North East Derbyshire's Local Plan

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4830

Received: 18/03/2017

Respondent: mr peter hopkinson

Representation:

New housing will put further pressure on an already overloaded infrastructure

Full text:

New housing will put further pressure on an already overloaded infrastructure

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4834

Received: 19/03/2017

Respondent: Mr Martin Briggs-Willis

Representation:

This proposal goes against everything the electorate expects. Replacing open green space and precious natural landscape with buildings that will result in increased pollution and pressure on local services. The council needs to protect our green natural space and represent the local residents and electorate's wishes.

Full text:

The green space around Coal Aston makes the area a green and natural environment to live in. Green space is increasingly precious. The negative impact the proposed development of building housing on this green belt land is an absolute disgrace. The council is meant to represent the needs and requirements of the local people that live in the area. There is absolutely nothing in these plans that benefits the residents. As well as the irreversible harm it will have on the environment, the scale of the plans will have a significant impact on the services and infrastructure of Coal Aston and Dronfield. The proposed increase in housing will replace open green space with significantly more vehicles and the resulting pollution.This is the opposite of what is expected by the electorate.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4923

Received: 22/03/2017

Respondent: Nottinghamshire County Council

Representation:

No comment

Full text:

Thank you for your email of 24th February 2017 regarding the above consultation. I have consulted with my colleagues across relevant divisions of the County Council and have no comments to make. At this stage of the process.
Please keep Nottinghamshire County Council informed with regard to the next stage of the consultation process.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4987

Received: 27/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Lynne Scott

Representation:

I object to the release of Green Belt land in the North of the district on the basis that this is where there is most demand. As Brownfield land is available in other parts of the district this should be used first for the construction of the Affordable and Social Housing that is most needed instead of Executive style houses which will fetch the highest prices for developers. This is in accordance with Government policy and will preserve Green Land for future generations.

Full text:

I object to the release of Green Belt land in the North of the district on the basis that this is where there is most demand. As Brownfield land is available in other parts of the district this should be used first for the construction of the Affordable and Social Housing that is most needed instead of Executive style houses which will fetch the highest prices for developers. This is in accordance with Government policy and will preserve Green Land for future generations.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5054

Received: 29/03/2017

Respondent: Killamarsh Labour Party

Representation:

Killamarsh Labour Party has adopted the view that new housing is vital for Killamarsh, and the Local Plan is therefore welcomed, but there is some concern about the erosion of the Green Belt. The biggest concern, however, is about the importance of addressing infrastructure requirements at the planning stage, placing a responsibility on developers to ensure that infrastructure needs are adequately met, and often before building is underway. Furthermore, any development should seek to minimize damage to the local ecology by relocating wildlife within the local area.

Full text:

Killamarsh Labour Party has adopted the view that new housing is vital for Killamarsh, and the Local Plan is therefore welcomed, but there is some concern about the erosion of the Green Belt. The biggest concern, however, is about the importance of addressing infrastructure requirements at the planning stage, placing a responsibility on developers to ensure that infrastructure needs are adequately met, and often before building is underway. Furthermore, any development should seek to minimize damage to the local ecology by relocating wildlife within the local area.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5251

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Goodwin

Representation:

The map currently used by the planning department, does not correctly define the
boundaries of Dronfield, it does not mention or show the land to the south of Dronfield
between Dronfield and Unstone. There is a large piece of Brownfield site, currently housing
the old petrol station, some industrial units and derelict houses, which could be utilised for
housing. This implies that there are other brownfield sites that have been missed/deliberately
removed from the map in order to justify the exceptional circumstances to remove Green Belt

Full text:

The map currently used by the planning department, does not correctly define the
boundaries of Dronfield, it does not mention or show the land to the south of Dronfield
between Dronfield and Unstone. There is a large piece of Brownfield site, currently housing
the old petrol station, some industrial units and derelict houses, which could be utilised for
housing. This implies that there are other brownfield sites that have been missed/deliberately
removed from the map in order to justify the exceptional circumstances to remove Green Belt

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5506

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Representation:

See attachment for more.

Full text:

Dronfield Civic Society

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5525

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Mr James Clayton

Representation:

The proposals to build on Greenbelt land are disgraceful anywhere in the county when many Brown filed sites are available. Brown field sites in some run down areas would lift the whole appearance and desirability of the area. Nobody wants the green spaces ruined. The large building companies have a mass of land banks with planning permission, but control the amount of houses built to keep house prices at a prime. Are you seriously going to put the profits of these large companies before the people who have elected you.

