Sleaford Market Place plans deferred again

During a three-hour debate on Tuesday night, councillors acknowledged that North Kesteven District Council’s £1 million proposal addressed several initial concerns, such as the materials used, seating, and war memorial protection.

However, they raised issues with fair access for disabled people, the loss of a toilet and office block for traders, and whether market businesses’ concerns had been fully addressed.

Councillors eventually primarily focused on inadequate disabled parking provisions in the amended plans, including spaces at Money’s Yard, Church Lane, and outside the library, questioning their suitability and proximity.

Conservative Councillor Ian Carrington, although not proposing the deferral, worded it: “We defer to consider whether fair access to people with disabilities to the marketplace could be better achieved by locating disabled parking spaces permanently on the marketplace.”

NKDC’s vision is to transform car parks into a public space with paving, lighting, and extra seating.

The revised plans included disabled parking outside the library (subject to a traffic order from the county council), Church Lane, and Money’s Yard but excluded Market Place to maintain its historic integrity. They also offered more detail on the suitability of the replacement sandstone sets and resin-bound gravel surfacing.

Officers had argued that adding three permanent disabled spaces would conflict with the ambition to create an open space where pedestrians would be walking.

Planning officer Mark Willietts noted that current parking spaces in the market were unregulated and not dedicated for disabilities.

“Looking holistically at the town centre, the applicant’s proposals bring additional (disabled) spaces to the town centre,” he said.

Businessess and St Denys’ Church will have regulated access for deliveries, weddings and Sunday services. New seating arrangements and repainting the war memorial’s black bollards are also proposed.

The market hut, including the traders’ toilet, will be removed, with alternative facilities nearby.

Despite drawbacks like reduced general parking and business impact, officers believed the benefits outweighed these issues.

The plans, with 204 objections and two petitions totalling 1,125 signatures, mainly faced criticism for inadequate disabled parking and access.

Local business owner Ken Hanslip said that the tweaks had not fully addressed concerns, noting difficulties for disabled people navigating between Market Place and elsewhere in the town.

He warned that the removal of the market toilet could impact traders and that other car parks were not suitable for disabled motorists seeking to reach the Market Place.

“[Concerns] have been tweaked… but not addressed,” he said. “Disability is a way of life… other car parks are simply no use to disabled motorists.”

He suggested that disabled people would not use car parks further away, instead opting to use some of the benefits provided by blue badges to park closer where they might “clog up the town”.

He urged the council to collaborate on more suitable plans, warning of creating a “cultural desert.”

Several objectors noted the recent success of the Christmas market and Remembrance Day parades and felt they would struggle to be held.

Sleaford Town Councillor Alison Snookes and ward member David Suiter echoed public concerns.

Councillor Snookes said: “The revised plans do little to appease the concerns of both stakeholders and members of the public.”

She questioned the level of objection: “Surely these figures speak volumes — where is the democracy or the voice of the people?”

She questioned the district council’s ability to say it would remove, retain or repaint the memorial bollards, as they were property of the Town Council.

Ward member David Suiter added: “Sleaford clearly says no. Only around 11 people support it, and 1,000 say no they don’t want it.

“They should be listened to. The market is a place for business, it has been for a thousand years at least.”

“Say no to this and think again, talk to the businesses, talk to the people of Sleaford and go forward,” he said.

Darren Turner, representing the council, argued that removing parking would benefit conservation and the public realm, and improve seating options and locations.

“It is considered that this range of seating options and locations is a vast improvement over the current situation,” he added.

Following the meeting, residents were disappointed by the lack of a decision.

Disability campaigner Anthony Henson doubted the council’s alignment with equality legislation and felt campaigners would need to take further action.

“In some ways I’d have liked it to have been approved because then we’d have a fixed target, somewhere to aim, but now we’re still in a wobbly place where we have to continue thinking about planning objections.

Mr. Hanslip was also disappointed, saying: “Either positive or negative, that would have mapped where we go forward.”

He agreed the reason for deferral was important adding: “We’ve got many reasons but disabled access is a primary reason it’s something close to all of our hearts and I just hope that they can come to an informed decision.”