Object

Representation ID: 440

Received: 11/04/2024

Respondent: Mr PHILIP WILLIAMS

Item 12:28 is wrong ..we do not have several doctors and dentists and the ones we have are full..so we do not have a full range of facilities as you state we also have one bank which is soon to close ..don't overburden us with more housing and no extra facilities ..

Object

Representation ID: 509

Received: 15/04/2024

Respondent: Dr John Deag

Para 12.28 Stamford. This is out of date and needs revising to give a correct, more honest picture. "several doctors' ... practices"! "Many of the major national retailers"? "major banks". Presumably this was copied from a previous time. The education information implies things are better than they are - there is no 6th form in the only state secondary school in Stamford. There is even no 6th form in the nearby excellent state school Casterton College (in Rutland) which many Stamford children attend. Most doing A-levels have to go to other towns; this is shameful! (See full version submitted.)

Object

Representation ID: 963

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Barry Collins

Jelsons built the shops on Stirling Road Stamford in the early 1960’s this is the last infrastructure that was supplied to the west of the town , despite every developer promising infrastructure it has never materialised.Stamford as a town used to be the largest employer in the area . It has gone completely the opposite way now with very few employment opportunities. Even the land that these companies occupied is now housing. So every piece of land offered for commercial/ industrial use should be protected. So why has Exeter Fields been changed from commercial to housing for 300 homes .

Object

Representation ID: 969

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs ginny matthew

Stamford has already exceeded the limits of sustainable development, traffic (in town and on the A1) and health services cannot cope with the current population, there is no consideration for areas rich in wildlife, or good farmland being built on instead of providing food security, the housing designs do not appear to address the need for sustainable energy targets, the vast majority of the housing will not be affordable, and the development is changing the character of a small market town - it is in danger of becoming an urban sprawl engulfing surrounding villages.

Object

Representation ID: 1137

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Helen Anders

Developers and councils involved must fulfill all aspects of original proposals to ensure integrity of agreed allocations, no removing acoustic bunds, employment designation, affordable housing targets. Stamford cannot function as a giant housing estate for Rutland whilst it's own infrastructure is willfully ignored and unable to cope with the needs of its own residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1238

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Goodwin

12:28 Is wrong, Stamford does not have a full range of facilities. It has one bank, one secondary school with no sixth form, one doctors, no available NHS dentist spaces even for children, part time A & E at the hospital, no recycling centre, no affordable children's clothes/shoe shops, only high end retailers on the high street, no supermarkets in the north of Stamford, all supermarkets are on Ryhall/Uffington Road, no employment - the vast majority of people work elsewhere. Stamford is a dormitory town that only caters for the very wealthy.

Object

Representation ID: 1593

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dominic Glazebrook

you don't care about stamford people all you want is to build more houses and make life more difficult for motorists.

Object

Representation ID: 2007

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Alexander Russo

When the Culpepper/Stockwell Avenue Estate was built, the development was to include a Doctor's surgery and other useful amenities. Nothing has been done, not even one small convenience store and it's now some five years since the development was completed.

Top Lock Meadows, Culpepper Way, Sovereign Way, the proposed monstrosity of a 2000-home development at Stamford North and now the Exeter Fields site for a further 300 homes.

Stamford is slowly being ruined by a short-sighted unsustainable strategy to continually build houses without services and infrastructure to cope with demand.

Moreover, an ever bigger town does not make it a nicer place to live.

What will Stamford be like in 20 years time of we continue on this path?

SKDC should listen to residents, our message is that we do not want ever more houses being built in our town.

Object

Representation ID: 2239

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Kevin Rippin

All these proposed developments in Stamford should have a clause in the final plans that all the infrastructure is to be put in place before any Homes are built . We don't need all these proposed developments in Stamford . The properties that are built are not affordable for us Stamfordian's living in town who want to downsize all the developers are catering for are Southerners moving up here , Stamford is slowly becoming a commuter town and SKDC are ruining our once lovely market town with over population and traffic problems .
I object to any further residential developments in this town until we have the correct infrastructure in place.