 calcareous grassland corridors and calcareous “At the same time, the wildlife and grassland stepping stones. landscape value of roadside verges must be We are encouraged to see that in NP Policy R&D 12 - maintained and where possible, improved. Countryside management, sub-clause (e) you make particular reference to road verges in conserving rural quality and character. We would encourage you to go further and to view your rural road verges as an especially significant (semi-)natural asset in which gives your Parish a particular distinction. In the ‘Life on the Verge’ surveys (floral diversity of verges) the Ropsley area scores especially highly: https://www.lincstrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018 -05/lotv_results_-_south_lincs_edge.jpg. It was these high scores for the diversity of native, Lincolnshire wildflowers that lead to the designation of these verges as Local Wildlife Sites beyond the existing Roadside Nature Reserves. We advise strongly that road verges represent a local priority for biodiversity conservation and local natural heritage as a valuable characteristic of the local landscape with county-level significance. Beyond NP Policies, we encourage the PC and their contractors to consult us on best practice for conserving the limestone grassland flora of road verges/roadside hedgerows, e.g.

-avoid/mitigate damage from vehicles, materials storage, other development

-avoid introduction of topsoil/material except crushed limestone (30mm-dust)

-avoid re-seeding

-seek advice from LWT if cabling/pipeline is planned to be laid along verges

-maintain management, collecting cuttings. Cut in late summer plus a late flail

-trim hedgerows only every 3 years, in rotation after mid-Jan., before March.

Woodland We note that 5 defined woodlands are listed in para. 4.32. Kirton Wood and the Sapperton The advice is welcomed. The text of para,. and Pickworth Woods are all designated as SSSIs. 4.32 (now 4.30) is amended to include: Ropsley Rise, Hurn Wood and Abney Wood are all “Kirton Wood, Sapperton and Pickworth designated at least in part as Local Wildlife Sites and Woods are l designated as SSSIs. Ropsley all of the above woods except Hurn Wood are Rise, Hurn Wood and Abney Wood are designated at least in part as Ancient Woodland. More designated at least in part as Local Wildlife information on your Local Wildlife Sites can be found Sites and all of the above woods except Hurn here: https://glnp.org.uk/partnership/local- Wood are designated at least in part as sites/. More information on SSSIs can be found from Ancient Woodland. Similar, but edited text NE has been added to the justification for Policy https://magic.defra.gov.uk/MagicMap.aspx (‘Designa R&D 13 tions, Land-based Designations, SSSIs (England)’.

General Comments We are happy to see hedgerows, parkland and veteran trees mentioned in section 4.33. This support is welcomed. “…including We would suggest that Objective 3 could incorporate biodiversity.” added to Objective 3. the term ‘biodiversity’ e.g. ‘To protect and enhance built environment (heritage) assets, archaeological

31 sites and natural environment assets including biodiversity.’ We support the inclusion in R&D 12 of sub-section (b) sites of ecological value. This support is welcomed We support the wording of R&D 13 - Nature This support is welcomed conservation and biodiversity and recommend the Noted, text has been added to the following revision: “Tree planting, hedgerow explanation for Community Aspiration 5. “In creation/enhancement and limestone grassland addition, the Parish Council will take creation/enhancement limited to native, local species opportunities to incorporate semi-natural and aimed at providing a network of wildlife corridors elements within the public green spaces in across the Parish will be supported.” We hope that the villages. The creation and enhancement opportunities are taken to incorporate semi-natural of wildflower-rich limestone grassland and elements within the public green spaces in the native trees and hedgerows would be a villages. Creation and enhancement of wildflower-rich priority. This would benefit both wildlife and limestone grassland and native trees and hedgerows the health and wellbeing of residents.” would be a priority to benefit wildlife and the health Reference to potential partnership working and wellbeing of local residents. For advice on added to the Implementation Section. grassland management “Amongst others, the Lincolnshire Wildlife see: https://www.lincstrust.org.uk/wildlife/wildlife- Trust is likely to be an important partner in gardening/wildflower-hub On hedgerows see: nature conservation policies and projects.” https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/publications/2014 /06/wood-wise-hedgerows-and-hedgerow-trees/ and ponds see: https://freshwaterhabitats.org.uk/ .

