Hotel proposals: Customer loyalty confirms quality
MAY I reply to the letter last week from Mr R Cleaver?
May I thank Mr Cleaver for putting the other point of view?
Mr Cleaver suggests that the business I own is the "poor relation of many of its competitors".
The thousands of regular customers who at present use the hotel are aware of the benefits and service we offer at the hotel and the many letters in the Mercury confirm this view.
My customers are aware of the little "local difficulty" that I am presently experiencing, a factor which confirms loyalty.
I also humbly suggest that Mr Cleaver might like to study more than 100 letters received in the last 12 months of congratulations and thanks on the service and quality provided by the excellent staff employed at the hotel.
Mr Cleaver may have been misled in the knowledge that Burghley Estates "for being one of the few prepared to invest in the future of our town during the depths of an economic recession."
I refer to the announcement of this proposal in the Mercury and a quote from Mr J Fitch, a spokesman of Burghley Estates, in which he said: "If the planning application is approved Burghley will invite national hotel chains and entrepreneurs to bid for the project".
This is confirmed in the minutes of Burghley House Preservation Trust: "Neither the Trust or its trading subsidiary would wish to be involved in a hotel trading operation like this".
I have at all times in this very public quarrel with Burghley House Preservation Trust sought to settle this difficult situation by negotiation in an amicable and private way, not as it seems through the columns of this newspaper; perhaps this may still happen.
In spite of the difficulties I find myself in there have been considerable sums of money invested in the hotel, in excess of 120,000 in the past three years.
Hopefully subject to the democratic process as soon as this application is rejected on the many grounds that are relevant in the planning laws of this country I, together with the staff, will put into progress our own more modest investment to safeguard the jobs in the hotel and jobs in the many local businesses in our supply chain.
Geoff Hastings
Lady Anne's Hotel,
High Street St Martin's,
Stamford
Following on from my letter last week about the proposed development of the Lady Anne's Hotel in Stamford I would like to make these points.
We in the local neighbour-hood do not want a development of this size.
The proposals double the number of bedrooms to 50 and significantly increase the dining (150 seated) and conference facilities (up to 200 persons) in an area which was not originally intended for a hotel of the proposed size with the commensurate increase in noise, movement and traffic for the locality.
However, this is a wider issue with implications for the town as a whole. Does Stamford really want/need a development of this size?
Aesthetics: The modern design of the proposed extensions are out of keeping with the existing listed buildings in a heritage setting in a conservation town and will be clearly visible at a key entry point to the town which is highly regarded historically.
Traffic congestion and safety implications: There is considerable concern about the amount of extra traffic which will be generated in the already congested area of St Martin's which is regularly backed up at peak times and about which there are already safety concerns following recent accidents.
Lack of adequate parking provision: With Stamford High School and two hotels (Lady Anne's and Garden House) in close proximity plus residential parking, visitors to the town notwithstanding, parking is already at a premium in the area.
The loss of spaces (currently stated as 115 reduced to the proposed 75 to make way for the new development) combined with the additional traffic generated and demand for spaces, will only exacerbate the situation and add to the problems of traffic congestion and traffic flow in the area.
The plans can be found on the South Kesteven planning department website and the case summary and recommendation for approval can be found under the proposed agenda for the development committee of June 2 should anyone wish to view them.
I would also like to add a postscript in response to R Cleaver's letter in last week's Mercury. I do not think that any of us object to investment in the Lady Anne's Hotel per se.
It is the size, scale and appropriateness of any such investment which concerns us; hence our objections to the current proposals.
Deborah Hewson
Burghley Lane,
Stamford
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Stamford
Thursday 24 May 2012
Today
Sunny spells
Temperature: 12 C to 24 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 22 mph
Wind direction: East
