Lincolnshire readers writes about news in Stamford, Grantham, Rutland and Spalding
Readers have had plenty to say on what’s in the news.
Here we share some of the letters, emails and comments that have come in over the week, including this cartoon from John Elson which looks at this article.
Don’t forget, you can always get in touch by emailing news@lincsonline.co.uk
Nowhere is safe
Liberal Democrats are all in favour of moving from fossil-fuelled power to various types of sustainably generated power, including solar power. However, we also believe that the positioning of solar farms has to be proportionally assessed against the harm they will have on the surrounding countryside and its occupants.
The Mallard Pass development is simply too big and will overpower both the environment and potentially the local residents’ well-being.
According to the press, the new Minister Ed Milliband bragged that it has taken him only three days to rubber-stamp the pre-prepared recommendations to approve this site (plus two other monster sites in Suffolk and Oxon, the three totalling over 7,000 acres of good agricultural land) that he says he found on his desk already programmed for approval.
It is therefore clear that the Tory Government had already made up its mind to approve this site and then repeatedly contrived to dodge making it public, presumably in an effort to protect their MPs vote in those three constituencies. A further example of its duplicitous behaviour right to the very end!
The publication of this decision without any further thought and consideration by the new Minister, also somewhat be-littles the superb efforts that the Mallard Pass Action Group put into presenting their carefully and objectively assessed presentation, and the many hours that RCC’s planning officials had to devote in complying with the demands of both the complex decision-making process and the numerous points raised by the Inspectorate.
What is also now apparent after reading the 39 pages of the Mallard Pass decision, is that the decision also systematically demolished all detailed issues of concern, such as the effects on the local environment, local ecology, natural habitats, loss of agricultural land, effect on local people, scarring of the landscape, heritage, with the full knowledge that this decision creates a precedent for any similar application for a solar farm, that goes to the Inspectorate for a decision, regardless of its size.
The fact that the previous Tory gov was prepared to agree these criteria and that they have also now been so willingly signed-off by the new Labour Government, effectively means that nowhere is now safe from solar farm development.
Coun Paul Browne
Portfolio Holder for Planning - Rutland County Council (Lib Dem - Oakham South)
Regarding the siting of solar panels at Essendine and Ryhall can anybody really imagine what an eyesore they will become?
It was said many years ago that this country would develop into a concrete jungle.
The height and the amount will be so intrusive on the landscape it is something we can't imagine. It will have to be seen to be believed. Will future generations blame our generation for allowing this to happen? or will they be grateful for it. Only time will tell
This country in my opinion is too small for these large projects and I understand that there will be more blighting our beautiful countryside in the future. This is a mistake and should not be happening.
Kathleen Knipe
Wilsthorpe
Questions to be answered
As you know, the St Martin's development on the old Cummins site in Stamford has remained untroubled by any activity for years now.
Why did the council leader tell us all, on May 8 this year, that the site had been sold to 'an unnamed buyer for an undisclosed price' when no such sale has been made?
What's happened to the £2.8m grant application to complete the environmental remediation without which the development of the site 'isn't viable'?
Why was a grant needed at all when it was all supposed to have been made good after £1.5m was spent cleaning it up?
There are many more questions like this.
Ian Dodd
Stamford
Thank you for your help
On Saturday morning my wife fell in the High Street near Red Lion Square in Stamford. This was caused by an uneven paving stone and she seriously twisted her ankle. The shock caused her to faint and she was quickly attended to by five or six people. One called an ambulance and I came back from doing other shopping just as all this was happening.
With a lot of help and assistance she came round before the conversation with the emergency services operator had ended. So we were able to cancel the call.
In the confusion of getting the car and driving it a little way up the High Street, so she could get into the car, I was only able to obtain very little information from one of her helpers. She was Britt, who with her husband, came from Edith Weston. They remained with us until we were able to leave.
Through the Mercury I hope you can publish this 'thank you' message and hopefully Britt and/or her husband will read it. Alternatively if any of your readers know them maybe they can pass the message on.