Appendix 1 – Designation Report (October 2016)

OFFICER DELEGATED DECISION: REPORT TO HEAD OF SERVICE DECISION TO BE TAKEN BY: Paul Thomas, Executive Manager Development & Growth REPORT AUTHOR: Roger Ranson, Business Manager, Spatial and Economic Growth REPORT NO. SEG28 - DATE: 12 October 2016 SUBJECT OF DELEGATED DECISION: Designation of a Neighbourhood Area: Ropsley and District

PRIORITY THEME: Grow Economy, Housing for All, Promote Leisure, Arts/Culture, Clean, Green & Healthy CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS: None FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT IMPLICATIONS: This report is publicly available via the Neighbourhood Plans page of the Council’s website: www.southkesteven.gov.uk INITIAL EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT Carried out and appended to report? Not Applicable. Full impact assessment required? Not Applicable BACKGROUND PAPERS: Localism Act 2011 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regs. 2012 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/637/contents/made Application by Ropsley & District PC http://www.southkesteven.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=18737&p=0

(1) PURPOSE OF REPORT To consider an application from Ropsley and District Parish Council to designate a Neighbourhood Area covering the Parishes of Ropsley and District.

(2) RECOMMENDATION The designation of a Neighbourhood Area covering the Parishes of Ropsley and Braceby and Sapperton (‘Ropsley and District’) is approved.

(3) REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION(S)

3.1 The Localism Act 2011 (the Act) introduced neighbourhood planning as a new way for communities to help shape future development in their area. One of the types of Neighbourhood Planning that has been introduced is Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDP), which set out policies for the development and use of land in a particular area. If a NDP has successfully passed all stages of preparation including an examination and referendum the LPA must adopt it as part of the Development Plan for their area.

3.2 The Act and the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (the Regulations) set out specific requirements to be met as part of the preparation of a Neighbourhood Plan and confer specific functions on local planning authorities (LPA) in respect of certain decisions to be taken.

3.3 One of these decisions relates to the determination of applications to designate a Neighbourhood Area. The designation of a Neighbourhood Area is the first formal step for Town or Parish Councils wishing to undertake neighbourhood planning in their area.

3.4 An application to designate a Neighbourhood Area (NA) covering Ropsley and Braceby and Sapperton has been received from Ropsley and District Parish Council, as they intend to prepare an NDP. In determining an application to designate a NA, LPAs must have regard to the following matters as set out in the Act: 1. Is the organisation making the application a relevant body (as prescribed by the Act this must be a Parish Council or, in unparished areas, a designated Neighbourhood Forum)? 2. Is the area identified for designation as a neighbourhood area considered appropriate (where the applicant is a Parish Council, the area identified could include the whole or any part of the Parish)? 3. Would the area more appropriately be designated a business area i.e. the area is wholly or predominately in business use? 33

4. Does the area overlap with another designated area? 5. Comments received during the public consultation.

3.5 The application received from Ropsley& District PC has been considered against the above matters: 1. As a Parish Council, Ropsley and District qualifies as a relevant body to make an application 2. The area proposed to be designated consists of the whole of the parishes, which is governed by a single Parish Council. In their application, the Parish Council state the proposed area is the area for which they are responsible and can see no good reason for including other areas. 3. The area proposed for designation cannot be wholly or predominantly in business use and, therefore, it would be inappropriate to designate the area as a business area. 4. There are currently no other designated areas in South Kesteven and therefore no overlap will occur. 5. This application was advertised in accordance with the Regulations for a period of six weeks and no responses were received.

3.6 The Portfolio Holder (Growth) and Ward Member have been consulted on the application in accordance with the agreed scheme of delegation. Cllr Adams responded supporting the application.

3.7 An application to designate a Neighbourhood Area can be refused if the criteria set out in the Act are not met. In considering the application against the criteria, there is no apparent reason to justify the application being refused.

