Support

Representation ID: 165

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Support

Representation ID: 258

Received: 12/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Rakowski

Since Covid and economy downturn, many businesses have struggled. Increases in homeworking have contributed to premises lying empty. Stamford fared well, with few shops closed and healthy tourism.
Since Exeter Fields was designated for commercial premises, SKDC has taken up opportunities to develop brown field sites for employment - preferable to new commercial development at Exeter Fields. Employees of businesses located centrally could use town facilities, thus supporting local trade.
The original Exeter Fields plan required to “reflect the architectural heritage of Stamford.” Upholding this will support the vision of ‘Stamford Gateway’.
We support reclassification of Exeter Fields for housing.

Object

Representation ID: 331

Received: 18/03/2024

Respondent: Miss Carys Vaughan

Exeter Fields - this was originally designated as business/ commercial usage as part of the original scheme. It is unacceptable for the Council to consider redesignating it as residential especially as employment space is so desperately needed within the town (note the pathetic designation of only 3.9 hectares for Stamford).

Object

Representation ID: 381

Received: 05/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Laura Upson

I understood this land was allocated to the very small amount of employment land left in Stamford development plan. I would like to see far more marketing of this land for commercial and employment land prior to it being reallocated for housing. It will also compound traffic issues accessing the A1. A school would be useful on this side of town too instead of having it on Stamford North which is in close proximity to many other schools.

Object

Representation ID: 413

Received: 08/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Carl Killgren

A spatial strategy has been carefully worked out to give a sustainable mix and is in accord with the Sustainable Land Use Mix or 15 Minute Neighbourhood guidelines. The proposal to add more housing to the Stamford Gateway Exeter Fields site ( SKPR-266) where retail and commercial land use was planned runs counter to this and such piecemeal development breaks down the holistic approach to the planning process.

Object

Representation ID: 558

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Dr John Deag

I object to this land being zoned for residential instead of commercial as previously. The justification for this change seems to be the red RAG rating given in the "Employment Land Study [ELS], February 2024" p84, section 6.11, row EMP S3. Please note RAG ratings do NOT reflect objective, quantitative measurement. While the criteria referenced are listed (ELS, p81), no quantitative site scores are presented and no weighting system is presented to show the relative importance of the different criteria. For virgin sites some criteria are not relevant. I recommend that a second completely independent opinion is sought.

Object

Representation ID: 742

Received: 20/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Helen Mulcahy

No more houses are needed in this area and it should be designated for business use as originally planned.

Object

Representation ID: 819

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Rutland County Council

Object to the loss of 10 ha Strategic Employment allocation at Exeter Fields now proposed for housing development. RCC believes this will have a detrimental impact on employment land supply in the south-western part of South Kesteven and will also impact on employment land supply and travel patterns in Rutland.

It is further noted that the effect of this change is to reduce the overall supply of employment land in Stamford with no additional alternative land allocated for new employment development to make up for the 10 ha which will be lost.

Object

Representation ID: 863

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs sandra owens

SKPR 266 this was supposed to be doctors, shop and industrial units to give employment. now builders want to just put more houses.
we need better roads ,water/sewage, doctors, to cope with existing houses.

Object

Representation ID: 866

Received: 15/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Carys Vaughan

Exeter Fields - this was originally designated as business/ commercial usage as part of the original scheme. It is unacceptable for the Council to consider redesignating it as residential especially as employment space is so desperately needed within the town (note the pathetic designation of only 3.9 hectares for Stamford).

Object

Representation ID: 877

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mr JR Fenn

This site should remain as an area for commercial development. Stamford has far too many housing sites planned with little or no provision for employment opportunities. I honestly believe SKDC pays lip service to the very real needs of Stamford residents, riding roughshod over our actual needs in favour of reaping the council tax rewards from what was a very desirable place to live.

Object

Representation ID: 886

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Anthony Goody

The proposal to allocate land at “Stamford Gateway/Exeter Fields” for housing does not represent sustainable development, and will place additional strain on the A1/A606 junction which is already over capacity at peak times. Together with other housing developments on the edge of Stamford this will create excessive congestion, safety risks and inappropriate use of existing residential roads. This would be an entirely car led development with new residents commuting to work by car. If retained as employment land at least there would be more local employment options.

Object

Representation ID: 889

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Mark Kendall

With regards to the land next to the A1 south of Empingham Rd which was put aside to develop employment opportunities which is now potentially going to be used for 300 houses this is not acceptable. More houses and no employment means more commuting how does this match up with any green credentials you talk about.

Object

Representation ID: 890

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Simon Ashley

SKPR/266 Reallocation of Stamford Exeter Fields from employment land to residential development is in direct contradiction of 'sustainable development', ie. delivering appropriate and timely infrastructure needs (provision of healthcare, educational and local retail development) to existing recent residential expansion, and also decimates the remaining employment/industrial land offer in the Stamford area.

Object

Representation ID: 894

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Mark Durrant

SKPR-266 should not be included other than for employment use only. Previous developments on the west of Stamford have promised employment options, but only houses have been built. How did they get away with this?

Object

Representation ID: 896

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Tom Olver

1. In the previous approved local plan the site was allocated for mixed use - employment and residential. The west of Stamford is already lacking amenities for the population who live there. The proposed changes are not compliant with Sustainable Land Use Mix or 15 Minute Neighborhood guidelines.
2. The proposed development and increase in residential housing will likely exacerbate an existing issue with traffic congestion on Empingham Road at school start & end times.
3. There is a wooded area which does not seem to have been taken into consideration at the south of the development boundary plan.

