Object

Representation ID: 100

Received: 09/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

For the reasons given in E2 Other employment sites

Object

Representation ID: 278

Received: 18/03/2024

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: 559

Received: 16/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Kate Leeks

Stamford does not have enough space given over to employment. There are not enough jobs in the area which means that with all the new housing that's planned, people will have to travel outside the town for employment which will only make the roads even more grid locked in peak times.

Object

Representation ID: 734

Received: 19/04/2024

Respondent: Mr Barry Collins

Stamford having the smallest employment land allocation is atrocious considering how much industrial land it used to have that has now become housing. Exeter fields should remain for commercial use because Stamford needs employment opportunities for everyone especially with the amount of manufacturing jobs that have been lost in recent years. It seems that Stamford has become a commuter town where residents are expected to travel to work. Children leaving school need local employment as they cannot commute.

Object

Representation ID: 750

Received: 20/04/2024

Respondent: Jane Bateman

The provision for employment sites is far too low given Stamford is the second town in SKDC and it's proximity to the A1 plus links to Cambridge via train and the A14.
I do not understand how the land allocated for employment at the Exeter Fields development has been changed to yet more housing.
The old Blackstones site on Uffington Road behind Morrisons was supposed to be for employment, but has now become housing.
There is no mention of the old Cummins site on Barnack Road which included employment units.

Object

Representation ID: 864

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs sandra owens

proposed employment projection for stamford of 3.9 hectares far too low for amount of houses proposed. Bourne and Deeping have higher allocations!

Object

Representation ID: 1040

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

You can’t even spell one of the areas you are proposing to destroy Gonerby Moor should be that - a moor, leave it alone, it has more than enough tin sheds on it already.

Object

Representation ID: 1136

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Catherine Harries

3 acres of employment space in Stamford is a joke considering the growing population size.
We need more employment land. Perhaps Exeter field that was allocated as employment space. This needs to revert back immediately.
Local people with no employment opportunities locally.

Object

Representation ID: 1146

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Mr RICHARD CLEAVER

3.9 Hectares of land is insufficient for Stamford and the removal of the site south of Empingham Rd is inconsistent with the statement in para 9.33 that "it is acknowledged that additional employment land may also need to be identified". The Empingham Rd site should remain allocated for employment use.
Also, the part of the St Martin's Park site on which planning permission now exists for employment use should be also included within these allocations in order to prevent any future change of use to housing.

Object

Representation ID: 1252

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.

Support

Representation ID: 1323

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Land South of Gonerby Lane, West of the A1, Gonerby Moor, Grantham s proposed to be allocated within the Regulation 18 Draft Local Plan for employment provision of 63.7 Ha of E(g), B2 and B8; under the reference SKPR-100. A number of evidence based documents which support the Draft Local Plan have considered the site in further detail. Our client is highly supportive of the Council’s approach to allocating the site for commercial purposes with the Draft Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 1388

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Mrs Rosemary Stimpson

Missing, previously promised:
The land previously promised on the Exeter site, to the west of Stamford, suddenly been re-allocated to more housing
Previous Cummins, on Barnack Road - was a portion of this site allocated to employment?

Aside from these sites, and the small area specified in the consultation, these, overall, will be inadequate for the large number of people expected to live in the town in the future. Bourne, the Deepings and Grantham all have far greater employment opportunities than Stamford. Either we are a small market town - the emphasis being on small, or we provide employment opportunities.

Object

Representation ID: 1400

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Amatrix Grantham Prop Co Limited (Part of Brookfield Group)

Agent: Freeths

The allocation of 172.7 hectares of land at Gonerby Moor is counter productive to the strategy of supporting growth and further investment at Grantham Southern Gateway and is poorly located away from committed residential growth to 2041 and beyond. It is unsustainable and unsupported in employment strategy terms.

Object

Representation ID: 1890

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Lincolnshire County Council Corporate Property

Agent: Savills

It is considered that site SKPR-132 and SKPR-133 would be an ideal option for further employment development should this be required in the district.