3.8 The costs associated with the designation process have been met from this year’s planning policy budget.

(4) OFFICER CONTACT Roger Ranson Business Manager – Spatial and Economic Growth 01476 406438

(5) DATE DECISION EFFECTIVE: 13 October 2016

Appendix 2 Household Questionnaire (July/August 2017)

Ropsley District Neighbourhood Plan

It’s YOUR community, have YOUR say

Places change – and so will our villages. How would you like yours to change over the next 10 years?

Do you want new facilities? New houses the next generation might be able to afford? Do you want everything to stay the same? Do you want fewer cars? More cars? More green? Less green?! Villagers can influence changes here between 2019 and 2030

BUT WE MUST HAVE A NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN that tells the government the changes we want. If you live in Ropsley, Braceby, Humby or Sapperton, and you want to have a say in the future of your area for your own sake or that of generations to come, complete this survey online or hard copies will be picked up by hand on Monday 17th July or return it to one of the boxes provided at the Green Man, Ropsley Primary School, Church or Ropsley Village Hall before 31st August 2017. It should only take about 15mins and we guarantee that it will be read, and that we will take notice of what you say. The final Neighbourhood Plan will be as representative as we can possibly make it of the views of the majority of our community, but to achieve that we need YOUR input. And all returned forms will be entered into a Prize Draw with a mystery prize worth £20.

THANK YOU. 35

About you, and the facilities you use.

* Which village do you live in? ______* How old are you? ______* = essential information for this survey

If you want to enter the PRIZE DRAW please give your name and a contact phone number

Your name: ______*Phone no: ______

1. How important is it to you to have these facilities in your neighbourhood? (Please √ ONE BOX for each facility) Facility Very Important Important Not important Post Office The Village Hall Clubs/societies held in the village hall Church The Village Pub Footpaths Sports facilities Open spaces Green spaces School Any others?

2. Where do you go to college or work and what transport do you use to get there? How do you usually travel to college/work? In which of these places do you go to school or college or for (Please √ the main method) work? WALK CAR BUS TRAIN CYCLE (Please √ ONE BOX below) Grantham Corby Glen Stamford Other

Developments over the next 10 years.

3. What do you like most about living where you do?

4. What do you like least about living where you do?

HOUSING There will probably have to be some new houses in our villages.

5. What SIZE of housing development do you think would be good for our area? (√ the housing developments that you think would suit.)

Type of housing development None

“Infill development” and / or “Backland development”* up to 5 houses OR over 5 houses

A ‘close’ of about 20 houses

An estate of about 50 houses

*Infill means new building on the road frontage between existing properties. *Backland means new homes built behind existing houses and overlooking back gardens.

6. What TYPES of new houses does our neighbourhood need? (√ as many boxes as you wish.)

Flats of 2-bed ‘starter 3 bed houses Large family Bungalows Don’t know 1-3 bedrooms houses’. homes

7. If more homes are built in the other villages in our neighbourhood, what changes would worry you most? (Please rank 1-6 with 1 being your main worry.)

Changes to the Effect on the More traffic + Effect on local Effect on Effect on the villages’ appearance school parking problems services leisure facilities countryside around us.

8. Is there anything else you want to say about what might happen if more houses are built in your village?

Comments:

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

9. Would you like to see more jobs available in our neighbourhood?

Yes No If Yes, what types of jobs should there be more of in our area?

10. Which types of accommodation for businesses and jobs do you think our neighbourhood will need in the future? (√ as many boxes as you wish.)

Offices to A business centre for some Workshop Storage Shops and Others None rent small or new firms. units units services (Please give examples)

11. About internet use:

a. Do you have an internet connection at home? Yes No

b. Is your internet connection fast enough? Yes No

12. About mobile use:

a. Do you have any mobile signal at home? Yes No

b. Is it adequate? Yes No

13. Would you think about working from home or starting a business here if the broadband/mobile service in this area improves? (√ one box)

YES NO POSSIBLY

Broadband

Mobile

14. Please add any other points about creating employment or business opportunities in our community:

Comments:

TRAFFIC and TRANSPORT ISSUES

15. Do we need better public transport for the villages in our neighbourhood?

Yes No Don’t know

16. What do you think about our local bus services? (Please √ one box for each sentence.)

Good Reasonable Poor Don’t know The choice of destinations is . . . The cost of fares is . . . How often the buses run is . . . The bus service during the holidays is . . . The timetable information available is . . . .

