Support

Representation ID: 95

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Object

Representation ID: 546

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Dr John Deag

re Table 7 Employment Use Class Type. Please add a key to "Use class types" as very few people will know what these abbreviations mean! Surely as it stands this table is unacceptable.

Object

Representation ID: 682

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Sally Jordan

Why does Stamford have so little employment designation compared to smaller towns? You are also planning to switch the land available at Exeter Fields to residential, which goes against the original planning. Stamford is fast becoming a commuter town, with high cost properties being built for well paid employees who either work from home or commute to London.

Object

Representation ID: 1035

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

Don’t build more houses and there isn’t the same need for more jobs!

Support

Representation ID: 1327

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We consider the Council are justified in allocating more land than the scenarios within the ELS (2023) identify. Taking a counter approach to the assessment of soundness and conclusions reached by the Inspector for the adopted Local Plan, which was only 4 years ago, would mean not providing flexibility for economic growth particularly for the industrial and logistics industry would mean the Plan would not be positively prepared or found to be ‘sound’.

Object

Representation ID: 2444

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mulberry Land and the Machin Family

Agent: Mulberry Strategic Land

Table 7 of the Local Plan Review presents the amount of employment land needed to 2041, split by use class type, as identified in the Employment Land Study 2023. This need amounts to 79.5ha, however, it falls significantly below the amount of employment sites allocated within the Plan, at circa 338ha.

Comments on the Employment Land Study:

- Challenges the “Amber” rating for Accessibility for site SKPR-185.
- Paragraph 6.34 page 100 4th bullet point. The first part of this paragraph refers to the wrong site and should be deleted (as highlighted), however, the remainder of the wording appears to align with the allocation.
- Paragraph 6.35, Page 101: Comments: Penultimate bullet point should include reference to SKPR-182.
- Paragraph 6.42, Page 101/102: This section deals with future supply. In this paragraph, the site Gorse Lane (SKPR-234, to the west of the A1) has been referenced in place of our proposed site SKPR-182 Grantham Oakdale, Gonerby Moor, Grantham. There is further commentary on the site ‘SKPR-234’ in Paragraph 6.44 which we believe has been misplaced, as the site is not a preferred site within the Draft Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 2554

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Hanbury Properties Ltd

Agent: Freeths

The Employment Land Study misrepresents the access constraints of SKPR-234, identifying that there is a ‘lack of a suitable access’. This fails to account for the clear strategy for GR-SE1.

Object

Representation ID: 2602

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Marrons

We support the thrust of the LPR in respect of its approach to the allocation of employment land and it is welcome that the LPR is allocating over the need suggested by the ELS, which in our view considerably underestimates the level of need for employment land in the District.

The ELS does not take account of the LPA’s aspirational approach to economic growth as underpinned by various aspects of the economic evidence base, does not account for “larger than local” strategic demand across the FEMA nor historic suppressed demand, which is considerable. These are material shortcomings and to underpin the LPR’s approach, we recommend that economic land needs are revisited.