Janet and John Kingsmill
Stamford
I have looked at road evidence
Objectors to the Quarry Farm and Stamford North developments believe adding 2000 new houses will cause serious additional traffic congestion. The developers' conclusion that no mitigation will be required to any road junction has been met with disbelief. Aware of this concern I examined the quantitative evidence provided on traffic matters and presented a report to councillors, RCC and SKDC. Both developers use the 2022 LCC Stamford Traffic Model to predict traffic in 2041 including no development vs full development scenarios. The following is based entirely on the developers' predictions from the traffic model and the calculations they have made.
The proposed Link Road passing through both sites, is intended to draw traffic away from Stamford town centre by providing a route to the A1. However, there are important gaps in the information presented on the predicted flows between the Link Road exit onto Casterton Road and the streets traffic will use to reach the A1 (Arran Road, Sidney Farm Lane). Why is this information excluded? A particularly strange result for Sidney Farm Lane, which meets the A1 south bound on-slip / off-slip, predicts in 2041 less morning peak traffic with full development than with no development at all. This defies logic especially as the developers state "signage will be provided to direct drivers along Sidney Farm Lane for journeys to the A1 with the aim of minimising flow increases along Arran Road". Some road junction capacity calculations are very strange indeed. For Sidney Farm Lane joining the A1 slip road (morning peak hour) and traffic leaving the A1 to join the A606 (afternoon peak hour), they predict that in 2041 all stages of development (including full), will have the same impact on the junction as no development at all! These and other results are used to justify saying no mitigation is required to the A1 junctions.
Evidence suggests the Link Road will be less effective than intended in directing traffic away from the town centre. In the morning and afternoon peak hours in 2041 traffic between Little Casterton Road and North Street is predicted to be more than double with full development vs no development. This suggests a significant number of vehicles will leave and enter the developments via Little Casterton Road, rather than journeying to and from A1. The developers dismiss this awkward result as an anomaly. Another concern is traffic near the Town Bridge. It is hard to believe the predicted traffic flows tabulated for St. Mary's Street, St. Mary's Hill and Wharf Road, as predictions for adjacent streets differ in irrational ways and this is ignored.
Evidence based decision making is required for developments but this depends on comprehensive evidence presented in an open way without omissions. My full report is on the planning websites (see SKDC Planning Application S23/0055 document 'DEAG J REDACTED', 11 June 2024). It has been presented to the LCC but they have chosen not to engage on the matter. So often we see officials and politicians defending the indefensible in a vain attempt to protect an organization's reputation, rather than accepting there is a problem to address. I call on everyone involved to objectively investigate the anomalies revealed. Traffic from these developments will affect all of us who live in Stamford, not just those living close by.
Dr John M. Deag
Clapton Close, Stamford
Our town needs some nice shops
Spalding Town is in need of nice shops. If you want something a little bit special, you have to go out of town or to another town - we need some middle of the road type retailers.The last thing we need is a food bank in the middle of a retail area. The place is full of charity shops. Yes it will create footfall but if the people need free food they will not have money to spend in the few shops we have. There are times when ordinary hard working people need to be thought of - and as they are the ones spending mone,y it would be nice to have a good town to spend it in.The Lighthouse already has a hub not far from the council offices and a charity shop in the Sheep Market. How on earth can a church afford such premises, when a business can''t?
Gloria Le Rendu
via email
Debate over solar energy
We have a new housing estate at Manthorpe, Grantham about to be built (July 19 edition).
I wish to propose all the new houses have southward facing roofs to enable solar panels to be fitted.
I have a detached house with 16 southeast facing solar panels which in the years 2021-2023, on average produced £1670 per year (British Gas).
I have a friend who has a semi-detached house which faces due south with 14 panels which have produced on average £740 per year (E-on).
My neighbours have solar panels fitted by their energy supplier who own the panels but share the revenue with the house owner.
Regarding the new housing estate of 480 houses, I wish to propose that all these have southward facing roofs which could be fitted with solar panels at the time of building.
I am sure a major energy supplier would be able to fit them when the builder has the scaffolding on the house.