17. If these new services started would you use them? (Please √ one box for each service.)

Yes Maybe No Buses later in the evening to and from Grantham Buses to and from Grantham Station at weekends Buses to and from Grantham Station during the week Buses to Stamford during the week Buses to Stamford at the weekends ALSO are there any other towns you would like a bus service to? (Please name them on the right.)

18. How important do you think each of these ideas is for making the traffic flow better through our villages? (Please √ ONE box for each suggestion.)

Option Very Important Important Not important Speed controls and / or speed humps in villages. Enforce parking restrictions. Have deeper lay-bys for parking/passing Each new house to have two parking spaces. Make sure there is plenty of parking for any new facilities in our villages. Clearer road signs and road markings. More time and resources spent on road repairs and potholes Resident street parking

19. Are there any other comments on traffic or transport you want make?

Comments:

BETTER COMMUNITY AND LEISURE FACILITIES

20. How much do you agree with each of these suggestions for better facilities? (Please √ ONE box for each suggestion.)

Suggested facility or service Strongly Agree No Disagree Strongly agree opinion disagree A village store in Ropsley with its own parking spaces. A community building with a café and ‘flexible use’ meeting space. Outdoor facilities for older children and for teenagers. An all-weather sports surface. A skate park, or something similar? A park with benches beside a village pond. Facilities for sports like cricket, tennis and archery. Improved access to community facilities for people who have mobility problems.

21. Are there any other comments on facilities you want make?

Comments:

CONSERVATION of the ENVIRONMENT and of OUR HERITAGE.

22. What do you think are the special features of where you live, and the district, that are worth protecting? (√ as many boxes as you want.)

Appearance of Countryside between Historically Network of Local Any others? please say buildings villages important footpaths woods below sites

23. How important is each of these suggestions for protecting the environment and the historic sites in our neighbourhood? (Please √ ONE box for each idea.)

Very Important Not important No opinion important Preserve the countryside and views

Make the approaches to the villages more attractive. Provide better street lighting New housing should be made to put solar panels on the roof New housing should be made to reuse household waste water and /or collect rainwater for outdoor and indoor use. Prevent our villages from becoming one big one Prevent Grantham from growing to reach our villages Protect all green spaces and play areas from development. Concentrated efforts to address specific issues such as Ash Dieback, or Sudden Oak Death

24. Do you have any other comments about improving our environment and heritage?

Comments:

Thank you very much for completing this survey. Please return it as soon as possible by putting it in one of the boxes provided. You’ll find them at the Green Man, Ropsley Primary School, Ropsley Church or Ropsley Village Hall.

The closing date for the questionnaires is 31st August 2017. For extra copies, or for information about our Neighbourhood Plan please follow us on Facebook (Ropsley District Neighbourhood Plan) or email us on [email protected]

The PRIZE DRAW will take place at the Neighbourhood Plan public meeting taking place in early autumn, at which the findings to date and next steps will be discussed.

Remember: This is YOUR plan. Everyone is welcome to help determine its main points.

And one more very important thing: Data protection and confidentiality The information in the returned questionnaires will be seen only by people approved by the Parish Council’s Steering Group to record and analyse the data provided. This information will be entered into a database in a way which does not identify any individual. Any comments and suggestions made will be listed anonymously.

Appendix 3 - List of External Consultees and copy of email from 3rd September 2019.

