Object

Representation ID: 99

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

Ref: 9.32 For Grantham, there is considerable housing growth expected in the town over the plan period which will require the creation of a considerable number of new jobs if out-commuting is to be reduced. - This suggests that housing is being built before employment opportunities are in place - both are equally important therefore any strategy must ensure that the two are closely linked without one outweighing the other.
Maybe this also applies to the other sites.

Object

Representation ID: 493

Received: 15/04/2024

Respondent: Miss Carys Vaughan

It is unacceptable to have a pathetic 3.9 hectares of employment space in Stamford given it is the 2nd biggest town in the district. Bourne and The Deepings have a far superior designation of space despite being much smaller and this is especially galling when previously designated employment space has now been converted over to residential. Stamford is fast becoming a commuter belt town, which preferences higher earner incomes, and fails to provide for those on lower incomes who may rely more on local employment and affordable housing options.

Object

Representation ID: 548

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Dr John Deag

Re the first two sentences of 9.33 concerning Stamford. The solution is obvious! Do not permit the change of use of SKPR-266 from commercial to residential. This land would be perfect for a variety of uses including the stated "high quality modern office and ancillary uses". See my detailed comments elsewhere re the inadequate evidence used to justify re-zoning this site.

Object

Representation ID: 569

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Dr John Deag

[Given here are the button for E2 - Employment sites did not work.]

Policy E2 - Employment sites. Object. It is inadequate in this table to put forward only one site in Stamford, SKPR-288, a tiny 3.9ha. Please add back in site SKPR-266 for the reasons I have given in detail elsewhere.

Object

Representation ID: 818

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Rutland County Council

Object to the proposal to de-allocate 10 ha of employment land at Exeter Fields and allocate a single small employment site in Stamford, which does not have any of the advantages of Exeter Fields (EMP3 of the adopted plan) including easy access and road frontage visibility to the strategic highways network.

This approach will fail to meet the economic development and job growth needs of the town as it grows, resulting in both an increase in out-commuting as residents access work outside the town and a potential increase in heavy vehicle movements through the historic town centre.

Object

Representation ID: 871

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Muriel Collins

Part of Stamford’s prosperity was down to the employment it had to offer from Newage, Blackstones, Bowman’s and Williamson Cliff brick yard to name a few. These areas have now been allowed to become housing estates. Causing Stamford residents to find work elsewhere encouraging traffic congestion and commuting.
The proposed allocation of land as indicated in SKDC plan on Ryhall Road seems to be very small for this town. All other plans previously submitted have not come to fruition eg Exeter Fields.
Exeter Fields has now been redesignated as housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1039

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

Don’t build houses and this need largely goes away - win win!

Support

Representation ID: 1324

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

We support the Draft Plan in recognising and addressing the locational requirements strategic employment operators have and planning accordingly to meet the market demand in suitably accessible locations across the District. We consider that our Client’s site at Land South of Gonerby Lane, Gonerby Moor (SKPR-100) will help to support the economic development needs of the area so that the local economy is not adversely impacted and hence is a suitable proposed allocation put forward by the Council.
We consider wording within the plan should be clarified. The Draft Plan allocates ‘circa 338 Ha’ of land for employment provision, however a large proportion of this is from previous allocations which have been carried over from the current adopted Local Plan. We suggest the Council should make a clear distinction between the new allocations as part of the Draft Plan, and those allocations that are being carried forward. This should be detailed specifically in hectares to clearly demonstrate how much new growth is being proposed and how much is being retained and carried forward.

Object

Representation ID: 1386

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Stimpson

This consultation makes no reference to the site previously promised for employment opportunities - on the site to the west of the town, alongside the A1 - a site which was considered ideal due to its proximity to the new large housing complex, and due to it being situated next to the A1. This is now allocated to more housing - a dreadful shame for the town to lose this chance for land to be used for employment purposes.

Object

Representation ID: 1419

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Ms Nicolette Morphy

Stamford is the second biggest town in the SKDC area, and has 2 large housing developments proposed as well as several proposed and ongoing developments, and yet has only been allocated 3.9 hectares of employment related space. Exeter Fields has been changed from employment to residential use for some reason! The town has no large industry left 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 therefore quite inadequate.

Object

Representation ID: 1480

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rachel Bush

Exeter Fields site, Stamford should not have change of use from Employment to residential. It should be developed as originally detailed and facilities and employment provided.
Why is there so littlke allocation for employment in Stamford compared to other towns?

Support

Representation ID: 1647

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Market Deeping Town Council

Councillors support the proposal to retain SKPR-55 (DEP-E1) and SKPR-284 (DEP-SE1) as essential employment development sites. We object to any proposals that seek to change SKPR-55 into residential development on the grounds that: a) it is required for employment use and b) it is not needed for housing.

Support

Representation ID: 1660

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: The Deepings Neighbourhood Plan Group

Support for all Employment sites in Deepings
Northfields SKPR-284 (DEP-SE1)
PB Road SKPR-55 (DEP-E1)

Support

Representation ID: 1686

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Deeping St James Parish Council

Support for all Employment sites in Deepings
Northfields SKPR-284 (DEP-SE1)
PB Road SKPR-55 (DEP-E1)

Object

Representation ID: 1739

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Historic England

Potential archaeology at SKPR-262 Land at Valley Lane
Potential impact upon historic village of Allington and its heritage assets, including II* church of Holy Trinity at SKPR-100 and SKPR-202.

Object

Representation ID: 1803

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust

Proposed Employment Allocation SKPR262 is in close proximity to The River Witham (LWS) and Long Bennington.
We wish to see any associated applications provide measures to reduce any potential impacts on this sensitive site, as well as opportunities to integrate them into the recovery of the local environment by securing management for the LWSs if presently not under positive management and through building nature corridors within development between such sites - SKPR-278, SKPR-65, and SKPR-262.

Object

Representation ID: 2445

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mulberry Land and the Machin Family

Agent: Mulberry Strategic Land

We would wish to expand on paragraph 9.35 as it is clear that the Employment Land Study used a Labour Demand Scenario to establish the need figure. The implication for using such data and limiting land allocations to that figure is growth will largely follow a historic trend and curve.

Of the existing allocations, to date, none have been delivered. The Council has 339.2ha of allocated employment land, which is a vast amount to be delivered during the plan period. We welcome the ambitions of the authority, however more detail in the Local Plan Review consultation is required to address how this amount will be phased, and how local and strategic infrastructure will deal with the additional requirements on capacity. In the interests of ensuring the plan is soundly and positively prepared each of these sites should be subject to the same scrutiny as new allocations as relying upon sites and evidence which supported the previous plan risks undermining the Local Plan Review and overstating the employment land position. It would be wise to ensure the council has an agreed delivery statement for each of the sites in question.