Full text:

The proposals to build on Greenbelt land are disgraceful anywhere in the county when many Brown filed sites are available. Brown field sites in some run down areas would lift the whole appearance and desirability of the area. Nobody wants the green spaces ruined. The large building companies have a mass of land banks with planning permission, but control the amount of houses built to keep house prices at a prime. Are you seriously going to put the profits of these large companies before the people who have elected you.

-

I am writing with objections to the Councils proposals to release land in Dronfield and Coal Aston from the Greenbelt. In the NEDDC magazine you talk about protecting the Parish boundaries in the South of the district. Why can't we in the North of the district have our Parish boundaries protecting, shouldn't we have the same rights across the county. We in the north border the fifth largest city in the country making out green spaces separating us from Sheffield far more important than those in the South which is made up of far smaller towns and villages which are much further away from the urban sprawl of the city. In the magazine you also talk about the North of the county taking its fair share of housing. Dronfield must be the largest town outside Chesterfield. In the last 10 years alone there has been hundreds of new housing built with the Gosforth estate, the new estate off Stonelow Rd and with many more plots for smaller number of homes or individual plots. I think Dronfield/Coal Aston has already taken its share of houses. The schools couldn't cope with the numbers of extra children the houses would bring. Henry Fanshawe site has no room for extra expansion as every part of the school site is taken. The doctors couldn't cope with the sheer number of people the developments would bring. The extra traffic would bring congestion and pollution, trying to get parked up in many areas of Dronfield like the Post Office or Civic centre are a nightmare at the best of times.

The Eckington Rd proposal is outrageous, it would destroy the village of Coal Aston. Coal Aston still has a village feel even though it's been swallowed up by Dronfield, it' now impossible to see where the boundary is. The road isn't wide enough to take the extra traffic, all heading towards a mini roundabout on a road that is heavily parked up on one side. Heading out of Coal Aston the estate entrance would be on a blind bend. The field is also heavily mined by the coal workings of the past. The Coal Aston site is a conservation area with woods at the bottom been a site of Special scientific interest. Who would even consider allowing land to be released from Greenbelt, let alone Greenbelt land from a conservation area and a site of special scientific interest. Studies show that the removal of greenspaces have a devastating effect on peoples mental health. The 180 houses will just be the start of hundreds more houses as all the land on Eckington Rd will be released from Greenbelt. Driving into Coal Aston will look like a Sheffield Township not a Derbyshire village.

No Greenbelt sites across the county should even be considered until all brownfield sites have been built on first. These building companies aren't interested in these sites as they look to maximise profits. Are you going to put profits of the building companies before the wishes of the people. Everyone you talk too are against these proposals.

Let me remind you that you have been elected by the people to represent them, so rejecting these outrageous plans should be a very straight forward decision.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5612

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: mr daniel hockey

Representation:

I object to the use of greenbelt land in the dronfield area - I do not believe that there are "exceptional circumstances" that require use of this land. Greenbelt land should not be used unless all possibilities for using brownfield sites have been exhausted, and I do not see any evidence that this is the case.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the district council has the right to drop any of the 5 purposes of the greenbelt at its own discretion.

Full text:

I object to the use of greenbelt land in the dronfield area - I do not believe that there are "exceptional circumstances" that require use of this land. Greenbelt land should not be used unless all possibilities for using brownfield sites have been exhausted, and I do not see any evidence that this is the case.

Furthermore, I do not believe that the district council has the right to drop any of the 5 purposes of the greenbelt at its own discretion.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5628

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr John Fletcher

Representation:

I object to several points contained in the local plan which are shown in the attached document.

John Fletcher

Full text:

I object to several points contained in the local plan which are shown in the attached document.

John Fletcher

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5637

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: mr John Walker

Representation:

I fully support the plans for new housing and increased commercial facilities at Callywhite Lane.

The arguments against are the same as those used in the 1970's and are now made by people living on what was then Green Belt.

The UK population will continue to grow and a roof over our head is more important than grass under our feet.

Full text:

I fully support the plans for new housing and increased commercial facilities at Callywhite Lane.

The arguments against are the same as those used in the 1970's and are now made by people living on what was then Green Belt.

The UK population will continue to grow and a roof over our head is more important than grass under our feet.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5945

Received: 20/04/2017

Respondent: National Grid

Agent: AMEC Environment & Infrastructure UK Limited (Leamington Spa office)

Representation:

National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation.

National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks.

