Policy SS3 : Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 47

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5072

Received: 30/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helena Gayle Boulton

Representation Summary:

All areas of Green Belt should be retained until all opportunities presented by redeveloping Brownfield sites and delivering innovative, affordable housing has been exhausted.

Full text:

All areas of Green Belt should be retained until all opportunities presented by redeveloping Brownfield sites and delivering innovative, affordable housing has been exhausted.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5212

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Eric Singleton

Representation Summary:

Policy SS3 states that employment growth will be on four strategic sites to the South and East of Chesterfield. It therefore follows that the plan for 860 additional dwellings in Dronfield is environmentally unsustainable. This is inconsistent with objectives 3.9 D8 and D13, and in breach of policy SS1 clauses c and g.

Full text:

Comment Scope As a resident of Unstone, my comments are primarily regarding the plan for the Dronfield area; I have not reviewed sections that deal specifically with other areas.
Overall Summary The plan does not make a case that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of land from the Green Belt around Dronfield. The council concedes it has not considered alternative options in the area. The plan is a developer's charter to maximise profit by building on easy to develop green field sites. It will be especially beneficial to developers who have purchased green belt land at agricultural prices in the expectation that the council would eventually capitulate in the face of their lobbying.

The plan does not cite any evidence of changes in local circumstances to justify the increase from the 285 additional dwellings in the Dronfield settlement in the plan issued for consultation between 12/02/2015 and 26/03/15 and the 860 proposed in this plan. The settlement targets in this plan appear to be a distribution of an overall target based on existing settlement size: that is not planning, it is quota allocation of the crudest form. Whilst the council suggests there is a need for 6,000 additional dwellings in the NE Derbyshire area, developers do not appear to agree. If there was significant unmet demand developments such as the Waterside scheme in Chesterfield would have been nearing completion by now, not still open land.

The council acknowledge the green space, outdoor sports and children's play space in Dronfield falls below current standards, yet proposes to make matters worse by planning to build on a golf course in Dronfield and sports ground in Coal Aston whilst making no commitment to provide further outdoor facilities. This is contrary to one of the requirements of sustainable development: to protect and enhance the environment.

The council acknowledges that there is currently no agreed plan nor any binding commitments or safeguards to ensure improvement of the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the additional demand from the planned 860 additional dwellings in Dronfield. The plan must be as unambiguous in its commitment to implementing infrastructure improvements as it is with respect to the number of dwellings proposed. Anything less than this is a plan to inflict environmental damage and congestion blight on the community.

The plan contains multiple contradictions and inconsistencies and includes statements in breach of the policies contained therein.

The plan contains numerous statements with meaningless verbs e.g. the council will encourage, support (without quantification); seek. The use of this language renders what, at first sight, appears to be council commitments to implement controls and safeguards, completely impotent. The persistent use of this language renders the plan misleading.

Consequently, the plan is unsound.
The whole document The quality of the English and the arguments within the plan fall way below that which should be produced by competent and qualified professionals. In particular, the use of the word 'sustainability' ad-nausea is an example of how the plan is full of bland 'planning speak' with little consideration as to the purpose of the statement or point being made. Significant portions of the plan look suspiciously like a copy and paste of boilerplate text.

The council's planning department should review the plan issued by Chesterfield Borough Council and its own plan issued for consultation two years ago; both are significantly better than the current plan.

1.5 Statement "the Council has produced this document for public consultation"

As a core document for a public consultation it is woefully inappropriate. The text is full of planning jargon; acronyms and references to a significant number of related documents.

For example, section 6 makes repeated references to B1, B2 and B8 usage of employment land. Not until 6 pages into section 6 are these terms defined in policy WC2, below paragraph 6.26. Non-B8 classes (paragraph 6.16) are not elaborated.

At least one referenced document (Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan) is not included on the evidence page on the council's website, nor does a search on its name return a link.

To comment effectively on this document requires critical reading and analytical skills associated with a degree level education.

The FAQ leaflet available at the public consultation is equally challenging to comprehend. Paragraph 2 comprises one 56-word long sentence of 'planning speak' punctuated by one semi-colon and one comma.

Whilst the Local Plan and FAQ leaflet is offered in 5 alternative languages and large print, it is also written without consideration for anyone without higher educational level comprehension skills.

Consequently, the consultation is not an inclusive process. The consultation process is therefore fundamentally flawed.
1.14 Statement "The NPPF states that Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
There is no such thing as the sustainable use of a non-renewable resource, such as the proposed building on land that is currently Green Belt around the Dronfield settlement. The land at Hallowes in Dronfield particularly is currently used for recreational activity; the land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield is actively farmed. These resources are irreplaceable; once lost, neither will ever be recovered.

The NPPF paragraph 7 states there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The latter includes a requirement to minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
The proposal to build 860 more dwellings (an increase in 10%) without a commensurate increase in local employment will drive up commuting, CO2 emissions and pollution; that is not sustainable and is contrary to the above NPPF requirement.
1.16 Duty to Co-operate. The only evidence in the plan of the council discharging this duty is co-operation with Bolsover District Council with respect to the Coalite Regeneration Area (paragraph 4.58). There is no evidence of any co-operation with either Chesterfield or Sheffield Councils. This is a major oversight, particularly with respect to the plan for Dronfield.
2.15 The statement "Just under a quarter of households cannot afford market housing" i.e. just over 75% of households can afford market housing. A recent Shelter report suggests on average 80% of families across England are unable to afford newly built homes in their local area. This statement demonstrates that affordability in North East Derbyshire is dramatically better than the national average.
2.17 Statement "The town centres of Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh are all in need of continued support and investment to build upon their strengths, and to help sustain and regenerate them into the future."
However, the plan contains no commitments on investment. A plan to build 860 additional dwellings in Dronfield without a commitment to invest in the infrastructure will negatively impact the quality of life of existing residents; driving up congestion, pollution and CO2 emissions. This is contrary to the council's stated objective D1 Sustainable Growth; D8 Addressing Climate Change
2.20 The council notes that Dronfield is the only town with a railway station. However, there are no connecting public transport links from the outer reaches of the town. Consequently, train users who live more than a few minutes' walk from the station use their car to reach the station creating a serious problem with on-street parking. A failure to commit to addressing this issue whilst proposing a circa 10% increase in households is contrary to the council's stated objective D12 Sustainable Transport and in breach of policy SS1 clause C.
3.5 Statement "much needed affordable homes". The data provided in paragraph 2.15 indicates affordability is not an issue in NE Derbyshire.
3.5 Statement "and regenerate and renew their [Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh] towns' centres". The plan contains no binding commitments or obligations that will ensure the delivery of this vision.
3.5 Statement "In planning for growth new high quality housing will have successfully integrated itself into these settlements minimising its impact upon the strategic functions of the Green Belt, and creating strong defensible boundaries for the future."
The council will be aware that a developer owns Green Belt land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent that is beyond the proposed development boundaries. Any removal of land from the Green Belt will set a precedent. Strong defensible boundaries will only be established with a clear policy of making no changes to the Green Belt.
3.9 Statement "seeking to narrow the gap between the more deprived areas and the more affluent areas". Why is this an objective of the plan? It smacks of left wing social engineering.
3.9 Objective D7 Settlement Identity
The proposal to remove land from the Green Belt adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent is contradictory to this objective. From significant areas in Apperknowle and Hundall Dronfield and Unstone will appear to merge if this land is developed.
The council's planning policies have historically failed to meet this objective; within this plan Coal Aston is shown as within the Dronfield settlement boundary. The plan does not provide evidence as to how it will meet this objective in the future.
3.9 Objectives D8 Addressing Climate Change, D13 Local Amenity

4.5 Policy SS1, Sustainable Development, clauses c and g

Policy SS3 The plan issued for consultation between 12/02/2015 and 26/03/15 stated there was a need for 285 dwellings in the Dronfield settlement between 2011 and 2031, with a residual requirement for 181 after accounting for those built or planned. This plan now states 860 dwellings are required, but provides no justifiable change in local circumstances (i.e. additional employment in the area).
Policy SS3 states that employment growth will be on four strategic sites to the South and East of Chesterfield. It therefore follows that the plan for 860 additional dwellings in Dronfield is environmentally unsustainable; will increase commuting to Sheffield, Chesterfield, and through Chesterfield to the strategic development sites, resulting in increased congestion, pollution affecting large numbers of North Derbyshire residents and increased CO2 emissions. This is inconsistent with objectives 3.9 D8 and D13, and in breach of policy SS1 clauses c and g.
3.9 Objectives N1 Statement "To ensure the vitality and viability of Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh town centres by supporting improvements compatible with their local employment, retail and service functions". Explain what the council will do to ensure these improvements are implemented. The plan contains no binding commitments or obligations that will ensure the delivery of this objective.
3.9 Objectives N3 Statement "To improve the quality of employment land in the north of the District and address infrastructure deficiencies to allow for the expansion of existing sites, such as at Callywhite Lane, Dronfield". Explain what the council will do to ensure these deficiencies are addressed. The plan contains no binding commitments or obligations that will ensure the delivery of this objective. The deficiencies at Callywhite Lane are decades old; the council has demonstrably failed to address them to date.
4.4 Statement "The Local Plan's vision and objectives are centred on .... supporting the health and wellbeing of the District's communities".
The planned addition of 860 dwellings in Dronfield without major investment in infrastructure (e.g. an additional exit and access to the A61 dual carriageway) will blight Unstone which is centred around the major routes from the south into Dronfield. This is contrary to the stated vision and objectives.
4.5 Policy SS1, Sustainable Development, clause a: "key business sectors" is meaningless; define "key".
4.12 The statement "The Local Plan aims to provide new jobs" is both false and misleading. The most this plan can potentially achieve is to ensure the development of an environment sufficiently appealing to attract additional employment. The additional congestion in the Dronfield area is likely to do the opposite.
4.12 Statement "[The Local Plan] acknowledges the 61% of people who commute out of the District to work".
Consequently, the Local Plan also acknowledges that providing an additional 860 dwellings in Dronfield without a commensurate increase in local employment will increase commuting, congestion and CO2 emissions. This is inconsistent with objective 3.9 D8 and in breach of policy SS1 clause (c).
4.18 The Plan notes that all the larger employment development sites are to the East or South of Chesterfield. On what basis does the Council justify a 200% increase in the planned dwellings for Dronfield since the plan issued for consultation between 12/02/2015 and 26/03/15?
4.21 Statement "The Council's Growth Strategy has the intention of raising job densities (jobs/worker) within the District"
The plan to build 860 homes in Dronfield will significantly reduce the job density within the settlement.
4.26 The statement in paragraph 4.26: "the Local Plan aims to direct new growth to the district's most sustainable settlements based on the Settlement Hierarchy" and repeated in paragraph 7.4 conflates settlement size with 'sustainability'. This plan offers no evidence to demonstrate that enlarging an already large settlement by building on land currently designated as Green Belt is more 'sustainable' than other options. As noted in the response to paragraph 1.14, there is no such thing as a sustainable use of a non-renewable resource, such as the proposed building on land that is currently Green Belt.
4.28 Statement "Level 1 Settlements ... are considered to be the most sustainable locations for new development ... because they generate the greatest needs for new housing, jobs, services and facilities."
This statement is misleading: the size of a community does not necessarily correlate to job volume creation. The plan does not provide evidence that Dronfield will generate the number of jobs commensurate with 860 additional dwellings. The chronic underutilisation of the Callywhite Lane employment area in Dronfield is evidence of the councils' past failure to provide an environment attractive to new businesses.
4.59
4.69
Policy SS3
Policy SS9 As noted in 4.59: "The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence..." and in paragraph 4.62: "National Guidance is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances."
The evidence base referenced in policy SS3 does not fulfil the requirement for "exceptional circumstances" that are necessary to take land out of the Green Belt.
As acknowledged in Policy SS9 "The NPPF tells us that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. LPAs should respect the permanence of the Green Belt."
The proposal to take land out of the Green Belt around Dronfield is in breach of policy SS9 and the exceptional circumstances stated therein.
Policy SS9 does not implement Local Plan Objective D6 as claimed. The proposed removal of land from the Green Belt adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield breaches the permanent nature of the Green Belt, rendering any Green Belt land adjacent to existing settlements at risk to further encroachment. The council will be aware that a developer owns land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent which extends beyond that being proposed for removal from the Green Belt. Once development is permitted on part of this land, the developer will inevitably seek to develop the remaining land in their ownership in the future. The council's policy is encouraging and rewarding developers who speculatively purchase prime Green Belt land, at agricultural land prices, in the expectation that councils will eventually capitulate to pressure to develop these sites.
4.64 Statement "This evidence led the Council to undertake a review of the Green Belt during 2016 and provides the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify alteration of the Green Belt boundaries."
This statement is nonsense. A review does not "provide exceptional circumstances". Exceptional circumstances either exist or they do not. This statement is overt evidence of the council's flawed logic in proposing land be removed from the Green Belt. This plan does not make the case that there are exceptional circumstances.
4.65 The statement "This means that if we wish to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development and provide a sufficient level of development in the North of the District to meet needs, we must accept that this will have an impact on the Green Belt." is further flawed logic. As argued in the comments above, the planned 860 dwellings in Dronfield is unsustainable. There is no inevitability to the loss of Green Belt land. The Local Plan contains no evidence that alternatives have been explored.
4.66 Contrary to the assertion in this paragraph, the land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield does perform a valid Green Belt function. From significant areas in Apperknowle and Hundall Dronfield and Unstone will appear to merge if this land is developed. This land is also currently actively farmed; one of the fields proposed to be removed from the Green Belt has recently been ploughed.
4.73
4.74
4.75
Policy SS11 Statement in 4.73 "the Local Plan seeks to protect settlement identity and avoid further settlement coalescence". Definition of Local Settlement Gap functionality in 4.74.
As noted above, the proposed removal of land from the Green Belt adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield will lead to Dronfield and Unstone appearing to merge. It will also provide a separation of no more than circa 200 metres along the B6057 between Dronfield and Unstone.
The council has patently failed to protect historic settlement identities: Coal Aston is shown as within the Dronfield settlement boundary within the plan; paragraph 4.70 acknowledges loss of settlement separation in the south of the District. The plan is repeating this mistake on the southern boundary of Dronfield.
The council acknowledges in 4.75 that it has been incompetent at preserving settlement gaps. Consequently, policy SS11 is worthless.
Given the council's inability to maintain settlement gaps, the land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent must remain in the Green Belt to protect the settlement gap between Dronfield and Unstone.
4.78 Statement "Outside Settlement Development Limits, countryside and/or Green Belt policies apply and all proposals for development will be considered against these requirements set out [sic] in Policies SS14".
Taking land out of the Green Belt outside the current Dronfield settlement limit is the exact opposite of this statement.
4.79 The plan states "Further land outside Settlement Development Limits is therefore not required to meet this [housing provision] need." Consequently, there is no need to take land out of the Green Belt around Dronfield.
4.80 Statement "The Settlement Development Limits identified on the Policies Map have been carried forward from the 2005 Adopted Local Plan. However, this only applies to settlements that fall within categories 1, 2 and 3 as set out in table 4.1." Dronfield falls into category 1. Consequently, the plan states the council does not intend to change the settlement development limit of Dronfield. Therefore, on what basis does the council justify the proposal to take land out of the Green Belt?
5.6 The council's figures show that windfall developments between 2011 and 2016 account for 5% of the proposed needs, but windfalls have not been factored into the plan. The council also states minor sites have not been relied upon nor have "major sites with planning permission which do not accord with the spatial strategy." This latter statement is clearly a reference to sites such as Callywhite Lane in Dronfield where there is little prospect of attracting new businesses and land has remained undeveloped for 10 years or more despite developers submitting planning applications for housing.
The NPPF states that ""Very special circumstances" will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations." Contrary to this guidance, the council has opted to target Green Belt land for development without a rigorous assessment of other contributions to meeting its targets.
5.7 The plan states "There are also a number of sites across the District that have planning permission where there are deliverability concerns and / or a history of unimplemented permissions." The council offer no evidence of actions to understand and resolve the issues leading to this situation, further evidence of inadequate consideration of other options before targeting Green Belt land.
5.8 There is no sound evidence offered for only considering sites capable of accommodating 10 or more dwellings. This indicates the council has been unable or unwilling to fully assess all options before proposing to take land out of the Green Belt.
5.65 Statement "Many households in North East Derbyshire who lack their own housing or live in unsuitable housing cannot afford to buy or rent housing at market rates." is ambiguous without defining "many". It is misleading and, by any reasonable interpretation, contrary to paragraph 2.15 where the council states that just over 75% of households can afford market housing.
Policy LC3 As the council notes, the NPPF states the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate apart from a small number of specific exceptions. The scale of development proposed is way beyond that covered by the "limited infilling in villages" exceptional condition in the NPPF. The proposal to develop Green Belt land around Dronfield does not meet the remaining exceptions and is therefore in breach of the NPPF.
5.85 The statements "The Council will seek to ensure that the housing needs of older people and people with disabilities are met" and "It will encourage developers and other agencies to provide dwellings which will enable more people to remain in their homes" are meaningless.
State exactly how the council will ensure this housing need will be met.

