Vistry East Anglia’s Section 73 application to remove two footpath links from its Rectory Farm development in Grantham raises serious concerns about long-term connectivity, accessibility, and planning integrity. Despite claims that the footpaths are “not deliverable,” the justifications given lean more toward convenience and short-term development ease than sound planning outcomes.

What’s Changing?

Vistry is seeking to vary Condition 1 of the existing planning permission (ref S24/0140, granted on appeal), removing two pedestrian connections by Plots 20 and 28 that would link into the adjacent Poplar Farm cycleway. The rationale? Level changes and private land complications make it difficult to implement.

Developer’s Argument: It’s Too Hard

Vistry cites three main obstacles:

  • Ground levels: A 1–2m difference would require steps or ramps across third-party land.
  • Land ownership: Parts of the link would cross what’s set to be privately owned access or parking space.
  • Safety risks: People might still attempt to cross into Poplar Farm, leading to potential harm.

On the surface, these are legitimate concerns. But they reflect problems that should have been resolved much earlier in the planning and design process. The original plans deliberately included these links to promote sustainable travel, social integration with the Poplar Farm estate, and safe walking routes to key amenities like the primary school.

The Bigger Issue: Death by a Thousand Cuts

Removing these footpaths is not just a minor change—it undermines the whole planning ethos behind mixed, connected developments. Once you strip out pedestrian routes, especially in edge-of-site locations, they never come back. What remains is a more insular, car-dependent estate, disconnected from the wider community.

These piecemeal changes—especially when they involve downgrading connectivity—set a poor precedent. They erode the commitments that justified planning approval in the first place.

The Replacement Offer: A Thin Substitute

Vistry points to a separate 3m-wide adoptable cycle path being explored further north as compensation. But:

  • It’s not confirmed.
  • It’s not in the same location.
  • It doesn’t directly serve the residents who would have used the now-abandoned links.

This isn’t a like-for-like replacement. It’s a diversion. And it still requires coordination with other landowners to implement—so if land ownership is a dealbreaker for the footpaths, why isn’t it a problem here too?

Planning Questions That Need Answers

  1. Why weren’t these deliverability issues identified and addressed before appeal approval?
  2. What has changed between the approval and this application that makes the links suddenly “undeliverable”?
  3. How will omitting these links affect walking and cycling uptake within the development?
  4. Has South Kesteven District Council reviewed this in the context of its own active travel and sustainability policies?

Conclusion

Vistry’s application to remove two footpath connections reflects a worrying trend: approved schemes being quietly diluted under the guise of technical constraints. The company is not proposing a truly equivalent alternative, and the justification given hinges on private land complications that could have been resolved with earlier, more coordinated planning.

Local councillors and planning officers should resist this change unless a truly equivalent—or better—connectivity solution is secured and delivered as part of this application. Otherwise, the promise of a walkable, integrated Grantham neighbourhood takes another step backward.

Read more and comment: https://prod.publicaccess.southkesteven.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=SU125RONGDK00