Full text:

National Grid has appointed Amec Foster Wheeler to review and respond to development plan consultations on its behalf.
We have reviewed the above consultation document and can confirm that National Grid has no comments to make in response to this consultation.
Further Advice
National Grid is happy to provide advice and guidance to the Council concerning our networks. If we can be of any assistance to you in providing informal comments in confidence during your policy development, please do not hesitate to contact us.
To help ensure the continued safe operation of existing sites and equipment and to facilitate future infrastructure investment, National Grid wishes to be involved in the preparation, alteration and review of plans and strategies which may affect our assets. Please remember to consult National Grid on any Development Plan Document (DPD) or site-specific proposals that could affect our infrastructure. We would be grateful if you could add our details to your consultation database.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6404

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Paul Stock

Representation:

The National Planning Policy context has evolved greatly since the adoption of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan. The North East Derbyshire Development Plan must now be in compliance with the policies of the NPPF to be considered sound at Examination. Should policies in the North East Derbyshire Development Plan be in conflict with the Framework then a presumption in favour sustainable development will apply when considering site allocations and applications for planning permission. The Council must ensure that both the emerging Development Plan documents are consistent with national policy.

Full text:

Response and Representations to the Consultation Draft Local Plan (2011-33) for North East Derbyshire District Council

INTRODUCTION
1. The National Planning Policy context has evolved greatly since the adoption of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan. The North East Derbyshire Development Plan must now be found to be in compliance with the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to be considered sound at Examination. Should policies in the North East Derbyshire Development Plan be found to be in conflict with the Framework then a presumption in favour sustainable development will apply when considering site allocations and applications for planning permission. The Council must ensure that both the emerging Development Plan documents are consistent with national policy.

CONSULTATION DRAFT LOCAL PLAN
2. This section deals with our responses to the consultation draft Local Plan for North East Derbyshire and sets out our detailed representations on specific local plan policies and proposed allocations.

Policy SS2 - Scale of Development.
3. The consultation draft Local Plan confirms the Council's view that the Plan should provide for a local housing target of 6,600 dwellings between 2011 and 2033 (300dpa).
4. We believe that the decision taken by the Council not to review the housing requirement has been made without sufficient regard to the requirements and guidance provided by national policy and practice guidance as cited above. It is not reasonable to conclude that housing needs are no higher than adopted by referencing household projections alone. The Council must also consider wider issues such as market signals, affordable and economic needs. The Gallagher Judgement highlights the importance of undertaking the exercise of undertaking a full assessment of housing needs, outlining that the balancing exercise cannot be performed without being informed by the actual full housing need.
5. The importance of ensuring housing needs data that informs the housing requirement is kept up-to-date is demonstrated by the examination of the Harrogate Allocations DPD. Following the hearings the Inspector wrote to the Council and outlined that the lack of an assessment of how up-to-date housing needs could be met within the Borough meant that it was not possible to determine whether the footnote 9 of S14 of the Framework had been met. The Plan was ultimately withdrawn.
6. The balancing of housing and employment strategies is critical in securing economic development and sustainable growth. Delivering an insufficient level of housing in an Authority in support of identified economic needs may lead to an increase in unsustainable commuting patterns or stifle growth prospects due to the lack of a sufficient local labour resource. The balancing of the supply of housing in consideration of economic needs is clearly set out as a key consideration in Plan making by S21 and S158 of the Framework.
7. We consider it is also material that the Council has thus far failed to deliver the planned requirement. This would suggest that North East Derbyshire as an authority is a persistent under deliverer and therefore should apply a 20% buffer to the five year housing requirement (as required by S49 of the Framework).
8. In context of the above findings it is clear the Council must undertake a thorough review with the aim of accommodating identified up-to-date housing needs in order to secure the full delivery of the Plan.

Policy SS9 - Green Belt.
9. In response to and for the reasons set out in our previous representations to the Draft Local Plan (Part 1) we welcome and fully support the fact that the Council has now undertaken a review of the Green Belt in the District since the last iteration of the Local Plan. In this regard we endorse the Council's thinking on this matter as set out in paragraphs 4.63 to 4.66 in the consultation draft Local Plan.