It is notable that Rykneld Homes are building four family-sized market value homes on the former Manor Farm site in Dronfield. The site is in close proximity to shops, a medical centre and public transport links. As such, the site is an ideal location for housing for older people, people with disabilities, or affordable housing; yet the council, through its partner Rykneld Homes, chooses to build larger market value properties. Council leader Graham Baxter has said of this scheme: "The key strategic approach to this project is to create a high quality scheme of housing for open market sale, to provide a significant financial surplus". When presented with an excellent opportunity to provide housing for older people or those with disabilities, the council chooses instead to maximise its income from the site. This is indicative of what can be expected to happen if development is permitted on land which is currently Green Belt.
5.86 Statement "The SHMA indicates that there is a particular shortage of market housing and intermediate housing which is suitable for older people". The council is responsible for contributing to this situation. The council has permitted a significant number of bungalows adjacent to Frith Wood and in other areas of Dronfield to be converted to two storey dwellings; more recently bungalows have been demolished to be replaced by family houses (e.g. Carr lane near Stubley Lane). The plan should incorporate an unambiguous commitment by the council to mandate developers to provide a specified proportion of dwellings suitable for older people of the types listed.
5.86 Statement "Access to high speed broadband will allow access to emerging online healthcare initiatives". State what the council proposes to do to ensure this access is provided. If the council do not intend to implement measures to ensure this access, the statement is irrelevant.
5.87 The statement "the Council encourages all new dwellings to be made accessible and adaptable." is a further example of the meaningless statements peppering this plan. I suspect the council meant to say it will encourage developers; it is impossible to encourage a dwelling to do anything.
Policy LC4 Statements "The Council will support the provision of housing for older people" and "The Council will also support the provision of specialist housing"
Quantify what the council means by "support". In the context used support means "give assistance to", requiring a commitment of resources; outside the voluntary sector resources cost money. Define the budget the council intends to set aside for this support and the governance that will determine how funds are accessed and best value is ensured.
Statement "development proposals of 10 or more dwellings should provide 20% accessible and adaptable dwellings". "Should" means this is an optional requirement and therefore not to be relied upon. This statement is of no value unless "should" is replaced with "shall".
To summarise; within policy LC4 the council has not made any quantifiable commitment to ensure the housing needs of older people or those with special needs will be met.
6.2 & 6.8,
Policy WC2 Statement "Existing employment sites will be protected for employment uses". There is no point in protecting land which has remained unused for extended periods and where there is little or no prospect of it being used for employment. The old Padley and Venables site on Callywhite Lane in Dronfield has not been used for employment purposes for at least 10 years and has been the subject of a planning application for housing development. The council acknowledges the challenges of this site in paragraph 6.8 and notes the need for significant investment.
Within the evidence base for policy WC2 the council acknowledges that the NPPF states planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. It also notes public feedback that "considerations should be made over whether a site should be protected where it is clear that employment uses cannot / will not come forward."
The plan currently states the council's intention to continue protecting Callywhite Lane for employment use but does not include a commitment to the investment it acknowledges is necessary to resolve the issues causing the chronic underutilisation of the site. This is in breach of the NPPF guidance quoted in policy WC2 and completely disregards the public feedback acknowledged in this policy.
The council should therefore release this land for housing to reduce the pressure on prime Green Belt land.
6.5
3.9 Objectives D8 Addressing Climate Change, D13 Local Amenity

4.5 Policy SS1, Sustainable Development, clauses c and g Statement "Furthermore the low job density figure reflects that resident jobs relate strongly to nearby employment centres such as Sheffield, Chesterfield and the M1 corridor." Confirms that building 860 new dwellings in Dronfield is environmentally unsustainable; will increase commuting to Sheffield, Chesterfield, and through Chesterfield to the strategic development sites, resulting in increased congestion, pollution affecting large numbers of North Derbyshire residents and increased CO2 emissions. This is inconsistent with objectives 3.9 D8 and D13, and in breach of policy SS1 clauses c and g.
6.7 & 6.8 Statement "...and principal employment growth locations at:
* Callywhite Lane, Dronfield"
This assertion is false. Callywhite Lane has been underutilised for many years because it is not attractive to new businesses.
The council is clearly aware of the challenges at Callywhite Lane and acknowledges in paragraph 6.8 "the need for significant remediation and investment of these large scale previously developed sites". However, he plan includes no infrastructure investment commitment to resolve this situation. The current underutilisation will therefore continue.
The council will be aware of a proposal to build a new office block on the corner of Wreakes Lane (reference 17/00283/FL). It is notable that this employment development is not on Callywhite Lane.
6.13,
Table 6.1 Statement "Dronfield and Killamarsh are the main focus for employment (B1 & B2) in the North". Therefore the council should state the investment it is planning to make to resolve the difficulties with Callywhite Lane (ref. paragraph 6.8). Without such a commitment, the statement is disingenuous as is including it in table 6.1.
6.20 Statement "the allocation at Callywhite Lane in particular will provide a significant improvement to the quality of the employment land portfolio of the District."
Provide the evidence to support the assertion that Callywhite Lane provides this improvement. This statement contradicts the statement in paragraph 6.8 acknowledging the challenges of the site.
6.22 Statement "Policy WC1 allocates 6 hectares (net) of land for B1, B2 and B8 uses at Callywhite Lane".
To propose storage and distribution development (B8) at Callywhite Lane defies belief. The junction of Green Lane, Callywhite Lane and Chesterfield Road in Dronfield bottom is wholly unsuitable for large vehicle movements. Owing to the narrowness of the road along Dronfield bottom these vehicles also represent a significant hazard to other road users and the large number of pedestrians who frequent the area, in particular the children of Dronfield Henry Fanshaw School. If the proposed link road between the eastern end of Callywhite Lane and Chesterfield Road ever materialises, much of this traffic will then be routed past Unstone Junior School and through the residential area of Unstone Green; an equally unsatisfactory solution.
6.23 The council acknowledges the lack of progress since 2005 on the Callywhite Lane Extension yet the plan contains no infrastructure investment commitment (as it notes is necessary in paragraph 6.8) to resolve these issues.
6.23 Statement "Issues over access in particular need to be resolved but there is a likelihood that with the anticipated electrification of the East Midlands Main Line and (in the longer term) HS2, such issues will be resolved."
How on earth does HS2 have an impact on the access to Callywhite Lane when the planned route is several miles to the East of the site? Provide evidence to justify this implausible assertion. The council will also be aware that the electrification of the East Midland Main Line has been postponed.
7.2 What is the purpose of a historical description of Dronfield which appears to pre-date the development the large areas of housing off Snape Hill Lane and Stonelow Road, and also Gosforth Valley? This reads suspiciously like thoughtless copying and pasting as do other areas of the document.

The Green Belt to the south is to prevent Dronfield from merging with Unstone, a separate settlement dating back to the Domesday Book, not Chesterfield as stated - or do the council's planners now intend Unstone to be absorbed into Dronfield as it has allowed to happen with Coal Aston, now showing this once independent settlement as falling within the Dronfield settlement boundary?

The reference to passing trade on the B6158 (Green Lane) does not make sense; I suspect the author means the B6057, the old Chesterfield to Sheffield Road. Whilst the council may consider this a trivial error to note, it is indicative of the lack of rigour and poor quality of the document.
3.9 D12
7.3, 9.36,
Policy ID6 The council notes the presence of a train station in Dronfield, but it fails to acknowledge that there are no public transport links between the main housing areas and the station and the problems this causes.
Train users who live more than a few minutes' walk from the station drive to the station and park nearby. There is limited parking at the train station. FODS (Friends of Dronfield Station) have advised that the current free of charge car parking area is to return to the control of Northern Rail, who intend to implement charges and stop parking along the middle of the car park, thereby reducing its capacity. Therefore, the streets near to the station are choked with the cars of train users; this is a safety hazard for both pedestrians, including pupils of Dronfield Junior School and their parents, and other road users.
Whilst the station is "highly valued" and provides "excellent links to Sheffield and Chesterfield as well as locations further afield" as stated in paragraph 7.3, its usefulness is limited by the lack of an integrated public transport policy and plan. This plan does not address this issue and, in proposing the development of 860 additional dwellings without doing so will result in further exacerbating current problems and damage to the environment.
The plan does not "provide the framework for more sustainable transport choices" for Dronfield as stated in paragraph 9.36, fails to meet objective D12, and is in breach of policy ID6, paragraphs c and d
7.4 Statement "The tight constraints of the Green Belt have restricted development in recent years leading to rising house prices and unmet housing needs. The lack of available land within the existing settlement means that meaningful levels of housing growth can only be accommodated by looking around the edge of the town within the Green Belt."
The council's proposal to develop on the Green Belt is in breach of the Government's Housing and economic land availability assessment guidance (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment) which states: "Unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt".

The council has not demonstrated it has sufficiently considered all other options before proposing to remove land from the Green Belt. The council concedes in paragraph 5.6 that it has not considered windfall and it has dismissed the contribution of smaller sites as stated in paragraph 5.8. The continued protection of land at Callywhite Lane for employment when there is little or no prospect of it being used for this purpose, particularly when a developer has previously sought permission to build dwellings on part of the site, is in breach of NPPF guidelines.

The council's proposal to develop on the Green Belt is also in breach of the Housing White Paper 2017 which states:
"1.39 Therefore we propose to amend and add to national policy to make clear that:
* Authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements, including:
o making effective use of suitable brownfield sites and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration;
o the potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate;
o optimising the proposed density of development; and
o exploring whether other authorities can help to meet some of the identified development requirement.
* and where land is removed from the Green Belt, local policies should require the impact to be offset by compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. We will also explore whether higher contributions can be collected from development as a consequence of land being released from the Green Belt."
7.4 Statement "These [parcels of land selected for removal from the Green Belt] have been selected on the basis that they would cause least harm to the strategic functions of the Green Belt".
The council concedes this plan will harm the Green Belt, yet the plan shows the council has not considered alternative options: see comments against paragraph 7.4.
7.6 Statement "Dronfield is significantly lacking in green space, outdoor sports and children's play space."
The statement indicates the council is fully aware that the Dronfield area is already over-developed. Consequently, any further development is not sustainable as claimed. This plan proposes further environmental and well-being damage with the planned building on sports fields at Coal Aston and a golf course. This is the exact opposite of one of the requirements of sustainable development: "protecting and enhancing the environment".
Moreover, whilst proposing yet more development in Dronfield, the council make no commitment to rectify a situation it notes falls below current standards.
7.7 Statement "Overall, the town centre is performing well."
This statement does not reflect the situation in the civic centre where there are currently three empty units, three charity shops and a betting shop which make up 50% of the units.
7.7 The council acknowledges "the condition of the civic centre needs addressing" and should therefore state what level of funding it will provide to do so or how it will mandate developers, who will profit from building the proposed dwellings, to fund the necessary regeneration. The plan contains no commitment to address this issue. The plan completely fails to address the need to improve the infrastructure to accommodate the additional demand from the planned 860 additional dwellings.
7.8 Statement "but the spread out form of the town ... needs addressing in order to maintain the vitality and viability of the town centre".
Then state the council's plans to address the spread-out form of the town centre. Surely development outside the settlement development limits will increase the spread out form of the town?
Table 7.1 Item 1, first bullet: "review of bus services" without a stated commitment to act on the output does not result in the "Improvement of public transport"

Item 1, second bullet: is the council funding the proposed new link road to Callywhite Lane? If it is not, how will it be funded?

Item 1, fourth bullet: what does "Improved public realm" mean?

Item 1, fifth bullet: Explain how an "audit of vehicle speeds" improves balance between car and pedestrian space.

Item 3, bullet 1: "Improvement of the market offer" - how does the council propose to do this?

Item 4, bullet 1: Explain how "review and consolidation of previous audits" will result in making more of existing heritage assets.

Item 4, bullet 2: and what follow-up action will be implemented to secure new uses of historic buildings and spaces?
Policy SP1 Paragraph e(i) where does the council expect "proposals that maximise the benefits from, and protect and improve access to, the railway station" to come from if they are not included in the plan? This plan should include appropriate proposals, not rely on them coming from other sources. Define how the council will support these proposals. As it stands this statement is meaningless - there is no guarantee any proposals will be put forward and no quantification of the support the council will provide.

Paragraph e(iii): statement "Encourage proposals that facilitate the provision of new green space" is meaningless. The council will be fully aware that developers will seek to maximise profit by building as many dwellings as possible within regulatory constraints; they should be obligated to provide new green spaces.

Paragraph e(iv): State how the council will "Encourage uses within the town centre that enhance the offer of the town as an evening destination, particularly leisure facilities" i.e. what types of business will the council attract and how will this be done?

Paragraph f: How does the council intend to ensure developers that profit from building new accommodation will also "contribute to the successful delivery of the Dronfield Regeneration Framework's key themes and proposals" as stated?
8.11 Statement "National policy states that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced, and requires Local Plans to include criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting local landscape areas will be judged."
The Drone valley landscape is highly valued by a large proportion of its residents. The council has not fulfilled this National Policy obligation with respect to the proposed development on Green Belt which will have a significant impact on the visual appearance and perception of the landscape.
Figure 8.1,
8.23 It is difficult to discern the different grey shaded areas, however it appears the area around Dronfield is classified as "Coalfield Village Farmlands". This is a grossly misleading classification of the Drone Valley - all the settlements pre-date the development of the coal fields: both Dronfield and Unstone appear in the Domesday Book. The field boundaries visible on both sides of the valley can be traced back to medieval times. The council's proposal to take land out of the Green Belt around Dronfield will destroy portions of this historic landscape. This is in breach of the National planning guidance referenced in paragraph 8.23: "National planning guidance advises that local planning authorities should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment"

Figure 8.2,
8.53,
Policy SDC11 Figure 8.2 shows that 'use less energy' as the largest opportunity to reduce carbon emissions.
Paragraph 8.53 states "The Local Plan can make a major contribution to mitigating and adapting to climate change by shaping new and existing development across North East Derbyshire in ways that reduce carbon emissions". Whilst the local plan can make a major contribution to reducing carbon emissions, the current plan for the Dronfield settlement will do the exact opposite.
The current Green Belt land on which the council proposes housing developments will currently be a net CO2 sink. The council's proposal to build an additional 860 dwellings on the outskirts of the Dronfield settlement without a commensurate increase in local employment and no binding commitments to provide public transport from the outer reaches of the settlement to the railway station and existing bus services to Chesterfield and Sheffield will increase commuting, CO2 emissions and pollution.
Consequently, this proposal is not sustainable development and is in breach of policy SDC11.
8.59,
Policy SDC12 The plan notes there is a flood risk in the Dronfield area, however, paragraph 8.59 appears to be a NE Derbyshire Council statement of abdication on this matter, noting that the County Council and Environment Agencies hold the associated flood risk management responsibilities.
Policy SDC12 paragraph (d) states "There is no net increase in surface water runoff for the lifetime of the development on all new development. Run off rates for development on greenfield sites should not be exceeded, and where possible should be reduced from existing."
The proposed building of 860 dwellings on current Green Belt land will inevitably result in significant areas of hard surfaces replacing absorbent land. Consequently, it seems completely unrealistic that current run off rates will not be exceeded. However, the council appears to be relying on this flawed policy; the plan makes no provision for managing the additional run off that will result.
Policy SDC13 The proposal to build 860 dwellings on Green Belt land around Dronfield is in breach of clause (k) of this policy - a requirement to conserve historic landscapes.
8.65,
9.9,
9.37,
9.45,
9.57
Paragraph 8.65 reference to "A Guide to Sustainable Housing Layout and Design"; paragraph 9.9 reference to "Green Infrastructure Study"; paragraph 9.37 (and others) reference to "Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan"; paragraph 9.45 reference to "Local Transport Plan"; paragraph 9.57 reference to "Local Transport Plan 3".
None of these documents are included on the local plan evidence page of the council's website, nor does a search on their name return a link to the document. How does the council expect the public to comment on a plan referencing multiple documents that cannot be found on the council's web site?
This is further evidence that the consultation process is fundamentally flawed.
Why has the council not included a list of references to external documents, including links to where they can be found on the council's web site? A list of references is basic practice when citing external sources within a document.
8.70 Statement "The existing, and likely future, air quality in an area should be considered through Local Plans".
The council's proposal to build an additional 860 dwellings on the outskirts of the Dronfield settlement without a commensurate increase in local employment and no binding commitments to provide public transport from the outer reaches of the settlement to the railway station and existing bus services to Chesterfield and Sheffield will increase commuting and therefore degrade local air quality. The above statement infers the council's plan will seek to improve air quality, not reduce it as it currently plans to do in the Dronfield area.
8.73 Statement "the NPPF acknowledges that good planning should aim to prevent the adverse effects of noise from being unacceptable".
The increased commuting that the current plan will cause in the Dronfield area will have a significant negative noise impact on the residents in Unstone who live along the B6057. The plan contains no evidence to demonstrate that this has been considered or assessed.
Policy SDC14 Statement "Where adverse effects are identified, development will only be approved where suitable mitigation can be achieved which would bring emissions or impacts within acceptable levels".
This policy can only be fulfilled in relation to the proposed additional dwellings in Dronfield through binding commitments to interventions that prevent a significant increase in road traffic through Unstone.
9.5 Statement "The Council is continuing to work with statutory undertakers, utility companies and other agencies to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will support the proposed development identified in the Local Plan."
In other words, there is currently no agreed plan nor any binding commitments to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed expansion in housing. Consequently, the plan presented is incomplete, unsound and should be withdrawn and re-issued for further consultation when appropriate commitments on infrastructure provision have been secured.
9.6 Statement "Potential sources of funding for strategic infrastructure could include Local Enterprise Partnerships and the Regional Growth Fund and Growing Places Fund, central government, ..."
In other words, the council has no idea how strategic infrastructure needs arising from the proposed increase in dwellings will be funded.
Consequently, the plan presented is incomplete, unsound and should be withdrawn and re-issued for further consultation when appropriate commitments on infrastructure provision have been secured.
Policy ID1 Statement "Development proposals that would result in the loss or isolation of
existing green infrastructure will not be permitted unless ... a compensatory amount of green infrastructure of an equivalent or better quality can be provided in the local area"
The council's plan contains no such provision with respect to the green infrastructure it is proposing to destroy on the outskirts of the Dronfield settlement. The proposed development at Dronfield is in breach of this policy.
Policy ID1 Statement: "The NPPF tells us that ... policies should be based on up to date assessments of the need for open space, sports and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision. LPAs should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, and should not permit development on existing open space except where it is surplus to requirements, or will be replace [sic] by equivalent of superior facilities"
The plan contains no assessment of the need for open space, sports and recreation facilities; it actually proposes destroying both existing sports and recreation facilities at Coal Aston, Hallowes golf course and Green Belt open spaces, none of which are 'surplus to requirements'.
Consequently, the plan for Dronfield is in breach of this NPPF requirement and fails to meet objectives D6, D9, D13 as claimed in this policy.
Objective D16 referenced in this policy does not appear anywhere in the document!!
9.19 Statement "The Council is committed to the protection and enhancement of open space, sports and recreation facilities".
This statement is blatant hypocrisy when the council plans to destroy existing sports and recreational facilities at Coal Aston and Hallowes golf course.
9.22 Statement "The Council has commissioned a Playing Pitch Strategy and an Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy to assess current levels and quality of provision in relation to demand."
In other words, these 'strategies' have not completed the commissioned assessments
Statement "The Council is also in the process of reviewing open spaces, recreation sites and facilities. The outcome of this work will inform the next iteration of the Local Plan."
Further evidence that the current plan is incomplete, contains no binding commitment to providing these facilities, and is therefore unsound.
Policy ID3 The statement "The Council will seek to protect and enhance existing open spaces" is meaningless. State exactly what is meant by "seek" i.e. binding commitments on the council and mandated obligations on developers.
Policy ID3 The Green Belt open spaces around the Dronfield settlement and the playing fields at Coal Aston which the council proposes to destroy are not 'surplus to requirements' nor does the plan contain any obligations for them to be "replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location". Consequently, the plans for the Dronfield settlement are in breach of this policy.
9.29 Statement "The Local Plan does not designate Local Green Spaces, but any forthcoming Neighbourhood Plans may do so."
The plan does not contain any commitment to respect these designations. The council must make its position clear on this matter.
9.30 Statement "Where new Green Infrastructure is proposed, clear funding and delivery mechanisms must be in place for its long term management and maintenance".
Then state how the council expects the funding and delivery mechanisms to be provided.
9.36 Statement "The relationship between planning, transport and infrastructure is acknowledged as crucial in creating successful and sustainable places that work for everyone. Whilst the planning system cannot directly change people's travel behaviour, it can provide the framework for more sustainable transport choices.
The plan for 860 additional dwellings on the outskirts of Dronfield without a binding commitment to provide public transport links to the development areas does not provide a framework for more sustainable transport choices.
9.37 Statement "but there is an acknowledgment that this understanding will need to be developed further through Local Plans and also through detailed assessments such as modelling and Transport Assessments".
In other words, the council has inadequate data on how the plan for additional dwellings and therefore there is no basis for planning needed improvements to existing highway and public transport networks, services and facilities.
Consequently, the plan presented is incomplete and therefore unsound.
9.38 Statements "Derbyshire County Council is responsible for transportation, which includes producing the Local Transport Plan." and "the District Council has only limited control over highways or transport matters".
In other words, the council has no obligation to assess transport requirements arising from the planned increase in dwellings.
As a local resident, I have no interest in the division of planning responsibilities between the different council bodies; I expect them to work together to produce a coherent and complete plan. The current local plan is evidence that this is not happening. This paragraph makes a strong case to merge the current bodies into a single council with responsibility for all aspects of planning.
9.39 Statement "Sustainable modes of travel such as walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing, and alternative fuel vehicles can be provided through good planning and design".
However, the current local plan contains no commitment to provide public transport links to the proposed development areas on the outskirts of Dronfield. This is bad planning. The paragraph reveals that a Transport Assessment will only evidence the damage these plans are doing to the environment.
9.40 Travel Plans appear to be equally toothless; there is no commitment in the plan to ensure the infrastructure is upgraded to meet the increased demand arising from the additional dwellings planned, to the detriment of current residents and the environment.
9.41 Statement "Access to sustainable forms of transport must be integrated into the design of new development".
Therefore, the council must commit to providing public transport links from the proposed development areas on the outskirts of Dronfield to the existing transport hubs in the centre. This plan contains no such commitment and is therefore flawed.
9.44 Statements "Where possible, bus routes should penetrate new development sites through permeable routes" and "Where appropriate, developers will be asked for a financial contribution so the Council and bus operators can work together to improve bus provision for a particular site."
The plan should be as unambiguous about these commitments as it is for the number of dwellings proposed. The council has access to national statistics that will enable it to quantify the requirements for public transport and other infrastructure facilities, but it has failed to address these matters in the plan.
9.45 Statement "Where applicable, proximity and access to rail services should also form part of planning applications"
9.51 Statement "The future focus will therefore be on limiting parking supply at destination."
This policy is myopic and, as acknowledged with limiting parking on residential estates, will result in difficulties as is already the case in Dronfield in the proximity of the Railway Station. The focus should be on providing viable alternatives to car use i.e. frequent and affordable public transport services linking the outer reaches of settlements such as Dronfield with existing transport hubs.
Policy ID6 The council has acknowledged it does not have authority of the strategic highway network; it therefore cannot implement clause (f) of this policy. Therefore this clause is misleading and should be removed or re-written.
Policy ID6 Statement "You told us that ... The Plan should aim to reduce the use of the car and encourage walking, cycling the use of public transport."
Yet the plan contains no binding commitments to encourage any of these. The council appears to be relying on encouraging developers and other authorities to achieve this aim.
9.53 Statement "Funding or developers [sic] contributions will be sought, as appropriate, to support the delivery of key transport infrastructure improvements."
This statement lacks substance and shows no binding commitment to deliver infrastructure improvements. The plan must be as unambiguous in its implementation of infrastructure improvements as it is with respect to the number of dwellings required. Anything less than this offers no assurance against the environmental damage and congestion blight that would be result from a significant increase in dwelling numbers with no commensurate improvements to infrastructure. Consequently, the plan is incomplete and unsound.
9.54 Statement "Proposals for improvements to transport infrastructure will be supported where it can be demonstrated to be necessary".
Define 'supported' i.e. the level of funding the council will commit to these improvements.
Define 'demonstrated to be necessary' i.e. what criteria will determine an improvement is necessary.

