A planning application has now been submitted (SKDC ref: S26/0048) for the former Heathers nursing home site on Barrowby Road. It proposes a new Co-op convenience store and up to 17 houses, with a single access onto the A52, close to the A1/A52 junction.

Link: https://prod.publicaccess.southkesteven.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=T8SMKSONMP500

As a local county councillor, I want to set out plainly what is being proposed, what the developer says, and why many residents are concerned.

This is not about being anti-development. It is about whether the proper development is being put in the right place, at the right time, with the proper safeguards.

What is being proposed

The application seeks:

  • Demolition of the former nursing home building
  • A small Co-op convenience store with parking and deliveries
  • Up to 17 new homes (submitted in outline)
  • One shared access point onto Barrowby Road (A52)

The site sits around 100 metres from the A1/A52 junction, a junction many residents already find difficult and, at times, unsafe.

What the developer argues

The applicant’s case is broadly that:

  • The site is a brownfield and suitable in principle.
  • The scale of development is modest.
  • Traffic impacts do not meet the “severe” test under planning law.
  • Any technical issues (drainage, noise, trees, construction impacts) can be dealt with through conditions.
  • Pre-application discussions with the council were largely positive.

On paper, this may appear reassuring. But paper assessments are not the same thing as lived reality.

Why residents are worried

Residents have raised consistent and reasonable concerns, particularly about traffic and safety.

The A1/A52 junction is already under pressure. People describe congestion, poor visibility, risky manoeuvres, and increasing frustration at peak times. Some avoid it altogether. Others feel forced into taking chances to get out.

Against that backdrop, adding new vehicle movements close to the junction naturally raises alarm.

There is also understandable scepticism about how planning conditions work in practice. Residents have seen:

  • Infrastructure promised but delayed.
  • Obligations varied or were watered down.
  • Developments approved first, with mitigation left for “later”

That history matters when judging new assurances.

The key issues I am focusing on

My role is not to decide the application, but to scrutinise it properly and represent residents’ concerns. In particular, I am pressing highways officers on:

  • Whether the traffic evidence reflects real peak-time conditions, not just averages
  • How cumulative impacts from surrounding developments have been assessed
  • Whether queueing and blocking back near the junction have been thoroughly tested
  • What mitigation, if any, is being required as part of this scheme
  • How confident can the council be that conditions will be enforced once permission is granted

Passing the legal “severe impact” test is a low bar. The real question is whether this development makes an already difficult situation worse.

Development in principle vs development in practice

I am not opposed to development in principle. Grantham needs homes, jobs and local services.

But location matters. Timing matters—and cumulative impact matters.

Residents should not be asked to absorb more pressure at a junction that is already struggling, without explicit, funded and deliverable solutions to improve how it actually operates.

What happens next

The application is now live and being assessed by South Kesteven District Council, with Lincolnshire County Council providing highways advice.

I will continue to ask hard questions of officers, push for transparency, and keep residents informed as the process moves forward.

Whatever the eventual decision, it must be based on evidence that reflects reality on the ground, not just what is easiest to justify on paper.