Local Authorities - South Kesteven District Council and Lincolnshire County Council. Adjoining Town/Parish Councils - Old Somerby, Boothby Pagnell Ingoldsby, Welby and Heydour PC. Politicians - MP Nick Boles, County Councillor (Folkingham), District Councillor (Lincrest) and MEPs Government Departments & Agencies - The Coal Authority, The Homes & Communities Agency, Natural England, Environment Agency, Historic England, Highways Agency, Marine Management Organisation & Sport England Services - Gas providers, National Grid, Anglian Water, Police, Health Auth. CCG & Mobile Operators Others - Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, Greater Lincolnshire Local Enterprise Partnership, Ropsley C of E Primary School, Ropsley Farms, Yareal UK (Great Humby), Woodland Trust. Forest England & Diocese of Lincoln (Estates)

Email to External Consultees Good morning, As you may be aware, Ropsley & District Parish Council (in South Kesteven in Lincolnshire) is preparing the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan, covering all of the Parish Area (see attached plan). The work is being managed by a Steering Group comprising Parish Councillors and members of the community. As a Neighbourhood Plan expert, I have been appointed to provide professional planning support for this process. The Steering Group has undertaken initial consultation with the local community and is now in the process of evidence gathering. However, in addition to finding out the opinions and aspirations of local people, the Steering Group wants to obtain the views of statutory bodies and other interested organisations at each stage of plan making. You may have an interest in terms of: statutory duties, service provision, land ownership or business operations? I am, therefore, contacting you to make you/your organisation aware of the process and to invite any input you wish to make at this early stage. It is intended to move to a full Draft Plan, which will include a formal 6-week consultation, early in 2020. In the meantime, the SG would welcome any comments that you wish to make on any matters which you think should be included in the plan. If do not wish to comment at this stage, but you want to be included in formal consultation on the Draft Plan in early 2020, please let me know. Alternatively, if you do not wish to be contacted again concerning the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan, a short letter, email or telephone call to that effect would be appreciated. If you wish to discuss technical aspects of the Neighbourhood Plan, contact me on 07815 950482 or by email at [email protected] (However, I am out of office from 5th to 18th Sept.) I look forward to hearing from you, if possible, within 3 weeks, but if you need to consult colleagues or take comments through committees/boards, early in October will be acceptable. Kind Regards, Clive Keble (MRTPI): Clive Keble Consulting, for the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group.

Appendix 4 - Draft Plan Newsletter and Questionnaire (February/March 2020)

Appendix 5 - Social Media for the Draft Plan

Appendix 6 Draft Plan External Consultees Listing and email (14th February 2020).

Local Authorities. South Kesteven District Council and Lincolnshire County Council. Adjoining Town/Parish Councils. Old Somerby PC, Boothby Pagnell PM, Ingoldsby PC, Welby PC & Heydour PC. Politicians. MP Gareth Davies, County & District Councillors (Folkingham) Martin Hill & (Lincrest) Sarah Trotter. Government & Agencies. Coal Authority, Homes & Communities, Natural England, Environment Agency, Historic England & Highways Agency. Services. Gas providers, National Grid, Sewerage (Anglian Water) Water (Anglian Water), Police, Health Authority, CCG and mobile operators. Others. Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, Gtr. Lincs. LEP, Ropsley C of E Primary School, Ropsley Farms and Yareal UK.

Email to External Consultees - I am writing to you on behalf of the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee to invite your comments on the Draft Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan.

This is a formal consultation in accordance with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (Regulation 14) and it will run for just over six weeks from today (Friday 14th February 2020) until Saturday 28th March 2020. The designated Neighbourhood Plan area is shown in the Plan document, after Para.1.3. The completion of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan follows earlier evidence gathering, community consultation and an informal consultation with statutory bodies and other interested parties in September 2019. If you commented at that stage your views have been considered and reflected in the Draft Plan. However, if you did not comment then, it does not affect your rights to comment at this formal stage.

I attach a PDF version of the Draft Plan It can also be accessed the Parish Council website, along with background documents:- http://parishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/RopsleyandHumby/section.asp?catId=37648

The external consultation is running in parallel with a local community consultation, including a newsletter/questionnaire and two exhibitions. You would be welcome to attend these sessions if you wish. You may use the questionnaire to respond, but a written email response (addressed to me) at [email protected] is preferred.

In the meantime, please do contact hesitate to contact me with any general questions or technical queries either by email or phone on 07815 950482. Please note that a number of organisations/individuals are included in this consultation but in order to comply with GDPR, your email address have not been shared. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Kind Regards, Clive Keble (MRTPI):

Clive Keble Consulting, for the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee.