Statement "recognising that transport issues to not stop at administrative boundaries"
I suspect this should read "do not stop"
9.56 Statement "The legacy of coal mining has left a number of disused rail routes throughout the District, which have the potential to be returned to beneficial use to reduce the number of journeys made by road, increase the movement of freight by rail, or increase opportunities for recreation."
Like so many statements in the plan, the above fails the "so what" test. Does the council intend to implement measures to develop these rail routes for the purposes identified? If so, state what these measures are. If the council has no plans to develop disused routes, the statement is irrelevant.
Policy ID7
This policy merely states the basis on which new transport infrastructure will be permitted. Despite proposing the development of 6,600 additional dwellings 50ha of employment land this plan contains no commitment to implement any new infrastructure or improve existing infrastructure. Consequently, this is a plan to increase pollution and congestion, adversely impacting the quality of life of the region's residents.
9.68 Statement "Where new development necessitates new or improved infrastructure ... the Council will require developers to contribute towards any necessary site specific infrastructure".
This does not address improving local infrastructure outside the proposed development sites to meet the increased demands arising from the planned developments.
9.71 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan must be part of the consultation process, not published after the local plan is adopted. With the IDP, the council is presenting a partial picture to the public and leaving many questions unanswered. Consequently, the current consultation process is flawed.
9.73 Provide details of the Community Infrastructure Levy: who pays this; on what basis are charges calculated?
The paragraph seems to suggest the developers pay the levy and, if it is set too high, it will deter development. However, the details requested can only be inferred; they should be explicit. The author assumes the public have prior knowledge of CILs.

Statement "the Council will therefore also carry out work to assess the viability of the Plan as a whole, and whether there would be enough economic incentive to provide new development with infrastructure requirements in place. This work will help to inform whether a levy will be introduced and what rates would be applied".
The first sentence is difficult to decipher, but the council appear to be suggesting that if developers object sufficiently strongly the council will not pursue infrastructure funding via CILs. The outcome of this policy is entirely predictable; developers will provide the minimum on-site infrastructure necessary to meet any applicable mandatory regulations.
9.76 Statement "Where a scheme is agreed to be unviable or marginal, the Council will review the policy arrangements"
Yet another statement rendering purported safeguards and policies in this plan ineffective. Developers must be required to deliver schemes meeting immutable requirements that ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure. If these requirements result in schemes being unviable, then there is insufficient demand in the market to justify the schemes. The precedent for this approach is well established in many sectors where minimum standards are enforced through regulation, and products or services that do not meet these standards cannot be offered.
9.77 While paragraph 9.76 is retained, paragraph 9.77 does not provide sufficient protection: "essential" is not defined; paragraph 9.76 renders all the stated infrastructure policies mutable.
The paragraph also states "schemes will not be supported"; that does not mean they will not be permitted, rendering the paragraph ineffective.
Policy ID8 Paragraph (c) of this policy also limits a developer's obligation to on-site infrastructure in accordance with the limitations noted in paragraph 9.68 above.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5220

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Eric Singleton

Representation Summary:

The evidence base referenced in policy SS3 does not fulfil the requirement for "exceptional circumstances" that are necessary to take land out of the Green Belt.

Full text:

Comment Scope As a resident of Unstone, my comments are primarily regarding the plan for the Dronfield area; I have not reviewed sections that deal specifically with other areas.
Overall Summary The plan does not make a case that there are exceptional circumstances to justify the removal of land from the Green Belt around Dronfield. The council concedes it has not considered alternative options in the area. The plan is a developer's charter to maximise profit by building on easy to develop green field sites. It will be especially beneficial to developers who have purchased green belt land at agricultural prices in the expectation that the council would eventually capitulate in the face of their lobbying.

The plan does not cite any evidence of changes in local circumstances to justify the increase from the 285 additional dwellings in the Dronfield settlement in the plan issued for consultation between 12/02/2015 and 26/03/15 and the 860 proposed in this plan. The settlement targets in this plan appear to be a distribution of an overall target based on existing settlement size: that is not planning, it is quota allocation of the crudest form. Whilst the council suggests there is a need for 6,000 additional dwellings in the NE Derbyshire area, developers do not appear to agree. If there was significant unmet demand developments such as the Waterside scheme in Chesterfield would have been nearing completion by now, not still open land.

The council acknowledge the green space, outdoor sports and children's play space in Dronfield falls below current standards, yet proposes to make matters worse by planning to build on a golf course in Dronfield and sports ground in Coal Aston whilst making no commitment to provide further outdoor facilities. This is contrary to one of the requirements of sustainable development: to protect and enhance the environment.

The council acknowledges that there is currently no agreed plan nor any binding commitments or safeguards to ensure improvement of the infrastructure necessary to accommodate the additional demand from the planned 860 additional dwellings in Dronfield. The plan must be as unambiguous in its commitment to implementing infrastructure improvements as it is with respect to the number of dwellings proposed. Anything less than this is a plan to inflict environmental damage and congestion blight on the community.

The plan contains multiple contradictions and inconsistencies and includes statements in breach of the policies contained therein.

The plan contains numerous statements with meaningless verbs e.g. the council will encourage, support (without quantification); seek. The use of this language renders what, at first sight, appears to be council commitments to implement controls and safeguards, completely impotent. The persistent use of this language renders the plan misleading.

Consequently, the plan is unsound.
The whole document The quality of the English and the arguments within the plan fall way below that which should be produced by competent and qualified professionals. In particular, the use of the word 'sustainability' ad-nausea is an example of how the plan is full of bland 'planning speak' with little consideration as to the purpose of the statement or point being made. Significant portions of the plan look suspiciously like a copy and paste of boilerplate text.

The council's planning department should review the plan issued by Chesterfield Borough Council and its own plan issued for consultation two years ago; both are significantly better than the current plan.

1.5 Statement "the Council has produced this document for public consultation"

As a core document for a public consultation it is woefully inappropriate. The text is full of planning jargon; acronyms and references to a significant number of related documents.

For example, section 6 makes repeated references to B1, B2 and B8 usage of employment land. Not until 6 pages into section 6 are these terms defined in policy WC2, below paragraph 6.26. Non-B8 classes (paragraph 6.16) are not elaborated.

At least one referenced document (Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan) is not included on the evidence page on the council's website, nor does a search on its name return a link.

To comment effectively on this document requires critical reading and analytical skills associated with a degree level education.

The FAQ leaflet available at the public consultation is equally challenging to comprehend. Paragraph 2 comprises one 56-word long sentence of 'planning speak' punctuated by one semi-colon and one comma.

Whilst the Local Plan and FAQ leaflet is offered in 5 alternative languages and large print, it is also written without consideration for anyone without higher educational level comprehension skills.

Consequently, the consultation is not an inclusive process. The consultation process is therefore fundamentally flawed.
1.14 Statement "The NPPF states that Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development".
There is no such thing as the sustainable use of a non-renewable resource, such as the proposed building on land that is currently Green Belt around the Dronfield settlement. The land at Hallowes in Dronfield particularly is currently used for recreational activity; the land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield is actively farmed. These resources are irreplaceable; once lost, neither will ever be recovered.

The NPPF paragraph 7 states there are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. The latter includes a requirement to minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.
The proposal to build 860 more dwellings (an increase in 10%) without a commensurate increase in local employment will drive up commuting, CO2 emissions and pollution; that is not sustainable and is contrary to the above NPPF requirement.
1.16 Duty to Co-operate. The only evidence in the plan of the council discharging this duty is co-operation with Bolsover District Council with respect to the Coalite Regeneration Area (paragraph 4.58). There is no evidence of any co-operation with either Chesterfield or Sheffield Councils. This is a major oversight, particularly with respect to the plan for Dronfield.
2.15 The statement "Just under a quarter of households cannot afford market housing" i.e. just over 75% of households can afford market housing. A recent Shelter report suggests on average 80% of families across England are unable to afford newly built homes in their local area. This statement demonstrates that affordability in North East Derbyshire is dramatically better than the national average.
2.17 Statement "The town centres of Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh are all in need of continued support and investment to build upon their strengths, and to help sustain and regenerate them into the future."
However, the plan contains no commitments on investment. A plan to build 860 additional dwellings in Dronfield without a commitment to invest in the infrastructure will negatively impact the quality of life of existing residents; driving up congestion, pollution and CO2 emissions. This is contrary to the council's stated objective D1 Sustainable Growth; D8 Addressing Climate Change
2.20 The council notes that Dronfield is the only town with a railway station. However, there are no connecting public transport links from the outer reaches of the town. Consequently, train users who live more than a few minutes' walk from the station use their car to reach the station creating a serious problem with on-street parking. A failure to commit to addressing this issue whilst proposing a circa 10% increase in households is contrary to the council's stated objective D12 Sustainable Transport and in breach of policy SS1 clause C.
3.5 Statement "much needed affordable homes". The data provided in paragraph 2.15 indicates affordability is not an issue in NE Derbyshire.
3.5 Statement "and regenerate and renew their [Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh] towns' centres". The plan contains no binding commitments or obligations that will ensure the delivery of this vision.
3.5 Statement "In planning for growth new high quality housing will have successfully integrated itself into these settlements minimising its impact upon the strategic functions of the Green Belt, and creating strong defensible boundaries for the future."
The council will be aware that a developer owns Green Belt land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent that is beyond the proposed development boundaries. Any removal of land from the Green Belt will set a precedent. Strong defensible boundaries will only be established with a clear policy of making no changes to the Green Belt.
3.9 Statement "seeking to narrow the gap between the more deprived areas and the more affluent areas". Why is this an objective of the plan? It smacks of left wing social engineering.
3.9 Objective D7 Settlement Identity
The proposal to remove land from the Green Belt adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent is contradictory to this objective. From significant areas in Apperknowle and Hundall Dronfield and Unstone will appear to merge if this land is developed.
The council's planning policies have historically failed to meet this objective; within this plan Coal Aston is shown as within the Dronfield settlement boundary. The plan does not provide evidence as to how it will meet this objective in the future.
3.9 Objectives D8 Addressing Climate Change, D13 Local Amenity

4.5 Policy SS1, Sustainable Development, clauses c and g

Policy SS3 The plan issued for consultation between 12/02/2015 and 26/03/15 stated there was a need for 285 dwellings in the Dronfield settlement between 2011 and 2031, with a residual requirement for 181 after accounting for those built or planned. This plan now states 860 dwellings are required, but provides no justifiable change in local circumstances (i.e. additional employment in the area).
Policy SS3 states that employment growth will be on four strategic sites to the South and East of Chesterfield. It therefore follows that the plan for 860 additional dwellings in Dronfield is environmentally unsustainable; will increase commuting to Sheffield, Chesterfield, and through Chesterfield to the strategic development sites, resulting in increased congestion, pollution affecting large numbers of North Derbyshire residents and increased CO2 emissions. This is inconsistent with objectives 3.9 D8 and D13, and in breach of policy SS1 clauses c and g.
3.9 Objectives N1 Statement "To ensure the vitality and viability of Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh town centres by supporting improvements compatible with their local employment, retail and service functions". Explain what the council will do to ensure these improvements are implemented. The plan contains no binding commitments or obligations that will ensure the delivery of this objective.
3.9 Objectives N3 Statement "To improve the quality of employment land in the north of the District and address infrastructure deficiencies to allow for the expansion of existing sites, such as at Callywhite Lane, Dronfield". Explain what the council will do to ensure these deficiencies are addressed. The plan contains no binding commitments or obligations that will ensure the delivery of this objective. The deficiencies at Callywhite Lane are decades old; the council has demonstrably failed to address them to date.
4.4 Statement "The Local Plan's vision and objectives are centred on .... supporting the health and wellbeing of the District's communities".
The planned addition of 860 dwellings in Dronfield without major investment in infrastructure (e.g. an additional exit and access to the A61 dual carriageway) will blight Unstone which is centred around the major routes from the south into Dronfield. This is contrary to the stated vision and objectives.
4.5 Policy SS1, Sustainable Development, clause a: "key business sectors" is meaningless; define "key".
4.12 The statement "The Local Plan aims to provide new jobs" is both false and misleading. The most this plan can potentially achieve is to ensure the development of an environment sufficiently appealing to attract additional employment. The additional congestion in the Dronfield area is likely to do the opposite.
4.12 Statement "[The Local Plan] acknowledges the 61% of people who commute out of the District to work".
Consequently, the Local Plan also acknowledges that providing an additional 860 dwellings in Dronfield without a commensurate increase in local employment will increase commuting, congestion and CO2 emissions. This is inconsistent with objective 3.9 D8 and in breach of policy SS1 clause (c).
4.18 The Plan notes that all the larger employment development sites are to the East or South of Chesterfield. On what basis does the Council justify a 200% increase in the planned dwellings for Dronfield since the plan issued for consultation between 12/02/2015 and 26/03/15?
4.21 Statement "The Council's Growth Strategy has the intention of raising job densities (jobs/worker) within the District"
The plan to build 860 homes in Dronfield will significantly reduce the job density within the settlement.
4.26 The statement in paragraph 4.26: "the Local Plan aims to direct new growth to the district's most sustainable settlements based on the Settlement Hierarchy" and repeated in paragraph 7.4 conflates settlement size with 'sustainability'. This plan offers no evidence to demonstrate that enlarging an already large settlement by building on land currently designated as Green Belt is more 'sustainable' than other options. As noted in the response to paragraph 1.14, there is no such thing as a sustainable use of a non-renewable resource, such as the proposed building on land that is currently Green Belt.
4.28 Statement "Level 1 Settlements ... are considered to be the most sustainable locations for new development ... because they generate the greatest needs for new housing, jobs, services and facilities."
This statement is misleading: the size of a community does not necessarily correlate to job volume creation. The plan does not provide evidence that Dronfield will generate the number of jobs commensurate with 860 additional dwellings. The chronic underutilisation of the Callywhite Lane employment area in Dronfield is evidence of the councils' past failure to provide an environment attractive to new businesses.
4.59
4.69
Policy SS3
Policy SS9 As noted in 4.59: "The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence..." and in paragraph 4.62: "National Guidance is clear that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances."
The evidence base referenced in policy SS3 does not fulfil the requirement for "exceptional circumstances" that are necessary to take land out of the Green Belt.
As acknowledged in Policy SS9 "The NPPF tells us that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. LPAs should respect the permanence of the Green Belt."
The proposal to take land out of the Green Belt around Dronfield is in breach of policy SS9 and the exceptional circumstances stated therein.
Policy SS9 does not implement Local Plan Objective D6 as claimed. The proposed removal of land from the Green Belt adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield breaches the permanent nature of the Green Belt, rendering any Green Belt land adjacent to existing settlements at risk to further encroachment. The council will be aware that a developer owns land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent which extends beyond that being proposed for removal from the Green Belt. Once development is permitted on part of this land, the developer will inevitably seek to develop the remaining land in their ownership in the future. The council's policy is encouraging and rewarding developers who speculatively purchase prime Green Belt land, at agricultural land prices, in the expectation that councils will eventually capitulate to pressure to develop these sites.
4.64 Statement "This evidence led the Council to undertake a review of the Green Belt during 2016 and provides the exceptional circumstances necessary to justify alteration of the Green Belt boundaries."
This statement is nonsense. A review does not "provide exceptional circumstances". Exceptional circumstances either exist or they do not. This statement is overt evidence of the council's flawed logic in proposing land be removed from the Green Belt. This plan does not make the case that there are exceptional circumstances.
4.65 The statement "This means that if we wish to achieve a more sustainable pattern of development and provide a sufficient level of development in the North of the District to meet needs, we must accept that this will have an impact on the Green Belt." is further flawed logic. As argued in the comments above, the planned 860 dwellings in Dronfield is unsustainable. There is no inevitability to the loss of Green Belt land. The Local Plan contains no evidence that alternatives have been explored.
4.66 Contrary to the assertion in this paragraph, the land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield does perform a valid Green Belt function. From significant areas in Apperknowle and Hundall Dronfield and Unstone will appear to merge if this land is developed. This land is also currently actively farmed; one of the fields proposed to be removed from the Green Belt has recently been ploughed.
4.73
4.74
4.75
Policy SS11 Statement in 4.73 "the Local Plan seeks to protect settlement identity and avoid further settlement coalescence". Definition of Local Settlement Gap functionality in 4.74.
As noted above, the proposed removal of land from the Green Belt adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent in Dronfield will lead to Dronfield and Unstone appearing to merge. It will also provide a separation of no more than circa 200 metres along the B6057 between Dronfield and Unstone.
The council has patently failed to protect historic settlement identities: Coal Aston is shown as within the Dronfield settlement boundary within the plan; paragraph 4.70 acknowledges loss of settlement separation in the south of the District. The plan is repeating this mistake on the southern boundary of Dronfield.
The council acknowledges in 4.75 that it has been incompetent at preserving settlement gaps. Consequently, policy SS11 is worthless.
Given the council's inability to maintain settlement gaps, the land adjacent to Shakespeare Crescent must remain in the Green Belt to protect the settlement gap between Dronfield and Unstone.
4.78 Statement "Outside Settlement Development Limits, countryside and/or Green Belt policies apply and all proposals for development will be considered against these requirements set out [sic] in Policies SS14".
Taking land out of the Green Belt outside the current Dronfield settlement limit is the exact opposite of this statement.
4.79 The plan states "Further land outside Settlement Development Limits is therefore not required to meet this [housing provision] need." Consequently, there is no need to take land out of the Green Belt around Dronfield.
4.80 Statement "The Settlement Development Limits identified on the Policies Map have been carried forward from the 2005 Adopted Local Plan. However, this only applies to settlements that fall within categories 1, 2 and 3 as set out in table 4.1." Dronfield falls into category 1. Consequently, the plan states the council does not intend to change the settlement development limit of Dronfield. Therefore, on what basis does the council justify the proposal to take land out of the Green Belt?
5.6 The council's figures show that windfall developments between 2011 and 2016 account for 5% of the proposed needs, but windfalls have not been factored into the plan. The council also states minor sites have not been relied upon nor have "major sites with planning permission which do not accord with the spatial strategy." This latter statement is clearly a reference to sites such as Callywhite Lane in Dronfield where there is little prospect of attracting new businesses and land has remained undeveloped for 10 years or more despite developers submitting planning applications for housing.
The NPPF states that ""Very special circumstances" will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations." Contrary to this guidance, the council has opted to target Green Belt land for development without a rigorous assessment of other contributions to meeting its targets.
5.7 The plan states "There are also a number of sites across the District that have planning permission where there are deliverability concerns and / or a history of unimplemented permissions." The council offer no evidence of actions to understand and resolve the issues leading to this situation, further evidence of inadequate consideration of other options before targeting Green Belt land.
5.8 There is no sound evidence offered for only considering sites capable of accommodating 10 or more dwellings. This indicates the council has been unable or unwilling to fully assess all options before proposing to take land out of the Green Belt.
5.65 Statement "Many households in North East Derbyshire who lack their own housing or live in unsuitable housing cannot afford to buy or rent housing at market rates." is ambiguous without defining "many". It is misleading and, by any reasonable interpretation, contrary to paragraph 2.15 where the council states that just over 75% of households can afford market housing.
Policy LC3 As the council notes, the NPPF states the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate apart from a small number of specific exceptions. The scale of development proposed is way beyond that covered by the "limited infilling in villages" exceptional condition in the NPPF. The proposal to develop Green Belt land around Dronfield does not meet the remaining exceptions and is therefore in breach of the NPPF.
5.85 The statements "The Council will seek to ensure that the housing needs of older people and people with disabilities are met" and "It will encourage developers and other agencies to provide dwellings which will enable more people to remain in their homes" are meaningless.
State exactly how the council will ensure this housing need will be met.

