Object

Representation ID: 1228

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Vanessa Mackinnon

There is not enough land set aside for employment especially with the removal of the Exeter Fields. If 1,350 homes are to be built where are all the people supposed to work? It has good access to the A1 and would be ideal for a distribution, small industrial units and EV charging station.

Object

Representation ID: 1244

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Goodwin

Exeter Fields was supposed to be for business/commercial use. Stamford is already desperately short of work opportunities for its residents, they all have to travel elsewhere and this travelling is done mainly by car. It states in the plan that Stamford is getting 3.9 of employment land yet the total for SKDC is 339.28? How is this right or fair? If Exeter Fields is built on the house occupiers will join the queues of traffic that are already trying to get off the A1 on their way home from work - work that is not available in Stamford.

Object

Representation ID: 1247

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Brewin

SKPR-266 Stamford Gateway (ExeterFields) Strong objection to change in development of land from commercial to housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1253

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Matthew Norris

The plan to build additional houses on the land at Exeter Fields is badly misguided. We need a local centre there, rather than more housing. The are is.already very dense with housing and the lack of facilities such as a doctors, supermarket, café etc drives increased traffic into the already congested centre of Stamford. The owners say there has been no interest in the land for employment, but how much effort has been made? We should be offering incentives to businesses and actively pushing as a council to get a doctors, dentist, library, cafe, shop put in place.

Object

Representation ID: 1304

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Richard Evans

Strongly object to the loss of employment land at Exeter Fields. Stamford needs employment and local businesses to avoid becoming a dormitory town. I have no objection to its current designation as employment land

Object

Representation ID: 1311

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Stamford Town Council

This site was previously allocated as employment use and we believe it should stay the same. The fact that an screening application (Environmental impact) has been raised for 300 houses on the site (as well as other facilities) with increased traffic on Empingham Road is unacceptable when Stamford is in desperate need for small business units to encourage businesses to come to the town rather than elsewhere. We strongly object to this proposed allocation of housing on the draft Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 1338

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ms Rachel Butler

Strongly object to the change of use for Exeter Fields, should remain for employment use to counter the increase in housing already planned.

Object

Representation ID: 1339

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ms Shelley Simone

Strongly Object to the redesignation of Exeter Fields for Residential, it should remain as Employment Land

Object

Representation ID: 1417

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Stimpson

This site was promised for light industrial/office use. It must not be diverted to housebuilding.

Object

Representation ID: 1418

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ms Nicolette Morphy

I note that Stamford has only been allocated 3.9 hectares of employment related space contrasting with 11 for Bourne and 18 for the Deepings. Why has Exeter Fields has been changed to residential use? A very large allocation of residential accomodation is already proposed for Stamford. The town has recently lost it's main "industrial employer" and employment opportunities are largely in the service industries. So a large increase to the population of the town is scheduled with hardly any local employment opportunities offered. The amount of employment land proposed for Stamford is inadequate.

Object

Representation ID: 1459

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Tom Upson

This land was previously allocated for employment use under policy E2 but has now been changed to Housing under Policy H1. Stamford has already seen the area of land adjacent to Morrisons changed from employment use in the past to now having houses built on it. Where will all the people in the new developments of Stamford go to work? All these new developments talk about promoting a 'Sustainable urban extension' and 'walkable communities' but if there are no additional employment opportunities in Stamford, residents will have to travel outside the region for work on an already dangerous A1.

Object

Representation ID: 1464

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ms Joanna Plant

The capacity of the historic core is already seriously compromised (traffic/healthcare). We need some edge of town supermarkets/shops and healthcare facilities on the north west/side to serve existing and incoming residents (from Stamford North and Stamford East). To enable a settlement to thrive, a mix and balance of land uses is necessary. Employment sites will bring new businesses to the town, and in turn enhance the local economy through local spending rather than people travelling out of town to work or businesses leaving the town to find premises elsewhere, both resulting in a loss of spending in the local economy.

Object

Representation ID: 1476

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Bush

Keep Exeter fields as commercial rather than residential as per original plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1566

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Clare Townsend

You are planning to let developers build 300 more houses on Empinghan rd. What about the facilities you promised us with the last development? The doctors can’t sustain the amount of people who presently live in Stamford. What about a dentist practice?

Object

Representation ID: 1567

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mr S Buck

The land allocated to business use opposite Malcolm Sargent school should be used for just that, you've allowed another estate to be build with no amenities. More expensive housing isn't what's wanted, it's work and jobs. Changing the plan from business to residential is a mistake.

Object

Representation ID: 1581

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Anne Wiltshire

I hope the planners will refuse the latest application to build yet more houses. I believe that the application for the existing houses was granted on the understanding that the land would be designated for buildings for the community, possibly shops and a surgery. Also part of it was intended for employment purposes. If the builders can ignore the details of the original planning permission can we expect the planners of Quarry Farm and the land to the north-east of Stamford to provide whatever they promise?

Object

Representation ID: 1582

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Julie Beech

I strongly object to the developement of this site. When this area was originally developed we were meant to have new road system, parks and other amenities such as doctors , shops. This site was then reduced so they did not have to provide these facilities. Now they are trying again and using loopholes to get round delivering a proper service for Stamford. The town already is stretched with the use of 1 worse the useless doctors. Schools being stretched and no improvement on the roads in this area.
Enough for this town!