Appendix 7 - Draft Plan Exhibition

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft

Your opinions are needed! What is a Neighbourhood Plan (NP)? Neighbourhood Plans are part of Localism. They are a new way of influencing future development by choosing where new homes, shops and offices are to be built. They can also influence what those new buildings should look like and include policies to protect local landscape and heritage. However, they must comply with national policy (National Planning Policy Framework) and complement the Local Plan (in this case the 2020 South Kesteven Local Plan). They must plan positively, and they cannot: Have fewer houses than are in the Local Plan or try to stop all development. Be one person or group’s opinion. Change services - i.e. housing management, gardening & rubbish collection. Set social or policing programmes The intention is to help local communities, landowners & developers, enabling more predictable planning decisions. A Local Plan & Neighbourhood Plan are a “Development Plan.” It is a basic principle that planning applications have to be determined in accordance with a Development Plan, unless material considerations dictate otherwise. In summary, the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan will be able to: Influence the location, type and design of new housing and business development. Help to maintain the separate identity and character of Ropsley & District. Protect community building, local shops and other facilities. Protect open spaces and recreation areas. Protect and enhance the countryside and landscape of the Parish. Identify and protect buildings/structures which create the character of the Parish. Seek to ensure that the impact on Ropsley & District is considered as part of large- scale developments in nearby areas (e.g. Grantham).

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft

Your opinions are needed! Work completed to date and how you have helped. In the summer/autumn of 2017 we undertook a Community Survey. This showed how much you appreciate the distinct character and identity of Ropsley & District and its sense of community. It is these principles that the Neighbourhood Plan is based on.

We then held a community meeting in December 2017 with a presentation and short consultation on the Purpose and Objectives of the NP and following your support, these are included in the Neighbourhood Plan. Since then we have been gathering of other important evidence, including: 1 Census and housing 2 Planning records 3 Heritage 4 Landscape Character 5 Roads and Traffic 6 Policy Background including the newly published 2020 South Kesteven Local Plan

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft

Your opinions are needed! This is what we would like you to do today “We” refers to the Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan (NP) Steering Group (SG). It includes Parish Councillors & local people and was set up by the Parish Council (PC). The exhibition is about the Draft Neighbourhood Plan - it is the first opportunity for you to see the whole thing – Purpose, Objectives and Policies all together. You can now see, for the first time, the “Big Picture” and, in particular, it is really important that we get your views on the Policies in the Plan Remember: Neighbourhood Plans must be land use/planning related. Matters such as litter, anti-social behaviour, open space and housing management cannot be included. In addition, the Neighbourhood Plan must conform with strategic policies in the South Kesteven Local Plan (2020) We would like you to look through the exhibition, in the order that it is set out. You can then complete your questionnaire or think about things and do it later. You can ask any questions or make any comments, but the key piece of information that we need from you is: - Whether you agree (or not) with the Policies in the Draft Plan? These opinions will be considered alongside the comments that we get from all the other consultees, including the District and County Councils, and from landowners, developers and other interested partners. This will be the last opportunity for local people to comment on the Draft Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan before it is submitted to South Kesteven District Council later in 2020.

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft

Your opinions are needed!

Here are the Neighbourhood Plan Vision and Objectives The Vision for Ropsley and District is that: In 2036 Ropsley & District (comprising of Ropsley, Braceby, Sapperton, Little Humby and Great Humby) will be five distinct, sustainable and vibrant rural settlements, surrounded by attractive open countryside. Ropsley & District will contain communities that value and look after their historic buildings and the natural environment. Whilst physically separate from Grantham there will be good links to the employment, services and facilities that the town offers.

Objective 1: To protect the distinct identity of Ropsley and District and within it, the individual nature and setting of its five settlements.

Objective 2: To define, protect and enhance the distinctive landscape of Ropsley and District.

Objective 3: To protect and enhance built environment (heritage) assets, archaeological sites and natural environment assets.

Objective 4: To maintain and develop local services and facilities to ensure a sustainable and viable community.

Objective 5: To encourage and enable sustainable development including energy efficient buildings, active travel and access into the countryside.

Objective 6: To enable appropriate small-scale residential development, with a range of house types and sizes to meet the needs and aspirations of local people

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft Your opinions are needed!