It is notable that Rykneld Homes are building four family-sized market value homes on the former Manor Farm site in Dronfield. The site is in close proximity to shops, a medical centre and public transport links. As such, the site is an ideal location for housing for older people, people with disabilities, or affordable housing; yet the council, through its partner Rykneld Homes, chooses to build larger market value properties. Council leader Graham Baxter has said of this scheme: "The key strategic approach to this project is to create a high quality scheme of housing for open market sale, to provide a significant financial surplus". When presented with an excellent opportunity to provide housing for older people or those with disabilities, the council chooses instead to maximise its income from the site. This is indicative of what can be expected to happen if development is permitted on land which is currently Green Belt.
5.86 Statement "The SHMA indicates that there is a particular shortage of market housing and intermediate housing which is suitable for older people". The council is responsible for contributing to this situation. The council has permitted a significant number of bungalows adjacent to Frith Wood and in other areas of Dronfield to be converted to two storey dwellings; more recently bungalows have been demolished to be replaced by family houses (e.g. Carr lane near Stubley Lane). The plan should incorporate an unambiguous commitment by the council to mandate developers to provide a specified proportion of dwellings suitable for older people of the types listed.
5.86 Statement "Access to high speed broadband will allow access to emerging online healthcare initiatives". State what the council proposes to do to ensure this access is provided. If the council do not intend to implement measures to ensure this access, the statement is irrelevant.
5.87 The statement "the Council encourages all new dwellings to be made accessible and adaptable." is a further example of the meaningless statements peppering this plan. I suspect the council meant to say it will encourage developers; it is impossible to encourage a dwelling to do anything.
Policy LC4 Statements "The Council will support the provision of housing for older people" and "The Council will also support the provision of specialist housing"
Quantify what the council means by "support". In the context used support means "give assistance to", requiring a commitment of resources; outside the voluntary sector resources cost money. Define the budget the council intends to set aside for this support and the governance that will determine how funds are accessed and best value is ensured.
Statement "development proposals of 10 or more dwellings should provide 20% accessible and adaptable dwellings". "Should" means this is an optional requirement and therefore not to be relied upon. This statement is of no value unless "should" is replaced with "shall".
To summarise; within policy LC4 the council has not made any quantifiable commitment to ensure the housing needs of older people or those with special needs will be met.
6.2 & 6.8,
Policy WC2 Statement "Existing employment sites will be protected for employment uses". There is no point in protecting land which has remained unused for extended periods and where there is little or no prospect of it being used for employment. The old Padley and Venables site on Callywhite Lane in Dronfield has not been used for employment purposes for at least 10 years and has been the subject of a planning application for housing development. The council acknowledges the challenges of this site in paragraph 6.8 and notes the need for significant investment.
Within the evidence base for policy WC2 the council acknowledges that the NPPF states planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. It also notes public feedback that "considerations should be made over whether a site should be protected where it is clear that employment uses cannot / will not come forward."
The plan currently states the council's intention to continue protecting Callywhite Lane for employment use but does not include a commitment to the investment it acknowledges is necessary to resolve the issues causing the chronic underutilisation of the site. This is in breach of the NPPF guidance quoted in policy WC2 and completely disregards the public feedback acknowledged in this policy.
The council should therefore release this land for housing to reduce the pressure on prime Green Belt land.
6.5
3.9 Objectives D8 Addressing Climate Change, D13 Local Amenity

4.5 Policy SS1, Sustainable Development, clauses c and g Statement "Furthermore the low job density figure reflects that resident jobs relate strongly to nearby employment centres such as Sheffield, Chesterfield and the M1 corridor." Confirms that building 860 new dwellings in Dronfield is environmentally unsustainable; will increase commuting to Sheffield, Chesterfield, and through Chesterfield to the strategic development sites, resulting in increased congestion, pollution affecting large numbers of North Derbyshire residents and increased CO2 emissions. This is inconsistent with objectives 3.9 D8 and D13, and in breach of policy SS1 clauses c and g.
6.7 & 6.8 Statement "...and principal employment growth locations at:
* Callywhite Lane, Dronfield"
This assertion is false. Callywhite Lane has been underutilised for many years because it is not attractive to new businesses.
The council is clearly aware of the challenges at Callywhite Lane and acknowledges in paragraph 6.8 "the need for significant remediation and investment of these large scale previously developed sites". However, he plan includes no infrastructure investment commitment to resolve this situation. The current underutilisation will therefore continue.
The council will be aware of a proposal to build a new office block on the corner of Wreakes Lane (reference 17/00283/FL). It is notable that this employment development is not on Callywhite Lane.
6.13,
Table 6.1 Statement "Dronfield and Killamarsh are the main focus for employment (B1 & B2) in the North". Therefore the council should state the investment it is planning to make to resolve the difficulties with Callywhite Lane (ref. paragraph 6.8). Without such a commitment, the statement is disingenuous as is including it in table 6.1.
6.20 Statement "the allocation at Callywhite Lane in particular will provide a significant improvement to the quality of the employment land portfolio of the District."
Provide the evidence to support the assertion that Callywhite Lane provides this improvement. This statement contradicts the statement in paragraph 6.8 acknowledging the challenges of the site.
6.22 Statement "Policy WC1 allocates 6 hectares (net) of land for B1, B2 and B8 uses at Callywhite Lane".
To propose storage and distribution development (B8) at Callywhite Lane defies belief. The junction of Green Lane, Callywhite Lane and Chesterfield Road in Dronfield bottom is wholly unsuitable for large vehicle movements. Owing to the narrowness of the road along Dronfield bottom these vehicles also represent a significant hazard to other road users and the large number of pedestrians who frequent the area, in particular the children of Dronfield Henry Fanshaw School. If the proposed link road between the eastern end of Callywhite Lane and Chesterfield Road ever materialises, much of this traffic will then be routed past Unstone Junior School and through the residential area of Unstone Green; an equally unsatisfactory solution.
6.23 The council acknowledges the lack of progress since 2005 on the Callywhite Lane Extension yet the plan contains no infrastructure investment commitment (as it notes is necessary in paragraph 6.8) to resolve these issues.
6.23 Statement "Issues over access in particular need to be resolved but there is a likelihood that with the anticipated electrification of the East Midlands Main Line and (in the longer term) HS2, such issues will be resolved."
How on earth does HS2 have an impact on the access to Callywhite Lane when the planned route is several miles to the East of the site? Provide evidence to justify this implausible assertion. The council will also be aware that the electrification of the East Midland Main Line has been postponed.
7.2 What is the purpose of a historical description of Dronfield which appears to pre-date the development the large areas of housing off Snape Hill Lane and Stonelow Road, and also Gosforth Valley? This reads suspiciously like thoughtless copying and pasting as do other areas of the document.

The Green Belt to the south is to prevent Dronfield from merging with Unstone, a separate settlement dating back to the Domesday Book, not Chesterfield as stated - or do the council's planners now intend Unstone to be absorbed into Dronfield as it has allowed to happen with Coal Aston, now showing this once independent settlement as falling within the Dronfield settlement boundary?

The reference to passing trade on the B6158 (Green Lane) does not make sense; I suspect the author means the B6057, the old Chesterfield to Sheffield Road. Whilst the council may consider this a trivial error to note, it is indicative of the lack of rigour and poor quality of the document.
3.9 D12
7.3, 9.36,
Policy ID6 The council notes the presence of a train station in Dronfield, but it fails to acknowledge that there are no public transport links between the main housing areas and the station and the problems this causes.
Train users who live more than a few minutes' walk from the station drive to the station and park nearby. There is limited parking at the train station. FODS (Friends of Dronfield Station) have advised that the current free of charge car parking area is to return to the control of Northern Rail, who intend to implement charges and stop parking along the middle of the car park, thereby reducing its capacity. Therefore, the streets near to the station are choked with the cars of train users; this is a safety hazard for both pedestrians, including pupils of Dronfield Junior School and their parents, and other road users.
Whilst the station is "highly valued" and provides "excellent links to Sheffield and Chesterfield as well as locations further afield" as stated in paragraph 7.3, its usefulness is limited by the lack of an integrated public transport policy and plan. This plan does not address this issue and, in proposing the development of 860 additional dwellings without doing so will result in further exacerbating current problems and damage to the environment.
The plan does not "provide the framework for more sustainable transport choices" for Dronfield as stated in paragraph 9.36, fails to meet objective D12, and is in breach of policy ID6, paragraphs c and d
7.4 Statement "The tight constraints of the Green Belt have restricted development in recent years leading to rising house prices and unmet housing needs. The lack of available land within the existing settlement means that meaningful levels of housing growth can only be accommodated by looking around the edge of the town within the Green Belt."
The council's proposal to develop on the Green Belt is in breach of the Government's Housing and economic land availability assessment guidance (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment) which states: "Unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt".

The council has not demonstrated it has sufficiently considered all other options before proposing to remove land from the Green Belt. The council concedes in paragraph 5.6 that it has not considered windfall and it has dismissed the contribution of smaller sites as stated in paragraph 5.8. The continued protection of land at Callywhite Lane for employment when there is little or no prospect of it being used for this purpose, particularly when a developer has previously sought permission to build dwellings on part of the site, is in breach of NPPF guidelines.

The council's proposal to develop on the Green Belt is also in breach of the Housing White Paper 2017 which states:
"1.39 Therefore we propose to amend and add to national policy to make clear that:
* Authorities should amend Green Belt boundaries only when they can demonstrate that they have examined fully all other reasonable options for meeting their identified development requirements, including:
o making effective use of suitable brownfield sites and the opportunities offered by estate regeneration;
o the potential offered by land which is currently underused, including surplus public sector land where appropriate;
o optimising the proposed density of development; and
o exploring whether other authorities can help to meet some of the identified development requirement.
* and where land is removed from the Green Belt, local policies should require the impact to be offset by compensatory improvements to the environmental quality or accessibility of remaining Green Belt land. We will also explore whether higher contributions can be collected from development as a consequence of land being released from the Green Belt."
7.4 Statement "These [parcels of land selected for removal from the Green Belt] have been selected on the basis that they would cause least harm to the strategic functions of the Green Belt".
The council concedes this plan will harm the Green Belt, yet the plan shows the council has not considered alternative options: see comments against paragraph 7.4.
7.6 Statement "Dronfield is significantly lacking in green space, outdoor sports and children's play space."
The statement indicates the council is fully aware that the Dronfield area is already over-developed. Consequently, any further development is not sustainable as claimed. This plan proposes further environmental and well-being damage with the planned building on sports fields at Coal Aston and a golf course. This is the exact opposite of one of the requirements of sustainable development: "protecting and enhancing the environment".
Moreover, whilst proposing yet more development in Dronfield, the council make no commitment to rectify a situation it notes falls below current standards.
7.7 Statement "Overall, the town centre is performing well."
This statement does not reflect the situation in the civic centre where there are currently three empty units, three charity shops and a betting shop which make up 50% of the units.
7.7 The council acknowledges "the condition of the civic centre needs addressing" and should therefore state what level of funding it will provide to do so or how it will mandate developers, who will profit from building the proposed dwellings, to fund the necessary regeneration. The plan contains no commitment to address this issue. The plan completely fails to address the need to improve the infrastructure to accommodate the additional demand from the planned 860 additional dwellings.
7.8 Statement "but the spread out form of the town ... needs addressing in order to maintain the vitality and viability of the town centre".
Then state the council's plans to address the spread-out form of the town centre. Surely development outside the settlement development limits will increase the spread out form of the town?
Table 7.1 Item 1, first bullet: "review of bus services" without a stated commitment to act on the output does not result in the "Improvement of public transport"

Item 1, second bullet: is the council funding the proposed new link road to Callywhite Lane? If it is not, how will it be funded?

Item 1, fourth bullet: what does "Improved public realm" mean?

Item 1, fifth bullet: Explain how an "audit of vehicle speeds" improves balance between car and pedestrian space.

Item 3, bullet 1: "Improvement of the market offer" - how does the council propose to do this?

Item 4, bullet 1: Explain how "review and consolidation of previous audits" will result in making more of existing heritage assets.

Item 4, bullet 2: and what follow-up action will be implemented to secure new uses of historic buildings and spaces?
Policy SP1 Paragraph e(i) where does the council expect "proposals that maximise the benefits from, and protect and improve access to, the railway station" to come from if they are not included in the plan? This plan should include appropriate proposals, not rely on them coming from other sources. Define how the council will support these proposals. As it stands this statement is meaningless - there is no guarantee any proposals will be put forward and no quantification of the support the council will provide.

Paragraph e(iii): statement "Encourage proposals that facilitate the provision of new green space" is meaningless. The council will be fully aware that developers will seek to maximise profit by building as many dwellings as possible within regulatory constraints; they should be obligated to provide new green spaces.

Paragraph e(iv): State how the council will "Encourage uses within the town centre that enhance the offer of the town as an evening destination, particularly leisure facilities" i.e. what types of business will the council attract and how will this be done?

