Local Strategies and Initiatives

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5414

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Planning & Design Practice Ltd.

Agent: Planning & Design Practice Ltd.

Representation:

The release of major housing sites in the green belt on the north side of the district is not in accordance with the findings of the Council's Growth Strategy and Action Plan

Full text:

The release of major housing sites in the green belt on the north side of the district is not in accordance with the findings of the Council's Growth Strategy and Action Plan

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6283

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Simon Dixon

Representation:

One of the aims stated in the plan is for a "safer healthier more active community" surely depriving a community of undeveloped green spaces is totally at odds with this goal.

Full text:

4.65
P55-56
I strongly object to the building of new houses on greenbelt land around Dronfield. This land was deliberately set aside to ensure that Dronfield remains a town in its own right and is not swallowed up into the suburbs of either Sheffield or Chesterfield, eventually resulting in the merging of the two larger conurbations. Residents of Dronfield do not want to live in Shefterfield!


SP1
P128-129
We are surrounded by some of the most beautiful countryside in Britain and it is incredibly important to protect our environment and not allow it to be slowly eaten away. I do not believe that any evidence of "exceptional circumstances" which would allow building of housing on greenbelt land has been demonstrated. In the words of your own plan "The District has a low jobs density". Can an already stretched local economy and infrastructure with reduced investment due to government cuts realistically support a larger population?

1.21
P6
One of the aims stated in the plan is for a "safer healthier more active community" surely depriving a community of undeveloped green spaces is totally at odds with this goal.

3.5
P20
The plan also suggests that allowing the proposed plan will give Dronfield "Defensible boundaries against further development", this is an extremely weak argument, as the plan is proposing to scrap current boundaries and build on supposedly protected greenbelt land, this will set a president and make it more likely that future developments can simply redraw boundaries at will.

I also object to the extension of the industrial estate on Callywhite Lane. This will mean an increase in large commercial traffic through our towns (and we can't cope with the wear and tear to the roads now) and also an increase in pollution. The high tech industry that the plan says it wishes to attract will require far better access to transport links than Dronfield can offer.

As a draft, I feel this local plan is totally misguided.