Here are the Neighbourhood Plan Policies R&D1 - Sustainable Development Principles Overall sustainability of any new development.

R&D2 - New Housing in Ropsley Village Location, scale, design, character of infill housing

R&D3 - New Housing in other settlements Houses:(very limited exceptional circumstances)

R&D4 - Design of residential Extensions Materials, scale, layout, parking and character

R&D5 - Landscape Character and Openness Recognise & complement local character

R&D6 - Key Views Criteria to protect locally important key views

R&D7 - Designated heritage assets Need to take account of character & setting.

R&D8 - Local heritage assets Identify and protect locally important buildings

R&D9 - Archaeology Protect known and potential archaeology

R&D10 - Open space and recreation Protect open space and playing fields.

R&D11 - Proposed Local Green Spaces Identify and protect locally special open areas

R&D12 - Countryside management Protect/enhance landscape & countryside

R&D13 - Nature conservation & biodiversity Protect & enhance local sites and habitats

R&D14 - Community facilities/local services Criteria to protect these valued local facilities.

R&D15 - Local businesses and employment Criteria for local business

R&D16 – Telecommunications & broadband Enable improved IT provision

R&D17 - Transport and active travel Avoid issues & improve pedestrian/cycle options

R&D18 - Countryside access & rights of way Protect & enhance local footpaths & bridleways

Do you agree with these Policies? Please50 complete & return your questionnaire

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft

Your opinions are needed! Here are the (non-planning) Community Aspirations

There are five informal community aspirations to reflect your views where they could not be covered by formal planning policies. Do let us know what you think of them?

CA 1 - Community assets (includes shop) Work with others: protect & improve services CA 2 - Resource and services guide Information on local services and help

CA 3 - Volunteering Encourage local volunteering

CA 4 - Local heritage Work with others on local heritage projects CA 5 - Tree/hedge planting & new habitats Encouraging practical work across the Parish

Do you agree with the se ? Please complete & return your Community Aspirations questionnaire

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft

Your opinions are needed! Your Steering Group & our other supporters

The Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan was commissioned by the Parish Council in September 2015 and over the following year a Steering Group, made up of local residents and Parish Councillors was set up to organise all of the work.

This included: Patrick Buckley, Anne Marshall, Robert Ferris-Rogers,

Frederick Mann, Nicky Harrison, Mark Wharton Jenny Leslie, Gary Reeves and Polly Irvine.

Our Planning Advisor is…

Clive Keble (MRTPI) of Clive Keble Consulting of Derby. Clive has worked on over 20 Neighbourhood Plans across the Midlands.

You can talk to him at the exhibition today.

Our thanks must also go to…

The Department for Communities & Local Government and Locality for providing

funding through the Neighbourhood Planning Grant. South Kesteven District Council for providing advice and support. But especially to you; for taking an interest in the Neighbourhood Plan & the future

of Ropsley & District Parish

Ropsley & District Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Draft

Your opinions are needed!

And finally, thank you Please complete the questionnaire in the newsletter here today or, take it home to and drop it off at the Green Man in Ropsley, or post it to Patrick Buckley at: (Old Manor House, Little Humby, Grantham, Lincolnshire, NG33 4HW) The deadline for returning questionnaires is 5:00pm on Saturday 28th March. In addition to considering the questions, please let us have any other comments that you wish to make and do take the opportunity to talk to the Steering Group members and our Planning Adviser here today.

?Parish Councillors, SteeringLooking Group ahead….. members or our planning adviser

Please stay engaged as we move through the Neighbourhood Plan process:

April 2020. Review the Draft Plan, based on consultation responses, write the

Consultation & Basic Conditions Statements and “Submit” the documents to South

Kesteven District Council for final consultation and examination.

May to August 2020. Examination consider Examiners report & agree final plan. September/October 2020. South Kesteven District Council organise a Referendum. December 2020. (Subject to a “Yes” vote) the Plan is “Made”

Thank You: for taking an interest in the Neighbourhood Plan & getting involved in planning the future of Ropsley & District Parish – Let’s keep working together.