Paragraph f: How does the council intend to ensure developers that profit from building new accommodation will also "contribute to the successful delivery of the Dronfield Regeneration Framework's key themes and proposals" as stated?
8.11 Statement "National policy states that valued landscapes should be protected and enhanced, and requires Local Plans to include criteria based policies against which proposals for any development on or affecting local landscape areas will be judged."
The Drone valley landscape is highly valued by a large proportion of its residents. The council has not fulfilled this National Policy obligation with respect to the proposed development on Green Belt which will have a significant impact on the visual appearance and perception of the landscape.
Figure 8.1,
8.23 It is difficult to discern the different grey shaded areas, however it appears the area around Dronfield is classified as "Coalfield Village Farmlands". This is a grossly misleading classification of the Drone Valley - all the settlements pre-date the development of the coal fields: both Dronfield and Unstone appear in the Domesday Book. The field boundaries visible on both sides of the valley can be traced back to medieval times. The council's proposal to take land out of the Green Belt around Dronfield will destroy portions of this historic landscape. This is in breach of the National planning guidance referenced in paragraph 8.23: "National planning guidance advises that local planning authorities should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment"

Figure 8.2,
8.53,
Policy SDC11 Figure 8.2 shows that 'use less energy' as the largest opportunity to reduce carbon emissions.
Paragraph 8.53 states "The Local Plan can make a major contribution to mitigating and adapting to climate change by shaping new and existing development across North East Derbyshire in ways that reduce carbon emissions". Whilst the local plan can make a major contribution to reducing carbon emissions, the current plan for the Dronfield settlement will do the exact opposite.
The current Green Belt land on which the council proposes housing developments will currently be a net CO2 sink. The council's proposal to build an additional 860 dwellings on the outskirts of the Dronfield settlement without a commensurate increase in local employment and no binding commitments to provide public transport from the outer reaches of the settlement to the railway station and existing bus services to Chesterfield and Sheffield will increase commuting, CO2 emissions and pollution.
Consequently, this proposal is not sustainable development and is in breach of policy SDC11.
8.59,
Policy SDC12 The plan notes there is a flood risk in the Dronfield area, however, paragraph 8.59 appears to be a NE Derbyshire Council statement of abdication on this matter, noting that the County Council and Environment Agencies hold the associated flood risk management responsibilities.
Policy SDC12 paragraph (d) states "There is no net increase in surface water runoff for the lifetime of the development on all new development. Run off rates for development on greenfield sites should not be exceeded, and where possible should be reduced from existing."
The proposed building of 860 dwellings on current Green Belt land will inevitably result in significant areas of hard surfaces replacing absorbent land. Consequently, it seems completely unrealistic that current run off rates will not be exceeded. However, the council appears to be relying on this flawed policy; the plan makes no provision for managing the additional run off that will result.
Policy SDC13 The proposal to build 860 dwellings on Green Belt land around Dronfield is in breach of clause (k) of this policy - a requirement to conserve historic landscapes.
8.65,
9.9,
9.37,
9.45,
9.57
Paragraph 8.65 reference to "A Guide to Sustainable Housing Layout and Design"; paragraph 9.9 reference to "Green Infrastructure Study"; paragraph 9.37 (and others) reference to "Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan"; paragraph 9.45 reference to "Local Transport Plan"; paragraph 9.57 reference to "Local Transport Plan 3".
None of these documents are included on the local plan evidence page of the council's website, nor does a search on their name return a link to the document. How does the council expect the public to comment on a plan referencing multiple documents that cannot be found on the council's web site?
This is further evidence that the consultation process is fundamentally flawed.
Why has the council not included a list of references to external documents, including links to where they can be found on the council's web site? A list of references is basic practice when citing external sources within a document.
8.70 Statement "The existing, and likely future, air quality in an area should be considered through Local Plans".
The council's proposal to build an additional 860 dwellings on the outskirts of the Dronfield settlement without a commensurate increase in local employment and no binding commitments to provide public transport from the outer reaches of the settlement to the railway station and existing bus services to Chesterfield and Sheffield will increase commuting and therefore degrade local air quality. The above statement infers the council's plan will seek to improve air quality, not reduce it as it currently plans to do in the Dronfield area.
8.73 Statement "the NPPF acknowledges that good planning should aim to prevent the adverse effects of noise from being unacceptable".
The increased commuting that the current plan will cause in the Dronfield area will have a significant negative noise impact on the residents in Unstone who live along the B6057. The plan contains no evidence to demonstrate that this has been considered or assessed.
Policy SDC14 Statement "Where adverse effects are identified, development will only be approved where suitable mitigation can be achieved which would bring emissions or impacts within acceptable levels".
This policy can only be fulfilled in relation to the proposed additional dwellings in Dronfield through binding commitments to interventions that prevent a significant increase in road traffic through Unstone.
9.5 Statement "The Council is continuing to work with statutory undertakers, utility companies and other agencies to prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan which will support the proposed development identified in the Local Plan."
In other words, there is currently no agreed plan nor any binding commitments to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the proposed expansion in housing. Consequently, the plan presented is incomplete, unsound and should be withdrawn and re-issued for further consultation when appropriate commitments on infrastructure provision have been secured.
9.6 Statement "Potential sources of funding for strategic infrastructure could include Local Enterprise Partnerships and the Regional Growth Fund and Growing Places Fund, central government, ..."
In other words, the council has no idea how strategic infrastructure needs arising from the proposed increase in dwellings will be funded.
Consequently, the plan presented is incomplete, unsound and should be withdrawn and re-issued for further consultation when appropriate commitments on infrastructure provision have been secured.
Policy ID1 Statement "Development proposals that would result in the loss or isolation of
existing green infrastructure will not be permitted unless ... a compensatory amount of green infrastructure of an equivalent or better quality can be provided in the local area"
The council's plan contains no such provision with respect to the green infrastructure it is proposing to destroy on the outskirts of the Dronfield settlement. The proposed development at Dronfield is in breach of this policy.
Policy ID1 Statement: "The NPPF tells us that ... policies should be based on up to date assessments of the need for open space, sports and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision. LPAs should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, and should not permit development on existing open space except where it is surplus to requirements, or will be replace [sic] by equivalent of superior facilities"
The plan contains no assessment of the need for open space, sports and recreation facilities; it actually proposes destroying both existing sports and recreation facilities at Coal Aston, Hallowes golf course and Green Belt open spaces, none of which are 'surplus to requirements'.
Consequently, the plan for Dronfield is in breach of this NPPF requirement and fails to meet objectives D6, D9, D13 as claimed in this policy.
Objective D16 referenced in this policy does not appear anywhere in the document!!
9.19 Statement "The Council is committed to the protection and enhancement of open space, sports and recreation facilities".
This statement is blatant hypocrisy when the council plans to destroy existing sports and recreational facilities at Coal Aston and Hallowes golf course.
9.22 Statement "The Council has commissioned a Playing Pitch Strategy and an Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy to assess current levels and quality of provision in relation to demand."
In other words, these 'strategies' have not completed the commissioned assessments
Statement "The Council is also in the process of reviewing open spaces, recreation sites and facilities. The outcome of this work will inform the next iteration of the Local Plan."
Further evidence that the current plan is incomplete, contains no binding commitment to providing these facilities, and is therefore unsound.
Policy ID3 The statement "The Council will seek to protect and enhance existing open spaces" is meaningless. State exactly what is meant by "seek" i.e. binding commitments on the council and mandated obligations on developers.
Policy ID3 The Green Belt open spaces around the Dronfield settlement and the playing fields at Coal Aston which the council proposes to destroy are not 'surplus to requirements' nor does the plan contain any obligations for them to be "replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location". Consequently, the plans for the Dronfield settlement are in breach of this policy.
9.29 Statement "The Local Plan does not designate Local Green Spaces, but any forthcoming Neighbourhood Plans may do so."
The plan does not contain any commitment to respect these designations. The council must make its position clear on this matter.
9.30 Statement "Where new Green Infrastructure is proposed, clear funding and delivery mechanisms must be in place for its long term management and maintenance".
Then state how the council expects the funding and delivery mechanisms to be provided.
9.36 Statement "The relationship between planning, transport and infrastructure is acknowledged as crucial in creating successful and sustainable places that work for everyone. Whilst the planning system cannot directly change people's travel behaviour, it can provide the framework for more sustainable transport choices.
The plan for 860 additional dwellings on the outskirts of Dronfield without a binding commitment to provide public transport links to the development areas does not provide a framework for more sustainable transport choices.
9.37 Statement "but there is an acknowledgment that this understanding will need to be developed further through Local Plans and also through detailed assessments such as modelling and Transport Assessments".
In other words, the council has inadequate data on how the plan for additional dwellings and therefore there is no basis for planning needed improvements to existing highway and public transport networks, services and facilities.
Consequently, the plan presented is incomplete and therefore unsound.
9.38 Statements "Derbyshire County Council is responsible for transportation, which includes producing the Local Transport Plan." and "the District Council has only limited control over highways or transport matters".
In other words, the council has no obligation to assess transport requirements arising from the planned increase in dwellings.
As a local resident, I have no interest in the division of planning responsibilities between the different council bodies; I expect them to work together to produce a coherent and complete plan. The current local plan is evidence that this is not happening. This paragraph makes a strong case to merge the current bodies into a single council with responsibility for all aspects of planning.
9.39 Statement "Sustainable modes of travel such as walking, cycling, public transport, car sharing, and alternative fuel vehicles can be provided through good planning and design".
However, the current local plan contains no commitment to provide public transport links to the proposed development areas on the outskirts of Dronfield. This is bad planning. The paragraph reveals that a Transport Assessment will only evidence the damage these plans are doing to the environment.
9.40 Travel Plans appear to be equally toothless; there is no commitment in the plan to ensure the infrastructure is upgraded to meet the increased demand arising from the additional dwellings planned, to the detriment of current residents and the environment.
9.41 Statement "Access to sustainable forms of transport must be integrated into the design of new development".
Therefore, the council must commit to providing public transport links from the proposed development areas on the outskirts of Dronfield to the existing transport hubs in the centre. This plan contains no such commitment and is therefore flawed.
9.44 Statements "Where possible, bus routes should penetrate new development sites through permeable routes" and "Where appropriate, developers will be asked for a financial contribution so the Council and bus operators can work together to improve bus provision for a particular site."
The plan should be as unambiguous about these commitments as it is for the number of dwellings proposed. The council has access to national statistics that will enable it to quantify the requirements for public transport and other infrastructure facilities, but it has failed to address these matters in the plan.
9.45 Statement "Where applicable, proximity and access to rail services should also form part of planning applications"
9.51 Statement "The future focus will therefore be on limiting parking supply at destination."
This policy is myopic and, as acknowledged with limiting parking on residential estates, will result in difficulties as is already the case in Dronfield in the proximity of the Railway Station. The focus should be on providing viable alternatives to car use i.e. frequent and affordable public transport services linking the outer reaches of settlements such as Dronfield with existing transport hubs.
Policy ID6 The council has acknowledged it does not have authority of the strategic highway network; it therefore cannot implement clause (f) of this policy. Therefore this clause is misleading and should be removed or re-written.
Policy ID6 Statement "You told us that ... The Plan should aim to reduce the use of the car and encourage walking, cycling the use of public transport."
Yet the plan contains no binding commitments to encourage any of these. The council appears to be relying on encouraging developers and other authorities to achieve this aim.
9.53 Statement "Funding or developers [sic] contributions will be sought, as appropriate, to support the delivery of key transport infrastructure improvements."
This statement lacks substance and shows no binding commitment to deliver infrastructure improvements. The plan must be as unambiguous in its implementation of infrastructure improvements as it is with respect to the number of dwellings required. Anything less than this offers no assurance against the environmental damage and congestion blight that would be result from a significant increase in dwelling numbers with no commensurate improvements to infrastructure. Consequently, the plan is incomplete and unsound.
9.54 Statement "Proposals for improvements to transport infrastructure will be supported where it can be demonstrated to be necessary".
Define 'supported' i.e. the level of funding the council will commit to these improvements.
Define 'demonstrated to be necessary' i.e. what criteria will determine an improvement is necessary.

Statement "recognising that transport issues to not stop at administrative boundaries"
I suspect this should read "do not stop"
9.56 Statement "The legacy of coal mining has left a number of disused rail routes throughout the District, which have the potential to be returned to beneficial use to reduce the number of journeys made by road, increase the movement of freight by rail, or increase opportunities for recreation."
Like so many statements in the plan, the above fails the "so what" test. Does the council intend to implement measures to develop these rail routes for the purposes identified? If so, state what these measures are. If the council has no plans to develop disused routes, the statement is irrelevant.
Policy ID7
This policy merely states the basis on which new transport infrastructure will be permitted. Despite proposing the development of 6,600 additional dwellings 50ha of employment land this plan contains no commitment to implement any new infrastructure or improve existing infrastructure. Consequently, this is a plan to increase pollution and congestion, adversely impacting the quality of life of the region's residents.
9.68 Statement "Where new development necessitates new or improved infrastructure ... the Council will require developers to contribute towards any necessary site specific infrastructure".
This does not address improving local infrastructure outside the proposed development sites to meet the increased demands arising from the planned developments.
9.71 The Infrastructure Delivery Plan must be part of the consultation process, not published after the local plan is adopted. With the IDP, the council is presenting a partial picture to the public and leaving many questions unanswered. Consequently, the current consultation process is flawed.
9.73 Provide details of the Community Infrastructure Levy: who pays this; on what basis are charges calculated?
The paragraph seems to suggest the developers pay the levy and, if it is set too high, it will deter development. However, the details requested can only be inferred; they should be explicit. The author assumes the public have prior knowledge of CILs.

Statement "the Council will therefore also carry out work to assess the viability of the Plan as a whole, and whether there would be enough economic incentive to provide new development with infrastructure requirements in place. This work will help to inform whether a levy will be introduced and what rates would be applied".
The first sentence is difficult to decipher, but the council appear to be suggesting that if developers object sufficiently strongly the council will not pursue infrastructure funding via CILs. The outcome of this policy is entirely predictable; developers will provide the minimum on-site infrastructure necessary to meet any applicable mandatory regulations.
9.76 Statement "Where a scheme is agreed to be unviable or marginal, the Council will review the policy arrangements"
Yet another statement rendering purported safeguards and policies in this plan ineffective. Developers must be required to deliver schemes meeting immutable requirements that ensure the provision of appropriate infrastructure. If these requirements result in schemes being unviable, then there is insufficient demand in the market to justify the schemes. The precedent for this approach is well established in many sectors where minimum standards are enforced through regulation, and products or services that do not meet these standards cannot be offered.
9.77 While paragraph 9.76 is retained, paragraph 9.77 does not provide sufficient protection: "essential" is not defined; paragraph 9.76 renders all the stated infrastructure policies mutable.
The paragraph also states "schemes will not be supported"; that does not mean they will not be permitted, rendering the paragraph ineffective.
Policy ID8 Paragraph (c) of this policy also limits a developer's obligation to on-site infrastructure in accordance with the limitations noted in paragraph 9.68 above.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5409

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: PMW Property

Agent: Cerda Planning

Representation Summary:

Object to approach.
The Emerging Plan seeks to deliver economic growth in only four location across what is an extensive rural district.
This has a number of flaws:
1. limited locations causes the plan to be inherently inflexible and sensitive to market change, viability issues.
2.the rate of delivery is limited. Spreading economic growth across a wider portfolio of sites, enables a larger economic market to be captured by the plan, with less infrastructure requirements and reduced lead-in times. 3.Focusing on four sites will increase commuting distances as not directed to locations where houses are proposed.

Full text:

Objections are lodged in respect the approach set out in Policy SS3.
For economic growth, this will be focused on primary employment areas identified within Policy WC2 and on four strategic sites.
It is important to note that Policy WC2 does not allocate new employment land; instead, Policy WC2 is concerned with protecting existing employment land.
Thus, it can be seen that despite the significant need for additional employment land, and despite the Emerging Plan recognising the need for more jobs and to deal with out migration, the Emerging Plan seeks to deliver economic growth in only four location across what is an extensive rural district.
The approach taken has a number of fundamental flaws.
Firstly, the delivery of employment land on such a limited number of locations causes the plan to be inherently inflexible. If it transpires through the plan period that one of the four locations is sensitive to market change, viability issues, or land owner issues, the result is a significant proportion of the economic growth required in the plan period will not be delivered. In such circumstances the plan does not have any alternative other than to cause economic growth to be reduced.
Secondly, the rate of delivery of economic growth will be limited by focusing employment on four strategic level sites. It will be far harder to bring employment land forward on sites which need significant infrastructure delivery before employment land can be brought forward. Furthermore, the market will determine the rate of delivery on any given site. Spreading economic growth across a wider portfolio of sites, of differing sizes and in differing locations, enables a larger economic market to be captured by the plan, less infrastructure requirements which reduces the lead-in time for delivering economic growth, and with a wider economic market being catered for the delivery of economic growth once infrastructure matters are addressed will be far quicker.
Thirdly, commuting as well as out commuting are key issues for the district. Focusing all of the economic growth on four sites will inevitably cause commuting distances to increase since economic growth is not being directed to locations where it is required, nor is economic growth being focused on areas where houses are located. If the Emerging Plan were to distribute economic growth across a wider range of sites, geographically split across the district, commuting distances would reduce since jobs and houses would be more closely related which is an inherently sustainable form of development and is an approach endorsed by the NPPF.
Consequently, the entire strategy for distributing economic growth should be re-visited since there are more appropriate alternatives available to the Council when compared with the chosen strategy.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5417

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Planning & Design Practice Ltd.

Agent: Planning & Design Practice Ltd.

Representation Summary:

Object to the focus for housing growth in Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh other than that which can be accommodated within the existing urban areas and those areas not designated as green belt. Object to the release of greenbelt land for development or safeguarding.

Full text:

Object to the focus for housing growth in Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh other than that which can be accommodated within the existing urban areas and those areas not designated as green belt. Object to the release of greenbelt land for development or safeguarding.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5467

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Woodall Homes Ltd

Agent: Peacock and Smith Ltd

Representation Summary:

Amend the housing provision in line with our comments made in respect to Policy SS2 Scale of Development

Please see attached statement.

Full text:

Amend the housing provision in line with our comments made in respect to Policy SS2 Scale of Development

Please see attached statement.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5598

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Gleeson Regeneration Ltd

Agent: Peacock and Smith Ltd

Representation Summary:

Amend the housing provision in line with our comments made in respect to Policy SS2 Scale of Development

Please see attached statement

Full text:

Amend the housing provision in line with our comments made in respect to Policy SS2 Scale of Development

Please see attached statement

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5642

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Define

Representation Summary:

Support Policy, although some clarity is required in relation to the criteria set out under Green Belt in the policy.

Full text:

We support the proposed settlement hierarchy that underpins the draft Local Plan's spatial strategy as set out in Policy SS3. Furthermore we support Killamarsh's high position within the settlement hierarchy as a 'Level 1 Settlement'. We welcome the minimum target of 6,600 dwellings over the period 2011-2033 set within the draft Local Plan and agree that sustainable settlements are the most appropriate areas for the delivery of this housing growth.
Notably the recognition in Level 1 Settlements great potential to deliver sustainable development adjacent to the urban areas at the District's boundaries is welcomed. As set out elsewhere in the Draft Local Plan, the Borough must seek to accommodate a significant amount of development to address unmet needs arising elsewhere in the Housing Market Area (HMA), notably Sheffield City Region. Planning to meet those identified needs as close as possible to where they arise is a key principle of sustainable development, and will help ensure that residents do not have to move away from their home area as a result of a lack of provision, or unnecessarily increase commuting between the areas.
Some clarity is, however, required in relation to the criteria set out under Green Belt in the policy. With regards to the release of land parcels for allocation, the Green Belt should be reviewed and up to date to ensure the Districts housing needs are reflected and met. In order to ensure a positive plan led approach (as sought by the NPPF para 150-151) it is apparent that a wide strategy is required in order to enable the delivery of a range of development opportunities to meet the identified development needs, and that will necessarily include the release of sites from the Green Belt in a variety of sustainable locations.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5650

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Gilmore

Representation Summary:

I support the overall strategy in the Plan to direct housing towards the larger towns and villages in the District.
However, I do not consider that the level of Green Belt release around the 3 main towns in the north is required.
In particular, in Dronfield, a further assessment is required which considers alternative sites within the existing settlement boundary BEFORE Green Belt land is released. This approach would be consistent with the NPPF.

