Object

Representation ID: 2006

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Alexander Russo

Nearby residents have to drive to the other side of town to visit the supermarkets, with exception to Waitrose.

This only compounds the traffic issues in the town.

Building another 300 houses will only add to this congestion burden.

Over the last few years we have seen in this charming town, a relentless pursuit to build houses on any available land.

Think about the number extra vehicles this will bring to the town, the traffic, the parking, the A1 traffic, slip road congestion and road accidents.

Which Doctors Surgery can take on thousands more patients when we only have one for the town?

What about schooling provision?

Object

Representation ID: 2056

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Nigel Jolley

I also object to SKPR-266. Exeter Fields site should remain as an employment site there should be no housing development on the site. Stamford is in desperate need of employment and the current proposals for employment site are pityful. The are below malcolm Sargent School should have been developed for local services but has not which is shameful and needs to be rectified.

Object

Representation ID: 2060

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Jennifer Hall

Exeter Fields. This was allocated as a commercial / business site and this amenity is needed in our town for employment and commercial success. If nothing else it should house the amenities promised when the adjoining land was developed for housing and be left as precious green space, which is being lost from all areas of Stamford

Object

Representation ID: 2144

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Victor Woodward

This site should not be re-allocated for housing under any circumstances.

There are current traffic congestion and road safety issues in Stamford.

The site should support a supermarket at least. Install a roundabout at the junction of Arran Road with entry into the site.

Object

Representation ID: 2216

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Wendy Laughton

Why has the planning application changed for Exeter Field, from industrial to 300 homes. This will make the A606 heavily congested when an incident is on the A1. Making traffic come through Stamford. Plus it’s by a busy primary school.

Object

Representation ID: 2218

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Christopher Laughton

Objecting to the proposal for up to 300 NEW HOUSE to be built on the Exeter Fields West side of Stamford near the A1 and A606 which is the Empingham Road out of Stamford, which was ear marked for Industrial Units Development so that Stamford would have more employment.

Object

Representation ID: 2238

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Kevin Rippin

My objection to this is that this land was designated for Business/Commercial . Its absolutely outrageous that this land is now being designated for residential use and that the number of dwellings has gone up from 180 to 300 , this is madness when we need employment opportunities in Stamford . The amount of land being set aside for Business/ Commercial use 3.9 Hectares is a ridiculous amount.
Also in the plan it states that a Local Centre , A Care Home and GP Surgery are to be built . All these where promised on the development adjacent to Exeter Fields and where excluded , Why !!!!! . Who is going to run and pay for the new GP Surgery.

Object

Representation ID: 2241

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Francis Child

Stamford needs this condition to remain part of the plan to ensure there are employment opportunities for the existing and increasing population of Stamford.

Object

Representation ID: 2243

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Aileen Child

Stamford needs this condition to remain part of the plan to ensure there are employment opportunities for the existing and increasing population of Stamford.

Object

Representation ID: 2284

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Stamford Property Company Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

We have significant concern in respect of the imbalance of residential to employment land within Stamford and the reliance on a single, land locked allocation to deliver new job growth. We query the outputs within the Draft Site Assessment Report (2024) and the Employment Land Study (2024) which identify that the deallocation of this site is on the basis that the site is unsuitable for employment use due to adjacent residential development. Those constraints remain unchanged since the Employment Land Study (2015) which deemed this part of the site suitable for employment use. We are also aware that the site is being actively market for employment uses and there has been interest in the site for such use. We therefore strongly object to this policy and loss of employment site.

Object

Representation ID: 2316

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Barry Collins

Stamford Gateway Exeter Fields should remain fo commercial use .

Support

Representation ID: 2321

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

As the site sits immediately adjacent to the southeast quadrant of the A1/A606 junction, consideration should be made as above. (see comments to SKPR-280).

We have no other specific comments to make on housing allocations which do not share a boundary with the SRN, however, please see our later comments with respect of the transport evidence base and other policies.

Support

Representation ID: 2369

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation Safeguarding Team

- Development of, or exceeding, 91.4m in height above ground level will trigger statutory consultation requirement,
- Development that might result in the creation of attractant environments for large and flocking bird species hazardous to aviation, including the potential for an environment attractive to hazardous bird species to be formed temporarily

Object

Representation ID: 2465

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Commercial Estate Group

Agent: Nexus Planning

The site is suitable for the delivery of development which would help to meet the Council’s vision and objectives. CEG agree with the conclusions reached by the Council in that the site should be allocated for development but consider there to be scope for the draft allocation to be amended to better reflect the fact that the site is capable of achieving a greater quantum of residential development, plus a mixed-use local centre and care home.
The site has previously been found acceptable for development through its allocation for employment development in the adopted local plan. It therefore represents a suitable, available and achievable site for the delivery of residential-led mixed use development within the first five years of the Draft LPR Period, if not sooner.

Considers the development principles to be reasonable but suggests amendments to add clarity to the policy wording.

Considers that the site’s indicative unit numbers and density should be increased to 260 dwellings and 40dph.