Object

Representation ID: 23

Received: 06/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

Unemployment is above the national average and deprivation, use of food banks and uptake of free school meals in this district indicates that high quality local employment needs massive investment. What incentive is there for business investment here?

Object

Representation ID: 58

Received: 08/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Hume

25% of SKDC residents are economically inactive through choice or retirement and has been for decades. Until the pandemic we had full employment in SKDC with less than 1% unemployment. It is currently sitting at 3.2% which is 0.5 % lower than the national average.

There are not enough job opportunities for the number of people that you are providing homes for, despite the plans outlined here, There would need to create over 20,000 vacancies to give the economically active the chance of a job, this is unlikely without a major national employer investing.

Object

Representation ID: 551

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Jane Bateman

In Stamford there are 3 developments which were to be for employment growth, but either have not materialised or are being considered for a change of use - ie
- Uffington Rd - land on the old Blackstones site by Morrisons. This was supposed to be for larger retail units which would have brought jobs, but didn't happen so a change of use was granted and we have more houses.
- Barnack Rd - land on old Cummings site. This site was to include employment units, but is on hold.
- Exeter Fields - employment units now to be housing.

Object

Representation ID: 851

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Mclean

This is ridiculous you are destroying our town, their are no jobs and the jobs building work provides is temporary this puts more congestion on the roads, increasing flooding, causing harm to wildlife and mental health, Grantham Town needs sorting it was once a vibrant wonderful town that you have destroyed stop taking our land

Object

Representation ID: 991

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

I cannot support any ‘plan’ that advocates widespread destruction of the local countryside.

Object

Representation ID: 1172

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Adele Crompton-Allan

Before the council starts building all these houses they should concentrate on providing jobs for all these people how will be moving in to the Grantham area. There will be no jobs at present to accommodate all the houses which are currently going up. Shops are closing, businesses are cutting staff, your council is cutting staff. We need secondary schools ASAP for all the kids to go, this will create jobs, sort out the hospital, and Dr,s, this will produce jobs. The town centre is terrible, sort it out, turn it around to produce opportunities for new businesses.

Support

Representation ID: 1192

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Max Sawyer

Support, but only if brownfield sites are prioritised.

Support

Representation ID: 1333

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Given that the update to this Economic Development Strategy has not yet been published, we consider that it may provide a more reflective update on the opportunities across the District. Therefore, we consider that the Council should take the strategy into account during further stages of the plan preparation process to ensure the Local Plan in relation employment provision remains sound and informed by the most up to date evidence.

We consider the proposed allocation of our Client’s site at Land south of Gonerby Lane, Gonerby Moor (SKPR-100) would help to meet the aims of the updated strategy by enabling the continued drive of economic growth and helping to deliver the economic vision of the District for future years to come.

The proposed allocation of our Client’s site at Land South of Gonerby Lane, Gonerby Moor would accord with and support the aims and objectives of the Greater Lincolnshire LEP’s Strategic Economic Plan. Delivering new highly skilled jobs and investment into the site would support South Kesteven’s role within Lincolnshire as a place for sustainable economic growth.

Object

Representation ID: 1500

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr John Morphy-Godber

Stamford has only been allocated 3.9 hectares for employment related development, far less than 11 and 18 respectively for Bourne and the Deepings. It therefore seems very strange that Exeter Fields has been changed to residential use? There is already a very large allocation of residential accommodation proposed for Stamford. The town has recently lost its main factory sites and employment opportunities are almost all in the service industries. So a large increase to the population of the town is scheduled with very few opportunities for local employment. The amount of employment land proposed for Stamford is inadequate.

Object

Representation ID: 1501

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr John Morphy-Godber

Stamford East is liable to flooding and therefore is unsuitable for large scale building . The risk of flooding likely to increase over the next few years, so we will need more areas to soak up water and when all these are covered with concrete and tarmac, there will inevitably be more flooding risk. Ryhall road will be badly affected by the extra traffic created by housing development in the North of Stamford and there is likely to be extreme congestion on the roads around here.

Object

Representation ID: 1770

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

HBF would also flag that increased economic growth can lead to an increased need for additional housing.