Full text:

I support the overall strategy in the Plan to direct housing towards the larger towns and villages in the District.
However, I do not consider that the level of Green Belt release around the 3 main towns in the north is required.
In particular, in Dronfield, a further assessment is required which considers alternative sites within the existing settlement boundary BEFORE Green Belt land is released. This approach would be consistent with the NPPF.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5938

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation Summary:

Bolsover Land Ltd refers to this policy, especially to the provision for 64.8ha of employment land within the plan period and its focus of employment growth on primary employment areas as identified in Policy WC2 and on strategic sites. Bolsover Land Ltd suggests that the former Coalite site could contribute to this and thus reduce pressure for additional land.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5955

Received: 10/04/2017

Respondent: Panache Lingerie Ltd

Agent: Knight Frank

Representation Summary:

Panache Lingerie Ltd supports the Settlement Hierarchy outlined and the intention to locate 240 new dwellings within the Level 2 Settlement of Renishaw, albeit we consider this figure should be higher. However, we consider that the allocation of Green Belt land to meet this demand is unnecessary.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5957

Received: 10/04/2017

Respondent: Panache Lingerie Ltd

Agent: Knight Frank

Representation Summary:

With reference to employment land, Panache Lingerie Ltd objects to the proposed level of 64.8ha, as this far exceeds the evidenced minimum requirement of 50ha.
It is considered that through the re-use of an underused and poor quality
Brownfield site this outweighs the need to allocate a site which is clearly surplus to demand from the outset.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5968

Received: 10/04/2017

Respondent: Green Piling Ltd

Agent: Knight Frank

Representation Summary:

Green Piling supports the Settlement Hierarchy, albeit they consider that Renishaw's housing provision should be higher and that the site at Smithybrook Road could be utilised to minimise Green Belt losses.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5987

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Advance Land & Planning Limited

Representation Summary:

Considers that provision the of 188 dwellings for Holmewood is inadequate, especially when account is taken of the fact that the provision is already committed and will be completed/delivered possibly before the Plan is even adopted and certainly in the first few years of the Plan. Suggestion that the provision should be at least 450 dwellings.Suggestion

Full text:

See attached documents.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6006

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation Summary:

In the context of the above, Policy SS3 is fully supported which seeks to focus the majority of the District's housing growth in the Level 1 Principal, Secondary towns and level 2 settlements and strategic sites. The broad distribution of growth, therefore, with 2,508 dwellings proposed in the four main towns; 1,270 dwellings on the strategic sites; and 1,962 dwellings in the Level 2 settlements, appears to be well conceived and should provide for a sustainable distribution of the District's housing growth.

Full text:

Thank you for consulting Derbyshire County Council (DCC) on the North East Derbyshire Local Plan Consultation Draft (LPCD). A report on the LPCD, including the comments below, will be considered at a forthcoming meeting of the County Council's Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Infrastructure (date yet to be confirmed following County Council elections). In the meantime, in order to meet your statutory deadline, I should be grateful if you would accept these comments until I confirm the decision made on the report at the Cabinet Member Meeting following a five-day call-in period. I will, therefore, contact you again at that time to confirm DCC's formal comments.

Member Comments

Local County Councillors with electoral divisions in North East Derbyshire District were consulted on the CDLP. No comments have been received at the time of writing, however, I will forward any comments subsequently received.

Officer Comments

1 Spatial Portrait

1.1 The sub-division of the District into four sub-areas (North, South, East and West) is well justified and fully supported as the basis to plan for the future spatial growth needs of the District. It is clear that each of the four sub-areas have their own close physical and functional relationships, their own characteristics and development needs to be addressed in the LPCD.

1.2 The analysis in the Spatial Portrait provides a thorough and comprehensive assessment of the issues and challenges facing the District. However, the Accessibility and Transport Section should make reference to the emerging proposals for HS2 and the Government's recent consultation proposals for the HS2 route refinement through Derbyshire, including proposals for HS2 services to stop at Chesterfield railway station via a new link that runs along the existing Erewash Valley line and then utilising the existing Midland Mainline in the vicinity of Clay Cross. Proposals are reaffirmed in the consultation for the proposed development of a new maintenance depot at Staveley. Although not located within North East Derbyshire District, the HS2 proposals are likely to have an impact on the District's economy.

2 Vision and Objectives

2.1 The inclusion of a range of both district-wide and sub-area strategic objectives is fully supported and should ensure that the Local Plan provides for a sustainable pattern of development and meets the future growth needs of the District over the Plan period . In the context of the comments above, Objective D1 could be expanded to indicate that the Local Plan will seek to maximise the economic benefits for the District that are likely to be generated by HS2. It is welcomed that Objective E3 appropriately seeks to ensure that any environmental impacts arising from the development of HS2 are effectively mitigated. Objective D6 is fully supported, which seeks to ensure that the general area of the Green Belt is protected and that the purposes of including land within the Green Belt takes account of the need to promote sustainable patters of development across the District (see further comments below).

3 Spatial Strategy

3.1 The broad spatial strategy set out in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 is fully supported. This indicates that the Local Plan will direct the vast majority of the District's future employment growth to key locations including the M1 Growth Corridor; the A61 corridor; Callywhite Lane, Dronfield; former Biwaters site at Clay Cross; the Avenue site at Wingerworth; Markham Vale; and the former Coalite site. For housing, the Local Plan seeks to focus growth in the four main towns and on a number of the key strategic sites above, particularly the former Biwaters site; the former Avenue site; and former Coalite site. DCC has worked in partnership with, and has been fully supportive of, the District Council's aims to bring these major strategic sites forward for development, not least for their major economic, job creation and regeneration benefits that they are likely to deliver to the residents of the District.

3.2 Historically, DCC has been supportive of such a spatial distribution of growth based on the four main towns and key regeneration sites through the revoked Derby and Derbyshire Joint Structure Plan (DDJSP) and more recently the former East Midlands Regional Plan (EMRP) as providing for the most sustainable pattern of growth in the District, particularly as a large part of the District is covered by strategically important Green Belt, particularly to the north of the area.

4 Housing Matters

Housing Provision Requirement

4.1 The housing provision requirement for the District of 6,600 new homes (300 per annum) over the Plan period set out in Policy SS2: Scale of Development, is fully supported, as it would meet the full objectively assessed housing needs of the District based on extensive evidence in the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA), which recommended that the OAHN for the HMA as a whole was between 1,180 - 1,350 homes per year and for North East Derbyshire District specifically at between 270 - 310 homes per year. DCC's Officers are familiar with the SHMA, particularly its methodology and conclusions and consider it to be a comprehensive and robust piece of evidence. The proposed housing requirement of 300 dwellings pa would meet the OAHN of the District in full, consistent with the requirements of paragraph 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4.2 It is noted that paragraph 4.7 of the LPCD indicates that further 'sensitivity testing' was carried out on this recommended OAHN requirement, which subsequently recommended a revised OAHN figure for the District of between 268 - 285 new homes pa. This provides for a robust approach as sensitivity testing of a local authority's OAHN need is now a common requirement of Inspectors at Local Plan examinations. It is noted that the Local Plan's proposed housing provision requirement of 300 dwellings pa is at the higher end of the OAHN figure set out in the SHMA and exceeds the higher end of the OAHN range following sensitivity testing. However, the Local Plan's requirement of 300 dwellings is considered to be fully justified as this higher figure would be more likely to positively support the economic growth and regeneration needs of the District and would be more likely to deliver higher levels of much needed affordable housing.

4.3 It is noted that paragraph 4.10 of the LPCD, indicates that since the SHMA and sensitivity testing work was undertaken, the Government has published the 2014-Based Sub-National Population Projections and 2014-based Sub-National Household Projections. Consequently, NEDDC is currently working with its strategic partners in the HMA to commission an update of the SHMA. This approach is welcomed and supported, as the NPPF and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) require local planning authorities (LPAs) to use the most up-to-date evidence to inform their housing targets, particularly the latest population and household projections.

4.4 DCC's Officers have previously undertaken an assessment of the 2014-based Sub National Household Projections in comparison with the 2012-based Sub-National Household Projections and their implications for future household growth across the County. The assessment for North East Derbyshire District indicates that over the Plan period of 2011 - 2033, household growth in the 2014-based projections was broadly the same at 5,000 additional households as in the 2012-based projections, so the most up-to-date set of projections may be likely to have limited implications for the District's future housing requirement in the Local Plan.

4.5 Since 2004/2005, North East Derbyshire District has been defined as falling within a North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA together with the neighbouring local authority areas of Bolsover District, Chesterfield Borough and Bassetlaw District in Nottinghamshire, based on extensive evidence first commissioned by the (then) East Midlands Regional Assembly in 2004 and more recently in the SHMA referred to above. DCC's Officers are fully supportive of the continued approach to the assessment of housing requirement across the four local authorities being based on the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA because of the close functional and travel-to-work relationships that exist between the four local authority areas. This support has recently been reaffirmed in the County Council's consultation responses on the Bolsover District Draft Local Plan (December 2016) and Chesterfield Borough Local Plan Consultation Draft (February 2017).

Settlement Hierarchy and Distribution of Development

4.6 The definition of a Settlement Hierarchy for the District in Table 4.1 as the basis for the spatial distribution of the Local Plan's proposed housing growth set out in Policy SS3 and table 4.2, appears to be well conceived and justified and based on extensive evidence in the North Derbyshire Settlement Hierarchy Study (SHS) (December 2016). The SHS analysed the roles that the different settlements in the District performed for their communities and based the hierarchy on a range of criteria which included population levels, facilities and services, employment opportunities and public transport provision. The hierarchy sets out four levels of settlements including Level 1: Principal and Secondary Towns; Level 2: Settlements with a Good level of Sustainability; Level 3: Settlements with a Limited Sustainability; and Level 4: Very Small Villages and Hamlets with Limited Sustainability.

4.7 In the context of the above, Policy SS3 is fully supported which seeks to focus the majority of the District's housing growth in the Level 1 Principal and Secondary towns of Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh; and level 2 settlements of Calow, Grassmoor, Holmewood, Morton, North Wingfield, Pilsley, Renishaw, Shirland, Stonebroom and Tupton. The remainder of the District's growth is proposed to be focussed on the key strategic sites of the former Biwaters site at Clay Cross and The Avenue site at Wingerworth. As noted above, historically, DCC has been supportive of such a spatial distribution of growth through the revoked DDJSP and more recently the former EMRP as providing for the most sustainable pattern of growth in the District. The broad distribution of growth, therefore, with 2,508 dwellings proposed in the four main towns; 1,270 dwellings on the strategic sites; and 1,962 dwellings in the Level 2 settlements, appears to be well conceived and should provide for a sustainable distribution of the District's housing growth.

4.8 The definition of settlement boundaries for the Level 1 Principal and Secondary Towns and Level 2 Larger Settlements identified on the relevant Policies Maps and the approach to development set out in Policy SS12, is fully supported. The use of settlement boundaries is an effective mechanism to ensure that new housing development is provided in sustainable locations within and well related to the District's settlements. It will provide clarity and certainty to the public and to developers as to which land is included within the built form of the settlements and which other land should be considered as open countryside for planning policy purposes relating to Policy SS14, where a more restrictive approach to development is to be applied.

Strategic Site Allocations

4.9 The identification of four key strategic housing and employment site allocations at The Avenue, Wingerworth; Former Biwaters site; and Markham Vale is fully supported, particularly the provision in the Plan for specific policies (SS4, SS5 and SS6) to guide the future development of these sites. DCC has worked in partnership with NEDDC over many years to secure the delivery of these large-scale, previously derelict and contaminated brownfield sites for large-scale housing and / or employment purposes. It is particularly important that NEDDC's Officers continue to work closely with DCC's Officers to secure the necessary infrastructure required to support the development of these sites, particularly highways improvements, school place provision, including new schools, and Green Infrastructure. It is particularly welcomed that Policy SS4 identifies the need for a new primary school to be provided as part of the development of The Avenue site and the need to ensure that development of the site does not prejudice the construction of a link road from the A61 to A617, which is identified in the Derbyshire Local Transport Plan 3 as a longer term strategic highway project.

Land South of Markham Vale

4.10 It is noted that Policy SS7: South of Markham Vale, proposes the allocation of a new strategic employment site to the south of the existing Markham Vale employment site off Junction 29a of the M1 and also in close proximity to the south of the Coalite site, which could provide up to 40 ha of new employment land. The background to the policy indicates that the site could be envisaged as a natural extension to the existing Markham Vale employment site and importantly makes reference to the need to ensure that the proposed allocation of the site does not undermine the delivery of the adjacent Coalite site, which is welcomed and supported. The existing Markham Vale employment site is expected to be fully built out over the next 2 - 3 years as much of the site has been developed and the remaining plots are either under construction or at the latter stages of legal agreement. DCC's Officers consider, therefore, that the proposed new allocation is unlikely to impact on the delivery of the remaining part of the existing Markham Vale site.

4.11 A key concern relating to the proposed development of the site is its impact on the setting of Bolsover Castle. Although the supporting policy makes reference to the need to protect the setting of heritage assets, in particular the Grade 1 Listed Bolsover Castle, DCC's Officers consider it to be important that this allocation needs to be supported by a Heritage Impact Assessment and Visual Appraisal to satisfy the Authority that the policy requirements can be delivered and that any allocation in this location would not impact adversely on the setting of Bolsover Castle or the sense of arrival that contributes to the visitor experience. Officers are concerned that this site could not be delivered in an acceptable form that would not be likely to impact on Bolsover Castle. NEDDC is requested to give further and more detailed consideration to this issue.

Former Coalite Site

4.12 It is noted that the former Coalite site has not been identified in the LPCD as a strategic site allocation but instead has been identified a Priority Regeneration Area under Policy SS8 for approximately 660 dwellings and 70,000 of employment land. The latest route refinement proposals for HS2 that were recently subject to public consultation, includes a realignment on the HS2 line which has a direct impact on the Coalite site, so that the refined route proposals cut across the eastern part of the site compared to the original route proposals which cut across the western part of the site. In its recent consultation response to Government on the route refinement proposals, DCC expressed significant concern that the new route would cut across land that has been identified on the approved masterplan as forming the first phase of housing development on the eastern part of the site, which is seen to be crucial to kick starting the wider redevelopment of the whole site for housing and employment purposes and which could ultimately impact on the viability and delivery of the whole site.

4.13 It is noted that similar concerns have been expressed by NEDDC in the background text to Policy SS8 relating to the impact of the HS2 route on the deliverability of the masterplan proposals, which together with the need for extensive remediation of the site, mean that the District Council cannot be confident in relying on the housing land proposed on the site to contribute to the Local Plan's proposed housing target. Accordingly, NEDDC has identified the site as a Regeneration Priority Area. This is considered to be an appropriate and justified approach given that there can be no degree of certainty that the Coalite site will contribute to meeting the Local Plan's housing target, which would otherwise be likely to be required by an Inspector, if the land was identified as a Strategic Allocation Site.

4.14 However, this will require careful consideration by NEDDC together with Bolsover District Council, within whose administrative area much of the northern part of site falls to ensure consistency of approach. This is particularly important as the Bolsover District Consultation Draft Local Plan which was published in November 2016 by BDC, proposes to allocate the Coalite site as a Strategic Site Allocation.

Other Housing Allocations

4.15 It is noted that Policy LC1: Housing allocations, identifies a range of over 40 proposed housing allocations, which would contribute to meeting the housing requirement for the District over the Plan period of 6,600 dwellings. Each of these proposed allocations will raise a range of infrastructure requirements to support their development, particularly primary and secondary school place provision (potentially including new schools), highway and access improvements and Green Infrastructure. It is noted that a number of the proposed allocations already benefit from planning permission. DCC has previously provided Officer developer contributions and strategic planning policy comments on a number of these allocated sites, which remain largely relevant to their development. Under the Duty to Cooperate, NEDDC is requested to liaise with DCC on an ongoing basis to identify and secure the strategic infrastructure requirements that would be required to support the development of the proposed allocation sites in order to ensure that they provide for a sustainable form of development (see further comments below).

Affordable Housing

4.16 The proposed approach to affordable housing set out in Policy CS11 and the background text is fully supported and based on an extensive range of evidence. The background text indicates that the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw SHMA estimated that there was a need for around 560 affordable homes pa in the District to fully meet affordable housing need. The North Derbyshire Housing Needs, Market and Affordability study (HNMA) (2011) included an economic viability assessment which recommended that 40% affordable housing could be delivered in the West Sub-Area and up to 30% across the remainder of the District. Policy LC2: Affordable Housing appropriately reflects the order of the Court of Appeal on 13 May 2016, which gave legal effect to the policy set out in the Written Ministerial Statement of 28 November 2014, that contributions should not be sought from developments of 10 units or less and which have a maximum combined gross floorspace of no more than 1,000 sq m. The recommendations of the HNMA study and order of the Court of Appeal decision are appropriately reflected in the policy approach in Policy LC2.

Gypsy and Traveller Issues

4.17 It is welcomed that paragraph 5.103 makes appropriate reference to the Derby, Derbyshire, Peak District National Park Authority (PDNPA) and East Staffordshire Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (2014), which was commissioned by DCC on behalf of the nine city, district and borough councils in Derbyshire, the PDNPA, East Staffordshire District Council and the Derbyshire Gypsy Liaison Group.

4.18 The GTAA recommended that there was a requirement for 15 additional pitches in North East Derbyshire District between 2014 and 2034, of which 6 pitches would be required between 2014 - 2019, with 3 for each five year period thereafter up to 2034. This is appropriately set out in paragraph 5.103 of the LPCD, which is welcomed. The indication in paragraph 5.106 that although to date, no sites have come forward which allow the District Council to propose site allocation in the LPCD but that work on identifying potential allocations is continuing by the District Council, is welcomed and supported. By the time the Local Plan is submitted to the Secretary of State for examination in public, however, it is likely that the Local Plan Inspector will require the District Council to have identified land in the Local Plan for allocation for Traveller pitches, particularly to meet the five year requirement from 2014 to 2019.

4.19 In the context of this on-going work, the inclusion in the LPCD of Policy LC9 is fully supported, which indicates that sites will be allocated to meet the accommodation needs of Travellers based on independent assessment and which sets out a range of criteria for the assessment of any potential sites that come forward for Traveller pitches, in line with the recommendations of national policy guidance for Travellers in Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (March 2012).

5 Green Belt

5.1 Green Belt covers much of the northern and central parts of North East Derbyshire District. In the north of the District, the Green Belt is very narrow and strategically very important particularly in preventing the coalescence of the urban area of southern Sheffield with the towns of Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh in North East Derbyshire and in preventing the coalescence of the three settlements with each other. The Green Belt to the south of the three settlements plays and important role in preventing the coalescence of the settlements with the urban areas of Chesterfield and Staveley to the south.