Object

Representation ID: 897

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Justine McGarrity

This development has always been earmarked for employment, to change to 180+ houses now would be catastrophic for the area. MS School is already over subscribed, parking & traffic is chaos at school times & local roads are absolutely dire. Empingham Rd is partially into RCC, they have taken over 14 months to repair a small stretch of badly damaged road. Traffic around Arran Rd/A606 is already so busy at peak times it is becoming increasingly difficult to get onto main roads to "Gateway" to the main A1, & where do you suggest these residents go for Drs etc?

Object

Representation ID: 901

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Jane Bateman

I am objecting to H1, but am struggling to access the box to make comments.
The Exeter Fields development (Exeter Gateway) in Stamford should NOT be included as housing. When planning approval was given the application included employment units along the A1. This should remain and a change of use should not be granted.
H1 mentions 180 units, but I understand yesterday that this was increased to 300 units.
Stamford needs employment units to stop people having to drive to work away from the town. Other designated employment sites have become housing so it is vital to retain this site.

Object

Representation ID: 908

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Paul Mossom

The Exeter Fields site off Empingham Road in Stamford was set aside for commercial use in 2012 when Taylor Wimpey was granted planning permission.
Commercial Estates Group and the Cecil Estate Family Trust, were looking to build 180 homes on the site. The site should be maintained for employment as was promised 12 years ago.
Now they want to build 300 homes and " their intention to build , a local centre, a care home and GP surgery on the site"
will no doubt no come to fruition.

Object

Representation ID: 912

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Denise Jacobi

SKPR-266

Exeter Fields - this was originally designated as business/ commercial usage as part of the original scheme and should remain so. It is unacceptable for the Council to consider redesignating it as residential especially as there are no adequate facilities (doctors, supermarkets, dentists etc) this side of the town. The existing facilities are struggling to cope as it is, as is the road system and this is without increasing the number of people who reside in the area.

Object

Representation ID: 932

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Alison Lowe

SKPR-266

This land must be used for community centre/retail/employment facilities as originally agreed and not for further housing. We already have enough housing on this side of Stamford and are sorely lacking in retail/employment/social facilities. If this residential development is approved, trust betwen residents, the council, planners and land owners will be further eroded

Object

Representation ID: 940

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Sarah Crudge

I object to the change of use of Exeter Fields Stamford. When the housing adjacent was built, it was part of the development for this land to have shops and business use. It is disingenuous to allow developers to build estates highlighting the facilities that will go alongside, only for these not to materialise with the land subsequently allocated to further housing. There is a need for supermarkets, school places, Drs on this side of Stamford, as the town centre cannot cope with everyone travelling through it to access amenities. This land should be used as agreed in 2012.

Object

Representation ID: 947

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Doug Marshall

I object to the plan to change the area to the south of Empingham rd in Stamford to houses from the intended use as a business / commercial area, Stamford has only 3.9 hectares planned for employment positions and has very poor to non existent NHS Dentist and poor GP access, The town is lopsided with all the super markets to the west of the town with poor traffic flow which would suffer more if these additional houses are built. The Exeter fields plan would also contribute to more traffic joining Empingham road and the A1

Object

Representation ID: 948

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Alex Hollington

I oppose the proposed 300-home development on the land adjacent to the A1 south of Empingham Rd. This site is crucial for employment in Stamford and should remain allocated as such. The existing proposal to re-allocate for 180 houses already compromises employment opportunities. Furthermore, promised amenities from previous housing developments must be fulfilled. Prioritise employment land and ensure promised amenities to support community needs. I urge the council to reconsider this proposal in line with sustainable development principles and the town's long-term vision.

Object

Representation ID: 1076

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

Only acceptable if a true brownfield store, else should not happen

Object

Representation ID: 1135

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Harries

I am objecting to the plan. Exeter fields was planned to be an employment site bringing in much needed employment to the local area.
This plan has now gone backwards. The site at Exeter fields is also supposed to have community centre/ shop etc for residents. There is nothing. Taking away the employment allocation here and taking away local peoples right to local employment is not correct.
There is hardly anywhere in Stamford with employment opportunities and this should remain a green space until the community centre shops and employment space is built.

Object

Representation ID: 1149

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr RICHARD CLEAVER

I object to this site being allocated for housing. It should remain allocated for employment use for which there is a far greater need in Stamford. I also strongly object that the development principles omit to mention that the site MUST include the community amenities which were included in the original developer's masterplan for the whole of Exeter Fields but which were not provided when part of the site was developed for housing after 2013.

Support

Representation ID: 1185

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Stefan Rakowski

I support the SKPR-266 Stamford Gateway application. The recent residential development at Exeter Fields is well-designed with plentiful green spaces. Proud residents care for their properties. Residents and visitors enjoy our estate, benefitting their physical and mental health. Daily, people pass our window enjoying a walk, walking their dogs, running, exercising, and bringing children to the playground. Stamford is only a 25-minutes walk. More housing on the undeveloped portion of Exeter Fields is appropriate. A1 access several hundred metres away rules out concerns that more homes would create congestion. Business premises are better situated in Stamford, close to amenities.

Object

Representation ID: 1221

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Kate Leeks

Stamford -Exeter fields was originally designed as business/commercial usage as part of the original plan. It is completely unacceptable for it to be reassigned as residential. Stamford is in dire need of employment & employment space!

Object

Representation ID: 1222

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Emily Payne

The employment allocation at Exeter fields should be retained as is, and not changed to housing. Otherwise stamford will have little employment allocation, and that will need to be provided elsewhere.