Object

Representation ID: 1584

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Tiffany Arntson

I am writing to object to changing the use of this land. Currently it is the only significant site allocated for enployment use in Stamford. In the SKDC Local Plan review it is now proposed to be reallocated for 180 houses. I object to this proposal. The land should remain allocated for employment use and in doing so, provide the amenities that were promised when the adjacent land was developed for housing several years ago.

Support

Representation ID: 1592

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mark Wibberley

I would like you to record that I am fully behind the change of use on Exeter Fields to residential property. We need more homes.

Object

Representation ID: 1604

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Anna Russo

Why has the SKDC changed the agreed plan? Building hundreds more houses and renaging on funding for vital amenities for those houses will not support a vibrant sustainable development. Miles of estates with not a single school, surgery, playground or local shop forces residents into their cars and cross an already congested town to reach supermarkets and shops. The first phase Exeter Fields built around Culpepper Way was to include a Dr/Dental surgery and primary school. An area of green space was allocated but nothing eventuated. Instead, the developers made a contribution to the NHS to an outlying village surgery. Again, nothing for Stamford residents. 180 houses removed from Policy E2 Employment/Business would go some way to offering local employment and alleviate the ever worsening traffic congestion and lack of town centre parking. Council tax rises year on year while public services are at an all time low. Please think again SKDC.

Object

Representation ID: 1652

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Ed Flint

The particular issue here is that the Empingham Rd Site, which is referred to as "Stamford Gateway (Exeter Fields)" has been removed from policy E2 as an employment site and has instead been included in Policy H1 as a housing allocation. When the houses opposite the School, the consultation stated that there would be extra school parking, employment and amenities included in the Stamford Gateway build. Your draft plan is now showing that you are dropping these in favour of more houses, I object and want to see what was promised built. Developers need to be held to account and changing these local plan just show how powerless you are at SKDC.

Object

Representation ID: 1700

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Andrew Jenkins

The Exeter Fields development proposal to increase to 350 houses is also unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 1702

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Linda Battle

Exeter Fields: Objection to the re-designation of essential business/commercial land to residential status, and loss of employment opportunities for local residents.

Object

Representation ID: 1704

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Leonard Marshall

Where land to the South of Empingham Road was once scheduled to be used for employment, I find that it is being used for domestic housing. This reallocation of use is wrong…it is not in the town’s interest at all…and again I object most strongly.

Object

Representation ID: 1742

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Lisa Brewin

The provision of employment land in Stamford is far too small considering the town's size. I strongly object to the land at ST. E1 Exeter Fields, Empingham Road being deallocated as an employment site. This land is necessary employment land for the local economy and local businesses and could provide small business units. Perhaps also an EV charging station for local use as well as the use of those travelling on the A1. When the land at this site was developed, it was on the condition that this part of the site would be used as commercial land.

Object

Representation ID: 1832

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Adrian Heathershaw

No more building of houses in Stamford please. There's already not enough doctors and far too much traffic in the town. I can't see how this application if approved, would have a positive impact on Stamford.

Object

Representation ID: 1835

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Sarah Jane Nichols

An additional 180 houses, with the resulting loss of employment opportunities and facilities will only increase the pressure on the local infrastructure. Site should be used for employment and amenities and not for increased housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1968

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Natural England

For the proposed residential allocations within Stamford we would reiterate the importance of establishing a connected network of high quality green infrastructure at the earliest stage of the planning process.
We also advise that for residential developments surrounding Stamford may require an assessment of recreational pressure if it falls within the Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) for Cambridgeshire SSSIs. This may be relevant to the Barnack Hill & Holes SAC and measures to mitigate any adverse impacts e.g. alternative open space provision may be required.

Object

Representation ID: 1991

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ian Povey

This land is currently the only significant site allocated for employment use in Stamford, and the SKDC is already proposing to re-allocate it for 180 houses in the Local Plan review.

I believe that it should remain allocated for employment use but should also be provide the amenities promised when the adjoining land was developed for housing.

Taking into consideration, the Barnack Road development, Quarry development, and the now the Empingham Road phase three development approximately three thousand new homes are potentially going to be build in the near future in Stamford.

Stamford desperately needs more amenities, employment and traffic schemes to support the growing population caused by the over development of the town

SKDC seem to be oblivious to the need for new medical, educational, sports, social, water, sewage and emloyment services plus traffic systems to cope with the new housing,

Also, the Rutland county local villages such as Ketton, Casterton and Ryhall using the Stamford existing amenities which puts a further strain on the facilies.

Object

Representation ID: 1999

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Judy Lindsay-Timmins

Empingham Road site referred to as Stamford Gateway (Exeter Fields) has been removed from policy E2 as an employment site and has instead been included in Policy H1 as an increased housing allocation of up to 300 homes.

This switch in designation & removal of the acoustic bund at Borderville is totally unacceptable & ill thought out considering the sound barrier it provides.

There are numerous issues facing the town of Stamford at present -

Lack of amenities - doctors, dentists, schools, industry, employment opportunities

Anglian Water Company report on insufficient water supply capacity, foul drainage & surface water disposal for any new developments at present. The necessity of the construction of an extra pumping station & connecting new sewer network before development commences.

Excess road traffic & high congestion levels of routes in & around the town.

Flood risks & potential pollution

Removal/destruction of local wildlife sites

Lack of local industry

Overloaded power services