5.2 In the context of the above, Strategic Objective D6 is fully supported which seeks to protect the general area of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it taking account of the need to meet the needs of all sectors of the District's communities.

5.3 However, whilst the North East Derbyshire Green Belt has been an effective planning policy tool which has assisted significantly in focussing development in the District on brownfield sites and undeveloped land within its settlements, as paragraph 4.61 appropriately points out, the Green belt has also had a range of unintended impacts such as impacting on housing need and the availability of land for new housing growth in some of the District's main settlements, particularly Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh, putting development pressure on green spaces and existing employment land for housing uses, and particularly impacting on increased house process and affordability in those villages constrained by Green Belt, particularly in the north of the District.

5.4 As a consequence of the impacts above, it is noted from paragraph 4.65 that NEDDC has undertaken a Green Belt Review, which provides an objective assessment of the role of individual parcels of Green Belt land in fulfilling the five main Green Belt purposes set out in the NPPF.

5.5 DCC's Officers were grateful to NEDDC's Officers for consulting them in March 2016 on the proposed methodology which was used for undertaking the Green Belt Review. DCC's Officers concluded that the overall methodology was robust and consistent with the agreed methodology for undertaking Green Belt Reviews that was developed by Officers of the Sheffield City Region local authorities, including DCC, in August 2014. Generally, the assessment criteria for Green Belt purposes 1 to 4 appeared to be appropriate and well-conceived as did the scoring mechanism. In the assessment of local landscape character in Stage 3 of the methodology, DCC's Officers recommended that the County Council's Landscape Character of Derbyshire assessment and work on Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES) should be used for this stage of the assessment.

5.6 Government guidance set out in the NPPF is clear that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances. It is considered that the LPCD has set out an appropriate and well-reasoned justification in sections 4.62 to 4.65 for there to be exceptional circumstances within the District for undertaking a review of Green Belt boundaries. This is because extensive evidence has revealed that there is a significant mismatch between the Local Plan strategy and the proposed spatial distribution of housing and that land availability and demand, such that the level of growth being planned for to meet the full OAHN in the District, could not be accommodated in a sustainable way or where demand and viability were highest.

5.7 Appendix B of the LPCD identifies those areas of land which are proposed to be removed from the Green Belt to facilitate new housing development. Whilst the County Council's Officers would not wish to comment in detail on each individual area of land, it would appear in principle, that all the areas that have been identified for removal from the Green Belt are well related to and / or well contained by existing areas of built development and are those areas which would appear to be likely to have least harm on the main Green Belt purposes and overall strategic role of the North Derbyshire Green Belt.

6 Local Settlement Gaps

6.1 The identification of Local Settlement Gaps is supported in Policy SS11 Historically, DCC has been supportive of the definition of Strategic Gaps and Green Wedges in Local Plans being prepared across Derbyshire through Derbyshire Structure Plans (1980 and 1990), the DDJSP and the former EMRP. Strategic Gaps and Green Wedges can play an important and complementary role a local authority's Green Belt in providing a more localised function of preventing the coalescence of neighbouring settlements.

7 Highways

7.1 Policy ID6 discusses sustainable travel, and although DCC's Highways Officers do not disagree with the points covered in the policy, it is considered, however, that the Policy could be strengthened by the inclusion of a more hierarchical approach to the management of travel demand thereby providing a policy basis to strengthen delivery of sustainable transport networks. Possible wording that could be adopted, for example, that would seek to provide necessary interventions is set out below (in order of priority):

a) Site specific and area wide travel demand management (measures to reduce travel by private car and incentives to use walking, cycling and public transport for appropriate journeys, including intensive travel planning);

b) improvements to walking and cycling facilities and public transport services that are provided early in the build out period of new developments and that they are sufficient to encourage sustainable modes of transport;

c) optimisation of the existing highway network to prioritise walking, cycling and public transport that are provided early in the build out period of new developments, such as measures to prioritise the need of pedestrians above the car and improved or new cycle and bus lanes; and

d) Highway capacity enhancements to deal with residual car demand where the initiatives required under points (a) to (c) above are insufficient to avoid significant additional car journeys.

7.2 The LPCD, however, provides little understanding of the potential transportation implications of its land use proposals. As the Government's Transport evidence bases in plan making and decision taking advice, notes, it is important for local planning authorities to undertake an assessment of the transport implications in developing or reviewing their Local Plan so that a robust transport evidence base may be developed to support the preparation and/or review of that Plan.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-evidence-bases-in-plan-making-and-decision-taking

7.3 The LPCD proposes housing provision through a strategy of allocating development according to settlement size, Level 1 settlements being the larger towns and Level 4, being hamlets. A 5th category provides for 'Strategic Sites'. As regards the strategic sites at the former Biwaters site in Clay Cross and the former Avenue Works, Wingerworth, both the strategic site allocations are consented and as such their impacts upon the District's transportation networks have been quantified and strategies developed principally in the form of mitigation works of both 'hard' and 'soft' infrastructure on the A61 corridor. A mechanism for developer contributions for their delivery has been agreed.

7.4 The LPCD, however, proposes further significant housing allocations in Clay Cross and in some of the Level 2 settlements. Traffic from these sites could also have additional impacts upon the A61 corridor and on routes between the A61 corridor south of Chesterfield and M1 principally the A6175. However, no information is provided in the transportation evidence base about this.

7.5 Similarly, a number of level 1 settlements are identified for housing growth north of Chesterfield in Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh. Cumulatively these sites could add a further 2,000+ dwellings, however, no information is provided either individually or cumulatively about their likely impacts for each town's transportation networks. Similarly, there are a number of sites within the Level 2 settlements which cumulatively together with the more strategic sites could have significant impacts upon the corridors and in areas discussed above.

7.6 The LPCD proposes a number of employment allocations including Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate Extension at Dronfield and Stubley Lane/Wreakes Lane Industrial Estate. Consideration will also need to be given to the transportation implications of these together with other proposed employment allocations. The LPCD proposes improvements to Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate through improvement of the junction at Callywhite Lane/Chesterfield Road and provision of a new link road between the eastern end of Callywhite Lane and Chesterfield Road, although this is not shown on the Dronfield Policies Map.

7.7 The LPCD identifies a further site at the former Coalite works, as a Priority Regeneration Area. It is noted that this is considered by the LPCD to be of a strategic scale and has planning permission for some 980 dwellings. This site is not, however, included in the LPCD as Strategic Site Allocation, on account of concerns over its ability to deliver housing within the plan period. This site has planning permission with an agreed highways mitigation strategy in place. Whilst Officers can undemand the District Council's reasoning behind the approach to this particular site, as set out above, nevertheless, it does however mean that other sites are now under consideration for housing allocations that have no transportation analysis underpinning them let alone any basis for providing a strategy to mitigate their effects upon the transportation network.

7.8 Section 9.48 discusses the Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan and A61 corridor and need for partnership working. The Highway Authority in response to future cumulative impacts arising from the proposed development on the A61 corridor south of Chesterfield is developing a strategy to both influence travel behaviour and mitigate its impacts. Consideration should be given to developing a similar strategic approach to other key transport corridors in the district, for example the A6175 Clay Cross - M1, and A632 corridor(s).

7.9 Finally, as part of Bolsover District Draft Local Plan consultation, its Evidence Base included an Interim Transport Evidence Information Note. This in turn provided a useful summary of transport conditions in the Local Plan area. DCC's Officers consider that the North East Derbyshire LPCD would benefit from a similar 'transportation paper' setting out a commentary on North East Derbyshire's transport issues.

7.10 The County Council would be happy to advise the District Council over the strengthening of the evidence base on highways and transport impacts and mitigation.

8 Infrastructure

8.1 Policy ID8: Infrastructure Delivery and Developer Contributions is welcomed and fully supported. The policy indicates that

Proposals for development will only be permitted provided they can be made acceptable through:

* The provision of necessary physical, social and green infrastructure;
* Suitable measures to mitigate the impacts of development;

Where new development will necessitate the provision of new or improved infrastructure, and / or when suitable mitigation is required, the developer will be required to:

* Make direct provision of such infrastructure on site within the development; or
* Make a financial contribution to its funding through the use of a Planning Obligation, or the Community Infrastructure Levy, or any subsequent financial / levy based system that the local planning authority may adopt in the future.

8.2 The policy approach above is broadly consistent with the approach to developer contributions set out in the Derbyshire Developer Contributions Protocol Refresh (September 2016).

8.3 The indication in Policy ID8 that the District Council will use Section 106 Agreements, unilateral undertakings, planning conditions, and if and when adopted the District Council's CIL Charging Schedule to secure necessary infrastructure is broadly welcomed and supported.

Infrastructure Delivery Plan

8.4 National planning policy in the NPPF requires that Local Plans should be supported by evidence of what physical, social and green infrastructure is needed to support the overall quantum and distribution of growth proposed in the Plan. In this context it is noted from paragraph 9.17 of the LPCD that the District Council will before the publication version of the Local Plan prepare an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). Whilst the production of an IDP is welcomed, ideally the IDP should have been published at the same time as the LPCD so that it provided the necessary evidence to indicate what critical infrastructure will be required and where to support and deliver the scale and distribution of growth across the District being proposed in the LPCD. Notwithstanding the above, DCC's Officers would welcome the opportunity to comment on the IDP when it is published in due course. DCC is currently replacing the Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan with the Derbyshire Infrastructure Investment Plan (DIIP), particularly the identification of strategic priority infrastructure projects that are seen as crucial to the delivery of growth in each district and borough of the County. DCC''s Officers will be keen to ensure therefore that there is consistency of approach between the District Council's IDP and the DIIP.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

8.5 It is noted from paragraphs 9.73 and 9.74 that the District Council sees the production of the IDP as a first step in determining whether the introduction of a CIL would be appropriate for the District; that the District Council intends to carry out work to assess viability of the Plan as a whole and whether there would be enough economic incentive to provide new development with infrastructure requirements in place; and that this work will help inform whether a CIL will be introduced and what rates would be applied.

8.6 The approach above is justified and supported. Should the District Council decide to introduce a CIL, DCC's Officers would request that the District Council consults the County Council early in the process of drafting its CIL Charging Schedule. The County Council would wish to consider what infrastructure provided by the County Council is included on the Regulation 123 list as the County Council needs to be satisfied that the proposed CIL income would be adequate to fund the provision of this strategic infrastructure, especially with regard to school place provision and that any projects to be funded are appropriately identified in the Regulation 123 list.

Education Issues

8.7 The main concern from an education point of view relates to the District Council's indication above that it is considering the potential to fund infrastructure through the implementation of a CIL. From an education point of view DCCs officers would wish to ensure that the CIL pot was adequate to fund the necessary developments in schools necessitated by the Plan's proposed housing growth and did not result in funding that was less than that which is achieved through Section 106 contributions. Should the County Council not wish to include certain items of infrastructure on the Regulation 123 list, DCC officers would wish to ensure that the level at which the CIL is charged would not preclude the development from also making contributions through S106 to these items.

8.8 As noted above, the LPCD has proposed the allocation of over 40 strategic and other housing allocation sites to meet the District's housing requirement of 6,600 dwellings over the Plan period. NEDDC's Officers are requested to continue to liaise with DCC's Children's Services Officers to consider the primary and secondary school place requirements generated by these proposed housing developments in the LPCD.

9 Landscape Comments

9.1 The LPCD's approach to landscape and landscape character is broadly welcomed and supported. It is particularly welcomed that many of the Plan's proposed housing allocations appear to accord with the landscape and visual impact recommendations DCC's Officers made as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) process.

9.2 Policy SS8 identifies the former Coalite site as a Strategic Priority Area. The proposed collaborative working between NEDDC and BDC to address the comprehensive restoration of the former Coalite site is fully supported but DCC's Officers still have concerns about the potential scale of development as currently proposed with respect to its potential impact on landscape character and the setting/sense of arrival at Bolsover Castle (see comments above).

9.3 Policy SS11: Local Settlement Gaps and Policy SS13: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets, are both supported where they will assist in protecting landscape character in those areas defined by nucleated settlement patterns such as the Derbyshire coalfield, and also those areas with a more dispersed settlement pattern with small villages and hamlets, typical of the Peak Fringe. Overall this approach will assist in preventing urban sprawl and alongside other policies in the Plan, it should help to restrict development within the countryside.

10 Minerals Comments

10.1 It is welcomed that paragraphs 8.89 - 8.93 appropriately make reference to the fact that mineral resources are essential to support economic growth and are a finite resource; that there is an important need to ensure that minerals of national and local importance are not needlessly sterilised by non-minerals development; and that prior extraction of minerals is considered, if it is necessary for non-minerals development to take place.

10.2 It is particularly welcomed that reference is made to the emerging Derbyshire and Derby Minerals Local Plan (DDMLP), which is being progressed by DCC and Derby City Council which will review Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA) and Mineral Consultation Areas (MCA) to prevent the unnecessary sterilisation of the minerals resource across the County, which is likely to include minerals resources in North East Derbyshire District. In this context, paragraph 8.92 is fully supported which indicates that within MSAs and MCAs defined in the emerging DDMLP, the presence of the mineral resource will be considered by the District Council as part of the determination of planning applications and once confirmed in the DDMLP, MSAs and MCAs will be illustrated on the North East Derbyshire Local Plan's Policies Map.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6021

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr W Smith

Agent: DLP (Planning) Ltd - Sheffield office

Representation Summary:

W Smith points out that this policy is more of a statement and objective of the plan rather than offering any specific guidance. It is proposed to change the policy as follows:
The Local Plan will make provision for the delivery of a minimum of 7,436 houses (instead of 6,600 dwellings) within the plan period. Together with that paragraph 5.3 should be amended that when deducting the dwellings which have already been built since 2011, 7,020 new houses will need to be built.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6060

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Chesterfield Borough Council

Representation Summary:

SS3 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
SUPPORT the approach to the spatial strategy and the distribution of development.
The discrepancy in the employment target between policies SS2 (50ha) and SS3 (64.8ha) needs clarifying. SS2 and SS3 could be combined for clarity.

Full text:

See attachment.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6136

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Cllr Martin Hanrahan, Dronfield Town Councillor

Representation Summary:

Objection to building on Green Belt land. Main concerns are for losing Green Belt land and open green space, increase in traffic, lack of school places, strain on health care, loss of agricultural land, impact on wildlife, mental and physical health, lack of employment, subsidence, fracking, consideration for brownfield sites first.

Full text:

Re: SS3 'Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development'

Dear Sir or Madam,

I strongly object to any building on green belt land. Green Belt should be sacrosanct and never desecrated by developers whose only interest is profit. Our Council, unfortunately, have no interest in preserving green open spaces, the environment and biodiversity.

This plan is Environmental Vandalism.

The infrastructure will not sustain further housing development. The roads are unable to accommodate growth in traffic. Schools would be overrun or playing fields built on to increase intake and in doing so would ruin the school environment. This would negatively impact on the opportunity for children to get adequate exercise.

Health care facilities are already stretched - is there any provision for expanding medical care in this grand plan?

The UK currently produces less food than it ever has - approximately 50% - so the idea of permanently taking productive agricultural land out of use is completely mad when Brownfield sites exist in the area.
Cambridge Institute of Sustainability report published in 2014 says the UK will be deficient in agricultural land by 2 million hectares by 2030 due to greenfield housing development.

Regarding the land off Eckinton Road, Coal Aston identified as area j on the map.
There is a SSSI very close to the insanely proposed housing development in Coal Aston and this would be negatively affected forever by such development.

The proposed houses would be in the Moss Valley Conservation Area and consequently this stupid proposal would utterly destroy the existence of this designated precious environment.
The uncaring minds that dreamed up this scheme would wipe out wildlife and utterly destroy forever irreplaceable countryside covering it with concrete and tarmac and spreading urban sprawl in dreary, continuous, stifling tedium.

It is the essential living lungs that breathe life into our environment. It does all the things above and is vital for the physical and mental health and well-being of people. It provides required leisure amenity.
The notion of losing the playing fields is beyond belief. Councils have a duty relating to health and wellbeing of citizens and to build on playing fields would totally conflict with this responsibility.

I cannot imagine any positive effects of more housing here.
Loss of countryside, amenity, road congestion, pollution, lack of school places and medical provision are just some of the negative effects.
Negative impacts on physical and mental health of residents would be a definite consequence of the proposed building on Green Belt land.

There is not adequate employment in Dronfield and so most residents travel to work. The transport facilities are inadequate and consequently many travel by car the overall increase in traffic would be a nightmare.

Coal Aston has a multitude of mine workings scattered around the village and fields and many houses have had problems relating to these. Any new building would be likely to be seriously compromised by historic mining in the area.

There is also the current threat of Fracking to consider.

There is frequent mention of sustainability in the plan but this proposal is the absolute antithesis of sustainability.

All Brownfield sites in the wider area of North East Derbyshire and Chesterfield must be considered for housing development before any Greenbelt land.

It is evident that Councillors do not represent us. The Councillors involved in this plan do not live here and appear to have no respect for democracy or residents who pay council tax. This proposed housing will have a detrimental effect on the lives of all current residents and will be opposed forcefully.

-

Additional email received 7th April 2017:

Further Points to Objection to NEDDC Local Plan to Build on Greenbelt Policy LC1 Housing Allocations.

Re: SS3 'Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development'

Dear Sir or Madam,

Further to my earlier letter of objection I wish to add that their will be a significant negative impact on bees which will adversely affect pollination especially with regard to crops if houses are built on the greenbelt land.

Dronfield and Coal Aston have taken more than their fair share of housing developments and other areas covered by NEDDC and Chesterfield should be considered first for new housing.

Surveys of housing need state that the estimates for the Dronfield and Coal Aston area have been overestimated.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6141

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield FC

Agent: DLP (Planning Ltd) - East Midlands office

Representation Summary:

R Timms objects to Policy SS3 and demands that the housing requirement should be increased to reflect the latest evidence. Policy SS3 should be amended that
- The Local Plan will make provision for the delivery of a minimum of 7,436 dwellings over the period 2011-2033.
Paragraph 5.3 should be amended that
- The Local Plan will make provision for the delivery of a minimum of 7,436 dwellings over the plan period 2011 -2033 (338 dpa). When deducting the dwellings that have already been built since 2011, 7,020 dwellings will need to be found through allocations up to 2033.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6159

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: The National Trust

Representation Summary:

The purpose of Green Belts is to keep land permanently open. In order to justify the removal of land from the Green Belt the Council will need to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances (NPPF paragraph 83) taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development (NPPF 84).

Full text:

Spatial portrait

Description of the area
Section 2.8 - National Trust welcomes the reference to the settings of Bolsover Castle and Hardwick Hall and the need to protect these designated heritage assets.