Appendix B: Areas to be Removed from Green Belt - Renishaw.
10. We fully support the proposal by the Council to remove the land hatched in green from the Green Belt as shown on the Renishaw Green Belt Plan, a copy of which is set out below:
11. The National Planning Policy Framework is clear in S85 that with regards to the Green Belt local authorities should:
a. Ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development;
b. Not include land which is unnecessary to keep permanently open;
c. Define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent.
12. We believe the proposal by the consultation draft Local Plan to release land from the Green Belt and allocate it for housing development helps in removing a serious question on the ability of the Local Plan to provide the increased need for new housing especially in places where it is most needed in market terms such as Renishaw. In the absence of such a new policy it would have brought into doubt the soundness of the Plan when examined.
13. We contend the release of the land described as to the north east of Hague Lane, Renishaw from the Green Belt is consistent with the Framework. The proposed site is already enclosed on three sides by existing development.
14. The proposed site does not play a role in preventing coalescence. The site is bounded by clear, defensible features preventing coalescence and urban sprawl.
15. The proposed site represents a release of Green Belt land that is entirely consistent with S85 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policy SS3: Spatial Strategy & the Distribution of Development.
16. We fully support the proposal set out in the Table 4.2 accompanying Policy SS3 (Housing Provision 2011-2033) to allocate 270 dwellings at Renishaw which is classified as a Level 2 Settlement (Large Village).

Policy LC1: Housing Allocations.
17. We support the proposal set out under Renishaw (ai) in the Table accompanying Policy LC1 to allocate at least 270 dwellings on land described as to the north east of Hague Lane.
18. We consider the site represents a logical and appropriate location for development. The site adjoins to the south of the existing settlement boundary of Renishaw and is contained and enclosed on three sides by existing residential development.
19. Given Renishaw is a third tier large village in the settlement hierarchy we believe it can easily accommodate the proposed number dwellings due to its sustainability and viability. This is further reinforced when consideration is given to the desperate demand for market and affordable housing in this location.
20. The proposed housing allocation is well located in relation to existing services and facilities in the large settlement of Renishaw. The primary school, local doctor's surgery, food shops, public house and Post office are all located within easy walking distance from the site. The site is directly served by several bus services (No: 71, 73, 74, 131 and 231), providing access to wider services and sources of employment. The site accords with the principles of sustainable development.
21. The development would deliver up to 30% affordable dwellings, promoting policy compliant tenure mix. The site would provide for new formal/informal open space including an equipped child's play area for the enjoyment and use of both existing and prospective residents.
22. The proposed housing allocation is available, deliverable and achievable now. There are no physical constraints in bringing the site forward for development. It is able to contribute to meeting the growth needs of the District now, and able to deliver housing within the next five years. The landowners are committed to delivering a high quality residential scheme on the site. The development will not affect the setting of the village, and the boundaries will be sensitivity planted to soften the urban edge of the development. We believe the site can be sympathetically developed through sensitive master planning that anchors it into the landscape and builds on the existing good accessibility to the facilities at the centre of the settlement.

Policy SS3 - The Avenue.
23. We consider Plan still places an over reliance on the Avenue site to deliver 710 new dwellings during the Plan period. It is known the site has major issues in terms of ground contamination. This is extremely likely to prevent it from being able to deliver any meaningful number of new dwellings particularly in the first 5-years of the Plan period. The site was a major allocation in the previous Local Plan and delivered no new dwellings in that plan period. Given the legacy of extensive contamination and uncertainty over the trajectory of delivery the proposed housing allocation on the Avenue site should be deleted from the consultation draft Local Plan.

Policy SS3 - Biwater.
24. Again we consider the consultation draft Local Plan still places an over reliance on the Biwater site to deliver 560 new dwellings during the Plan period. The site is unlikely to deliver any meaningful number of new dwellings particularly in the first 5-years of the Plan period. The site was a major allocation in the previous Local Plan and delivered a limited number of new dwellings. Due to serious concerns over the trajectory of housing delivery for the Biwater site the proposed figure should be drastically reduced.

CONCLUSIONS
25. In conclusion we fully support:
a. the fact that the Council has now undertaken a review of the Green Belt in the District since the last iteration of the Local Plan.
b. the proposal by the Council to remove the land hatched in green from the Green Belt as shown on the Renishaw Green Belt Plan in the consultation draft Local Plan, a copy of which is set out in this representation.
c. the proposal set out in the Table 4.2 accompanying Policy SS3 (Housing Provision 2011-2033) in the consultation draft Local Plan to allocate 270 dwellings at Renishaw which is classified as a Level 2 Settlement (Large Village).
d. the proposal set out under Renishaw (ai) in the Table accompanying Policy LC1 in the consultation draft Local Plan to allocate at least 270 dwellings on land described as to the north east of Hague Lane and shown in the plan set out in this representation.