Object

Representation ID: 1902

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Edwared Farms Ltd

Agent: Aspbury Planning (in collaboration with SGA Architects)

Proposes a site at ‘land to the north east of Great North Road for employment purposes and to be included for allocation in Policy E2. The site is in a sustainable/accessible location and the allocation for employment purposes would represent sustainable development.

Object

Representation ID: 1903

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: C&C Futures Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

Considers the Draft Local Plan does not allocate adequate employment development sites within Bourne to be delivered during the Plan period as those allocated are speculative and not clearly deliverable during the Plan period. Client’s site at land south of Fen Road, is deliverable within the Plan Period by the current owner and due to historic and recent permissions in the site, should be assessed and considered as a suitable employment allocation. It is therefore requested that this site is considered in any future assessment and allocations within Bourne.

Support

Representation ID: 2051

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Defence Infrastructure Organisation

Agent: Fisher German

The DIO support the identification of PWoG Barracks (SKPR65 (GR3-H4)) as an employment generating site. DIO are committed to the delivery of the site and are currently undertaking the significant quantum of background work required to support an outline planning application for a mixed-use scheme.
Supports the recognition within the Policy “other employment generating uses” may be appropriate. It is however requested that for sites such as SKPR65 (GR3-H4), this flexibility is extended to include all Class E uses.

Object

Representation ID: 2103

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Allocating 3 sites at Gonerby Moor, also served by the A1 totalling 172.7ha may mean that the E1: SKPR 286 (GR-SE1) - Grantham Southern Gateway Strategy Employment Opportunity of (118.19 hectares) fails to materialise in a timely fashion. The latter is located sustainably closer to Grantham town centre (2.95km distance) compared to Gonerby Moor’s 4.6km from Grantham town centre. The reason for the ‘new strategic corridor of the Gonerby Moor area’ does not appear justified. Indeed unlike the ‘unique’ Southern Gateway’ the Gonerby Moor area rightly does not have its own policy, and the latter should be downgraded as such on the Key Diagram plan. £130m+ of public money is being invested in the GSRR which facilitates much of the Southern Gateway, and the business case will have been premised on a return on that investment. The Gonerby Moor allocations will put back that return coming forward.

Object

Representation ID: 2113

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Objects to the exclusion of SKPR-104 as a longer-term opportunity for later in the plan period.

Object to SKPR-219 being excluded from the plan as an Employment site.

Object

Representation ID: 2117

Received: 09/04/2024

Respondent: G.W Padley Property 4 Limited and The Rathbone Trust

Agent: Aspbury Planning

The Representors propose a new employment-led mixed-use allocation - SKPR--- (to be defined) on the land between North Field Road and the A1175 Market Deeping Bypass and that the Allocation be included in the Table in Policy E2 and on the appropriate Proposal Map Inset(s).

Object

Representation ID: 2118

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Alan Middleton

The draft plan in respect to Stamford does not include adequate provision for business and employment development. The land allocated is smaller than areas allocate to much small towns. Stamford is already way behind other local towns in the provision business facilities and parks. Stamford area has over 2000 residences in the process of being built or in planning resulting with the possibility of over 4000 people of working age but with no employment developments. This policy results in a mass migration in and out of the town morning and afternoon mainly by car as public transport is totally impractical for most people. Sustainable environmental development requires employment development to go hand in hand with residential development. The plan for Stamford does not meet the requirement by a long margin. The impression is that SKDC is more interested in the amount it can obtain by residential council tax rather than the developing a sustainable and environmentally friendly economy in Stamford.

Object

Representation ID: 2146

Received: 05/04/2024

Respondent: Geoff Dunmore

No mention of the gateway principles attached to the housing has been made to DEP-E1. If this is to be industrial development land it surely does not fit in with your comments related to a high quality Northern gateway, surely this designation is wrong the land should be considered for housing in line with your high quality standards set for DEP1-H1 or an open managed parkland. The industrial land would be better allocated adjacent to the Northfields estate area.

Object

Representation ID: 2148

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Buckminster

Site SKPR-234 should be allocated for additional employment land.