When the builder comes to sell the houses, the house buyer could then have the option of either buying the solar panels from the energy supplier or as my neighbours do, having a share of the solar energy revenues.
Thus, the builder would be able to sell the houses at his normal price, but the house buyer would have the added feature of the monies from the solar panels.
Hopefully this idea could be spread nationally thus saving acres of farmland which is currently being taken up with solar panel farms.
Mike Jackson
Kenilworth Road, Grantham
This week’s edition reports that planning permission for a solar farm on a 41 acre site at Welby was refused.
If granted - according to your article - it would have powered 9,000 homes.
The objections - led by courncillor Penny Milne - were that land would be better used for agriculture. 41 acres of land produces approximately 160 tons of corn a year with an average value of £150. A total value of £24,000. It costs about £800 to power one house so the total bill for 9000 is £7.2million.
To generate sufficient power for that number of house one would need to produce 0.83 MW a house.
If the fuel is oil then thousands of gallons are burn continuing to add to the problem of global warming
Should we really have people like Penny Milne making decisions on these matters ?
Philip Rann
Grantham
Crossings on A1 should be shut
I agree the crossings on the A1 should be closed. It's not worth drivers playing "chicken" with the traffic. The A1 is a very important north/south route and our main routes are the lifeblood of the economy.
I used to drive from Margate to Grantham, before I moved up to Lincolnshire.
What struck me about the A1 north of Peterborough was how inconsistent it was. After coming off the motorway standard A1M, the road downgraded to a two lane unlit road. Suddenly at Colsterworth it widened up with good lighting but after that it is downgraded to the old standard road. The whole A1 needs sorting. What price someone's life or physical integrity?
The A299 Thanet Way from the M2 to St Nicholas at Wade used to be a three carriageway road with a series of roundabouts. It was systematically dualled by the late 1990's and was motorway standard. The side road crossings were eliminated. There were footbridges for local non- motor traffic but it wasn't a hardship to do a prolonged left turn/double back. It was much safer.
While I'm at it, I hope the road markings on the new roundabout on the A52/Eastern bypass at Somerby Hill, Grantham will be user friendly, and not like the nightmare A16/A17 Sutterton roundabout, where once I had a near miss. Another article online was about difficulties at roadworks at the Springfield roundabout, Spalding, so dodgem cars is a Lincolnshire speciality.
Myrtle Walter
Grantham
Roadworks will mean months of misery
Are local motorists aware of LCC’s plans to start road works on Dysart Road on July 29 for at least five months. ie until the end of December, thus affecting the busy Christmas shopping period.
Why does this latest major roadworks have to start before the current roadworks are completed in Grantham’s Market Place, which we have been told won’t be finished until August 19 at the earliest? Surely it would cause less road chaos if the Market Place is fully operational before Dysart Road is closed. Would it be possible for the work in Dysart Road to be delayed until the Market Place is completed in order to maintain some reasonable traffic flow in these areas?
I believe LCC and Richard Davies are also planning to commence roadworks at the Wharf Road/Harlaxton Road five-leg junction in November, which will then clash with the Dysart Road closure. That will really cause total chaos in the area with hundreds of motorists forced to travel on already busy alternative routes.
I believe in the old adage that “timing is everything”, but obviously not for LCC who don’t seem to care that Grantham residents and visitors are tired of so many long-term road works in the town, including Barrowby Road. It’s bad enough having one busy area closed in the Market Place, but to close the extremely busy Dysart Road at the same time is sheer madness. Heaven help all local motorists if part two of the Westgate/Wharf Road road works starts before Dysart Road is fully open again. That would be yet another nail in the coffin for local businesses who are already suffering from reduced numbers of customers caused by so many roadworks.
One Market Place business has closed completely since work began in May and I believe another is currently trying to sell their business. So I hope Richard Davies thinks twice before proclaiming that this very expensive and unnecessary refurbishment is a major success as it has certainly not been so for businesses in the Market Place.
I also hope he can delay the Dysart Road work until the Market Place is fully open again. But miracles rarely happen in Grantham!
Lynda North
Grantham
Don’t forget, you can always get in touch by emailing news@lincsonline.co.uk
