Object

Representation ID: 65

Received: 08/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Hume

Which employers have guaranteed new jobs and expansion in SKDC? How many jobs have been promised? What incentives will you be able to offer to attract new employers into the town or expand existing businesses ? What national job creation schemes will SKDC be able to take advantage of? How much of the levelling up allocation will be spent on job creation?

Support

Representation ID: 91

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comments

Object

Representation ID: 545

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Dr John Deag

re 9.2. The aim stated in this paragraph fails with regards to employment land in Stamford. See my detailed comments elsewhere re SKPR-266.

Object

Representation ID: 586

Received: 20/03/2024

Respondent: Mr Brian Moran

Do the employment sites include those currently vacant? The ex-Pinguin site south of Cherry Holt Road, being an example

Support

Representation ID: 633

Received: 18/04/2024

Respondent: Long Bennington Parish Council

Long Bennington Parish Council is supportive of development of employment sites in Long Bennington, but this is subject to improvements to the road infrastructure with no increases in HGV traffic travelling through the village.
Despite inference in the local plan, there is no full connection to the A1 for vehicles accessing and exiting Roseland Business Park or the highlighted site at Valley Lane. The Parish Council would not wish to see further development without improvements to negate any increases in HGV traffic movements that would have a negative impact on the village.

Object

Representation ID: 1031

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

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

Object

Representation ID: 2289

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Central Lincolnshire Local Plan team

There is currently 236ha of designated employment land, plus 35ha with potential for intensification. The 2023 Employment Land Study establishes a need for 79.5ha, easily met by current designations with no additional designations required (Para 9.18). The Local Plan Review allocates 338ha of “new employment sites across the district.” (Para 9.35). We have assumed that the 338ha is the total for the district consisting of some new sites, some removed sites and some carried over from the adopted Local Plan (as suggested in the summary of changes but not made clear by the comment in Para 9.35) and that the 338ha are not new and in addition to the current 236ha. Whilst we understand that you wish to provide a range and options for employment sites we do have some concerns about the amount that is provided over the identified need.

Object

Representation ID: 2319

Received: 10/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Susan Marsh

We had many areas in the town (Stamford) that were already designated industrial areas and what happened to them...? Developers applied for and was granted planning permission to build on that land.
Why was this allowed and now SKDC are stating they are searching to designate land for industrial use?
We have lost the old Blackstone's site on Uffington Road, Priory Road site, light industrial units on Uffington Road, the site on North Street that was once Welland Motor Factors and above all the old Cummins (Newage) site as well as Cherryholt Lane and surrounding area. (There maybe more that I have omitted).
The previous decisions of SKDC has driven industry out of the town and as a consequence there is little or no industry left.
It is very debatable if any industry on the scale Stamford once had will ever return. Even on a small scale is highly unlikely.
So again it returns to the point that SKDC will grant planning permission for industry that won't happen and eventually will end up as housing.

Support

Representation ID: 2443

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mulberry Land and the Machin Family

Agent: Mulberry Strategic Land

Generally, Mulberry Land are supportive of the proposals and policies set out under Chapter 9 – Employment and Economic Prosperity. The ambitions of both South Kesteven and the GLLEP are welcomed, supporting the capacity of the LEP area to deliver high-quality economic growth. They are clearly aligned with the Corporate Plan for the District, and it is clear the updated Economic Development Strategy for 2024-28 will underpin this focus. The acknowledgement that (paragraph 9.14) the ‘study will set out how South Kesteven’s location at the gateway of significant established and potential economic activity means it is perfectly placed to lead, and drive continued economic growth to mee the needs of incumbent and new businesses for years to come’, is welcomed and should be part of the evidence base going forward to support the Local Plan Review.

Object

Representation ID: 2469

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Commercial Estate Group

Agent: Nexus Planning

CEG supports the Council in seeking to contribute towards creating a strong, stable and more diverse economy. However, CEG consider that for the Plan to even better align with Objectives 1, 2 and 3, it should acknowledge the range of employment sectors beyond B2 and B8 uses and allocate appropriate mixed-use development within sustainable locations including the district’s market towns, noting Stamford in particular as the district’s second largest settlement.

Object

Representation ID: 2480

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Cllr Charmaine Morgan

Additional housing would require significant influx of jobs. The lack of public transport in the area will make it easier to commute out of Grantham than across.

Local employment is low paid and would mean local people could not afford to live in the new development planned.

The impact on agriculture of solar farms may negatively impact on the District's food production industries.

Small business also need encouragement and support. Investment in Grantham Market and start up schemes are required.