Support

Representation ID: 2180

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Summer Estate Holdings

Agent: Mike Sibthorpe Planning

Fully supportive of the proposed continued allocation of SKPR-287 (RBP-E1).

Object

Representation ID: 2236

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Brown & Co

Proposes additional site SKPR-230 – Land at East of A1, Colsterworth for allocation for Class E/B1/B2/B8 and Rural/Quasi-agricultural industrial development.

Object

Representation ID: 2266

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Allison Homes

We support the Draft Plan in recognising and providing the economic needs in the suitable location of Grantham. However, we consider the land off Peterborough Road at Market Deeping is not a suitable location to provide the required B8 units that are set out as required through the Employment Land Study.

Due to the plentiful supply of employment land available to the Council, the site at Peterborough Road, Market Deeping should also be released as an employment allocation and be provided with a residential allocation for around 100 units, to contribute towards the housing requirement.

Object

Representation ID: 2281

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Stamford Property Company Ltd

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

With specific relation to the market town of Stamford, we strongly disagree that policy E2 seeks to provide a choice to the market for both existing and new businesses. Specifically in respect of the deallocation of Exeter Fields, Empingham Road it is unclear how the conclusion to deallocate the site has been reached. There is an inconsistent approach as to the application of the ‘suitability’ of the site from the previous study, particularly when the constraints have not changed. We request the Council publish their assessment methodology for transparency and clarity. With the proposed deallocation of Exeter Fields, there remains only one proposed allocation within Stamford for employment uses – land East of Ryhall Road. There appears to be a significant imbalance in the proposed residential to employment allocations and a significant lack of evidence to justify the deallocation of Exeter Fields and we strongly object to this strategy. The emerging Local Plan proposes a total of 12.6 hectares of employment land in Stamford, some 25 hectares less than what is presently allocated/retained in the current Local Plan (37.6 hectares). This reduction is significant and goes against the Council’s strategy to offer a choice to the market.

Object

Representation ID: 2299

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Central Lincolnshire Local Plan team

Para 9.31, is there a word missing in the last sentence?
Para 9.34, “…taking into account of…” It is suggested that either into or of be removed.

Support

Representation ID: 2323

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: National Highways

SKPR262 – Long Bennington Employment Site - We note a proposed employment allocation (Land at Valley Lane) immediately to the west of the A1 Long Bennington junction. To access the site, motorists travelling south on the A1 would have to travel through Long Bennington. Lincolnshire County Council as the local highway authority may wish to provide further comments in that regard, but National Highways would question whether this constitutes sustainable development. It should further be noted that a new access directly from the A1 would be contrary to DfT Circular 01/2022 and would not be permitted.

SKPR202; SKPR100; SKPR182 – Gonerby Moor - Whilst we don’t have any objections in principle to these allocations, it should be noted that the section of the A1 between Gonerby Moor and Long Benington suffers from existing delay and safety issues.

National Highways does not have any planned improvements for this location, but it has been identified as an area for further investigation in our Route Strategies.
The Strategic Transport Assessment should ultimately identify the impacts on SRN junctions and the highways infrastructure needed to support Local Plan growth. It is however likely that infrastructure improvements at Long Bennington and Gonerby Moor junctions will be required and therefore our previous comment about allocations immediately adjacent to SRN junctions should therefore be noted.
We have no other specific comments to make on employment allocations which do not share a boundary with the SRN, however, please see the below comments with respect of the transport evidence base and our later comments with respect of specific policies.

Support

Representation ID: 2347

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Marrons

We support Policy E2’s identification of SKPR-202 for employment development. The allocation complements the LPR’s spatial strategy and is deliverable for employment growth, with no materially adverse impacts arising. The draft allocation is also justified against the LPR’s site selection evidence base.

The site assessment evidence supports the proposed allocation of SKPR-202 for employment development and illustrates that the selection of this site is soundly based and justified. We would note, however, that there are several inaccuracies in the assessment which we would encourage the local planning authority and its consultants to revisit as part of the next stage of consultation.

Inaccuracies noted include the proximity to key services and facilities, the measurement in respect of proximity to shops is inaccurate.