Key issues
Section 2.17 - National Trust welcomes the recognition within the Economy and Employment section of the value of the Peak District and local heritage assets such as Chatsworth, Bolsover and Hardwick Hall as drivers of economic growth and tourism.
Section 2.22 - National Trust supports the recognition of opportunities to increase the capacity of renewable energy generation in the district to help reduce emissions and climate change.
Section 2.24 - While we acknowledge the recognition of pressure on the natural environment as a result of growth, we suggest that it would be helpful to include a positive statement here about protecting and enhancing these assets.
Section 2.25 - National Trust welcomes the reference to protecting heritage assets and we suggest that archaeological remains along with (built and natural) heritage need to be protected and where possible enhanced.

Vision and objectives
National Trust broadly supports the Local Plan Vision.
We also support objectives D3 Tourism, D6 Green Belt, D8 Addressing Climate Change, D9 Design and Place Making, D10 Heritage Assets, D11 Natural Assets, D12 Sustainable Transport, N2 Countryside Recreation, W2 Countryside Character, E3 Environmental Quality.

Spatial strategy
SS3 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
The purpose of Green Belts is to keep land permanently open. In order to justify the removal of land from the Green Belt the Council will need to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances (NPPF paragraph 83) taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development (NPPF 84).
SS9 North East Derbyshire Green Belt
National Trust supports the long term protection of North East Derbyshire's Green Belt through Policy SS9.
SS10 Safeguarded land
The purpose of Green Belts is to keep land permanently open. In order to justify the removal of land from the Green Belt the Council will need to demonstrate that there are exceptional circumstances (NPPF paragraph 83) taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development (NPPF 84).
SS11 Local Settlement Gaps
National Trust supports the principle of identifying local settlement gaps.
SS14 Development within the Countryside
National Trust supports Policy SS14 which aims to ensure that only small scale and appropriate development is allowed in the countryside.

WC6 Visitor Economy and Tourism
Policy WC6 Visitor Economy and Tourism is supported.

SDC2 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows
Policy SDC2 Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows is supported.
SDC3 Landscape Character
National Trust supports Policy SDC3 Landscape Character.
SDC4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity
Policy SDC4 Biodiversity and Geodiversity is supported.
SDC5 Development within Conservation Areas
National Trust supports Policy SDC5. We request that the text 'views into or out of the area' is expanded slightly to include views 'within/across' the area.
SDC6 Development Affecting Listed Buildings
Policy SDC6 is generally supported but would benefit from minor rewording for clarity:
"Proposals for alterations to or changes of use of listed buildings (including its their settings) will be supported where they protect the significance of the heritage asset including impacts on the character, architectural merit or historic interest of the building.
Proposals should consider factors such as employ materials, layout, architectural features, scale and design that respond to and do not detract from the listed building.
Proposals which allow for viable uses that are compatible with the conservation of the fabric of the building and its setting will generally be supported."
SDC7 Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Archaeology
Policy SDC7 is supported.
SDC8 Registered Parks and Gardens
Policy SDC8 Registered Parks and Gardens is supported.
SDC9 Non-designated heritage assets
National Trust generally supports Policy SDC9. We request minor changes to the final paragraph for clarity:
"Proposals involving full or partial demolition of, or significant harm to a local heritage asset will be resisted unless sufficient justification is provided on the proposed scheme and its and the public benefits of the proposal to outweigh the harm caused by the loss of the asset."

ID1 Green Infrastructure
National Trust supports Policy ID1. In part (g) we suggest that the words 'and where appropriate' are unnecessary and should be removed.
ID4 Local Green Spaces
Policy ID4 Local Green Spaces is supported.
ID6 Sustainable Travel
Policy ID6 Sustainable Travel is supported.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6231

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Gray

Agent: Fisher German LLP

Representation Summary:

M Gray raises concerns over the release of Green Belt land in the district, when there is sufficient land available around sustainable settlements outside the Green Belt. Tupton as a sustainable settlement could deliver more houses.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6239

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: EPC-UK Explosives Plc

Agent: Leith Planning Group

Representation Summary:

It's noted that Shirland and Stonebroom have been identified as potential sustainable locations for proposed provision of 230 dwellings in Shirland, and 85 dwellings in Stonebroom during the plan period.

EPC-UK wishes to support the Council in meeting their strategic objectives and development aims and targets.

However, this must be balanced with a fair and reasonable review of the scale and location of development being proposed. Concerns over potential impact of development within Rough Close Works(RCWs) consultation zones.

Assurances sought from Council that the RCWs consultation zone will be rigidly protected and none of the additional development proposed within the Plan will be located in close proximity to RCWs.

Full text:

See attachment.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6251

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Shaw Developments (Sheffield) Ltd

Number of people: 2

Agent: IBA Planning Limited

Representation Summary:

S Whittam and K Grayson support the identification of Dronfield as Principal Town and Level 1 Settlement within the Settlement Hierarchy (Policy SS3).

Full text:

See attachments

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6291

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: CPRE South Yorkshire & Friends of the Peak District

Representation Summary:

The planned spatial distribution of development is broadly similar to past trends. The exception to this is the increased focus on strategic development sites; and to the extent that these are predominantly brownfield sites in areas requiring regeneration, we support that emphasis.

We welcome that the Council has responded to past concerns in relation to inappropriate development in smaller settlements. However, within that context we do not accept that the strategic case for changing Green Belt boundaries at Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh is soundly based. (Reasons given in full submission). Main concern over: out-commuting, road traffic, pollution and carbon emissions.

Recommendation that GB release is not needed and that the housing requirement be adjusted downwards by 1,200 homes to 5,400.

Full text:

See attachment.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6306

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mount St. Mary's College

Representation Summary:

Smaller settlements classified as "level 3" settlements in Table 4.1 can and should make a significant contribution to housing provision and this can help sustain community facilities. Limiting development in such villages to "limited infilling of one or two dwellings" is too restrictive.

Full text:

Local Development Plan Current Consultation - February to April 2017

Mount St Mary's College's Objectives & Priorities
My name is Nicholas Cuddihy and today I write to you in my capacity as the CEO of the Mount Trust; a charitable trust established in 2006 to manage the property, resources and aspirations of Mount St Mary's College, Spinkhill and its prep School at Barlborough Hall.

The story of our schools dates back to 1620 when the Jesuits first became active in this park of the UK. In 1842 the Jesuit Provincial established Mount St Mary's College in Spinkhill. The school at Barlborough Hall first opened in 1939. The Mount Trust as we know it today was set up as a Local Trust in 2006 to manage Mount St Mary's College and Barlborough Hall School as co-educational inclusive day and boarding schools in the Jesuit tradition, providing children and their families with access to a seamless education from the ages of 3 to 18 yrs. We have long been significant members of the community in Spinkhill.

Our lands and facilities are shared openly and are enjoyed by many in the village and others all year round. Locals and visitors walk our lands freely and access the footpaths and bridleways at their leisure. Our Memorial Chapel frequently hosts concerts and special religious and other ceremonies. We have long established and successful partnerships with many sports clubs and other local groups who enjoy our sports fields, our public gym and other facilities. Every day and every week athletes, footballers, walkers and others come and go and enjoy our beautiful site. We see ourselves as residents of Spinkhill village and we take our responsibilities seriously in this regard. You can understand therefore how we were surprised to note that our school is not located within the settlement boundary in the proposed Local Development Plan. I will address this concern in more detail later but for now I wish to highlight this concern as I set out the context within which we wish to comment on elements of the draft Local development Plan.

During this year, 2017, we will celebrate the 175th Anniversary of the foundation of our schools. As we celebrate we are also concentrating our efforts on planning for our future. Our schools and lands are obviously hugely expensive to manage and maintain. Our heritage buildings and more modern facilities require ongoing investment. We have been a major employer in the area for more than a century and a half. We currently employ more than 170 people and as we look to the future we know we have to fight hard to survive and to thrive.

The Trust has ambitious plans for the College focusing on making improvements to its facilities and improve the extent and quality of facilities it provides to the public and local community. We are keenly aware that a significant and extended increase in income will be required to secure the long term stability of the school. As we master plan for the long term future of our schools we know we will need to devote significant funds to the maintenance and development of our buildings and lands. It is in this context that we welcome the opportunity to comment on the Draft Local Plan in this current consultation.

1. Green Belt Policies
Having reviewed the draft Plan's evidence base related to housing and growth we are pleased to see that part of the College's previously developed land has been included within the Housing Sites Assessment Report dated February 2017 (Appendix C), as 'Land off Station Road, Spinkhill'. That acknowledges the site as an 'infill site'

Nevertheless, having reviewed the draft Plan's policies map we also note that the entirety of the College's lands within the Spinkhill area is identified as Green Belt. From our understanding of national planning policy (within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)), local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access, sport and recreation amongst other things (para.81). Brownfield land should be acknowledged within the Green Belt, reflecting the exceptions test within the (paragraph 89). The current Local Plan identifies the College as a major developed site within the Green Belt and we feel that such major developed sites are dealt with by Policy GS3.

We wish to therefore object to the draft Local Plan's Green Belt Policy (Policy SS9) and the plan more widely as it fails, in our opinion, to identify the developed parts of the College as previously developed or Brownfield land in the Green Belt. Neither does it enable positive planning promoted by para.81 of the NPPF.

2. Spinkhill Settlement Boundary
We would also like to take this opportunity as referred to earlier to raise our concerns regarding the Council's proposed settlement boundary for Spinkhill Village. The policies maps show that the College is not included within the settlement. We have reviewed the definition of a 'settlement' included in the glossary of the draft plan glossary and believe that the College should be included as part of the Spinkhill Settlement based on that definition. It has always been part of the village and has never been physically separate. For more than a century and a half we have played an important part in local life with leisure and recreation facilities available to the village. The village school was housed on our lands prior to its recent relocation across the road. The old Spinkhill railway station was also located on our land and accessed freely by all until it closed and the allotments which are enjoyed today by many villagers also lie on our land.

3. Housing
I note that the Council's most recent Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) (2015/16) identifies how between 2011 and 2015 the number of completions in the district has been below the Council's 300 dwellings per annum target each year. Between 2011 and 2016 the AMR notes a net undersupply of -484 dwellings for the period, and when the council includes projected completions for 2016/2017 this position worsens to-583 dwellings.

Policy SS2 states that the draft plan will make sufficient land available to accommodate a minimum of 6,600 dwellings during the Plan period (2011-2033). This figure equates to 300 dwellings per annum over the plan period and we understand that this is informed by the draft plan's 2013 Strategic Housing Market Area (SHMA) Assessment.

We note that the Council acknowledges that its approach to housing is to be reviewed and given that its Green Belt Review has established that land needs to be removed from the Green Belt, we propose that the College, as previously developed land in the Green Belt should be reconsidered to accommodate some housing capacity.

In conclusion and speaking more broadly we want to explore how we may be able to work together to succeed together. We would welcome an opportunity to engage with the Council proactively to see how specific education related policies could be included in the draft plan. This is particularly important to us as we look to the future. As we reach 175 years we are conscious of our need to develop and invest so that we can improve the educational and wider public facilities we own and provide to others. We have been a major employer and an important part of the life in Spinkhill for a long time. We want to preserve and develop that for today and for the future.

Additional Comments:

Policy SS£ & SS13:
Smaller settlements classified as "level 3" settlements in Table 4.1 can and should make a significant contribution to housing provision and this can help sustain community facilities. Limiting development in such villages to "limited infilling of one or two dwellings" is too restrictive.
In Spinkhill the land shown on the attached plan as Allotment area could make a significant contribution to housing need and the funds released by this development could help improve facilities at the Mount St Mary's College.

Policy SS9:
This policy only refers to dwellings for agriculture and forestry It should allow for "other occupational dwellings in the countryside"
The Green Belt is too tightly drawn around Spinkhill (see our comment on Appendix B - Green Belt Maps).

Policy LC3:
The limitations in this policy are too restrictive. Smarter homes and homes to provide employee accommodation, linked to established rural based employers should qualify as "affordable housing."

Policy LC7:
Although this policy is intended to include for "other occupational dwellings in the countryside" there is no such provision in the text. The policy only refers to dwellings for agriculture and forestry. This is a serious omission and requires correction. Mount St Mary's College is a rural based employer which will require employee's dwellings to be allowed for in this policy. In its present form this policy is inconsistent with Policy SS14 (b).

Policy SDC1:
This policy is too restrictive in that it only refers to buildings. It should refer to previously developed land. In its present form it is inconsistent with Policy SS14 (a) which refers to development being allowed on "vacant derelict or previously developed land." and SS9 (f).

Policy WC4:
The requirement that "any proposal (to be determined under this policy) will need to accord with other policies in this Plan is unrealistic and unnecessary as it's purpose is allow for an exception to other restrictive policies.

Policies Maps
We have the following comments on the Policies Maps.

The absence of a Map covering the whole of the District leaves a policy vacuum in regard to some areas as certain areas do not fall within any of the maps. This is the case in regard to Spinkhill only part of which is covered on the Renishaw Policies Map.

We attached a map of Spinkhill and request the following:-

- Area shown as Allotment area (on the attached plan) should be within the settlement limits and removed from the Green Belt. This wold allow for development of the land for housing and provide funding for improvement to the facilities at Mount St Mary's College.

- The area at Spinkhill identified as "GS3" in the existing Local Plan, comprising the building complex at Mount St Mary's College, should be within the settlement limits and removed from the Green Belt. It is clearly part of the settlement. This was previously shown as "major development in the Green Belt" which is illogical.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6323

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Strata Homes Limited

Agent: DLP (Planning) Ltd - Sheffield office

Representation Summary:

Strata Homes points out that this policy is more of a statement and objective of the plan rather than offering any specific guidance. It is proposed to change the policy as follows:
The Local Plan will make provision for the delivery of a minimum of 7,436 houses (instead of 6,600 dwellings) within the plan period. Together with that paragraph 5.3 should be amended that when deducting the dwellings which have already been built since 2011, 7,020 new houses will need to be built.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6351

Received: 07/05/2017

Respondent: Mr Martin Speed

Agent: WYG (Harrogate office)

Representation Summary:

Policy SS3

The general objectives of policy SS3 are supported, but it must be made clear that the levels of housing proposed, both District-wide in the policy text and per settlement in Table 4.2, are confirmed as being minimum levels of delivery.

Though the figures provided in Table 4.2 are very likely to be interpreted by local communities as being the maximum quota for each individual settlement, and used for resisting planning applications once this level of delivery has been achieved.

Therefore, in order for the District-wide figure of 6,600 to actually function as a minimum target, the title of Table 4.2 should be amended to read "Minimum Housing Provision by Level 1 and Level 2 Settlement".

Alternatively, it may be better to express the distribution in Table 4.2 as an approximate percentage of growth, and perhaps as the percentage of growth within each of the four sub-areas rather than the District as a whole.

To ensure that the Plan's strategy can be delivered, consideration should be given to the allocation of additional land above that required to meet minimum requirements, or perhaps through the identification of reserve sites which are to be delivered in the event of a demonstrable shortfall from allocated sites.

Full text:

See attachment.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6378

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Tracey Marsden, Nicola Shepherdson & Mark Woodhead

Agent: Caroline McIntyre

Representation Summary:

Objection to Ridgeway being defined as a Level 3 Settlement. Statement that the Settlement Hierarchy Study (2016) places no weight on the location of Ridgeway on the edge of Sheffield and its proximity to a range of public transport links and facilities in Sheffield.

The approach in Policy SS3 and the Settlement Hierarchy Study (2016) is questioned in that there is little regard to the sustainability of settlements such as Ridgeway which are located closer to Sheffield and the potential for good accessibility to services, jobs and transport outside of the District.

Full text:

SUMMARY
The site covers an area of land of circa 4.09 hectares and is located on the edge of Ridgeway, to the north of High Lane and to the west of Camdale Rise and Camdale View. Access to the site is from Camdale View through an existing gated entrance. The site was included within the Green Belt within the 2005 Local Plan.

The site is well located for both the Housing Market Area of NEDDC and Sheffield, and is available, suitable and achievable.

It is considered, for the reasons set out in the detailed representations below, that the assessment of the site has not had full regard to the site's close proximity to Sheffield and the potential this offers to meet any additional housing requirements through the Duty to Cooperate.

Furthermore the assessment of the site and the role it plays with regards to the purposes of the Green Belt has been based on a substantially larger parcel of land, which falls outside the ownership of our clients, and has not addressed the potential for the partial release of land within our clients' site

In summary it is considered that the site should be released either in full or in part from the Green Belt through the forthcoming review of Level 3 Settlement Boundaries, as noted within the Local Plan.


REPRESENTATIONS TO THE DRAFT NEDDC LOCAL PLAN

The following comments are made specifically with regards to the content of the draft Local Plan.

Duty to Cooperate and Further Housing Growth: The Plan refers at Paragraph 1.16 to the Duty to Cooperate and outlines that a Statement of Compliance with the Duty to Cooperate will be issued at the next stage of the Plan preparation.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the Localism Act 2011 and the Planning Practice Guidance1 require that this is demonstrated before the Plan is submitted for examination, the Committee Report on the NEDDC Local Plan from 5 August 20152 has identified this as a potential issue from the outset. The Committee Report stated with regards to the Duty to Cooperate that:

"Although no formal requests have so far been received which confirm any quantum or timescales, requests could be expected from both Derbyshire Dales District Council and Sheffield City Council. In order to provide a robust basis for assessing available capacity the Council would need to have undertaken a Green Belt review in order to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives had been assessed."

The Green Belt Review (2017) also makes reference at Paragraph 2.10 to a 'reconciliation process' which will need to take place between NEDDC and Sheffield City Council ("SCC"). However no evidence that this has been undertaken is included within the Review or what the implications of this may be for the Plan.

Given the location of our clients' site on the northern periphery of the District and immediately adjacent to the boundary with SCC it is essential to understand at this early stage of the Plan preparation:
* the extent of discussions with SCC and the requirement for any additional housing to be delivered by NEDDC; and
* whether this could impact upon the spatial strategy as set out within the Plan at Policies SS1 and SS3.

Furthermore as outlined at Paragraph 4.22 of the draft Local Plan "The District Council's economic and Local Plan objectives also provide sufficient flexibility to accommodate changes, as the result of on-going work related to job growth and housing across the Sheffield City Region for example."

The Plan will need to remain flexible in order to respond to any increased housing need and our clients' site is well located to meet any housing growth to serve the needs of SCC should this be an issue which arises as the Plan progresses. At present it is not possible to see how the Plan will be sufficiently flexible to respond to these issues.

Relationship and Reliance upon Sheffield: At Paragraph 2.6 the character of the North Sub Area is noted, in particular the reference to the fact that "...The rural area lies entirely in the Green Belt and the towns and other settlements have generally been developed up to their boundaries, meaning that there is few development sites still available within their existing built up areas..." and that "These towns relate closely to the Sheffield conurbation and just under a quarter of people commute out of the District to work in the city."

This is reflected in the Local Plan Vision at Paragraph 3.4 where again the reference is to the objective to share in the economic benefits of the regeneration and sustainable growth of the wider Sheffield City Region.

District Wide Objective D12 'Sustainable Transport' makes reference to increasing the opportunities for travel using sustainable forms of transport by securing improvements to public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure particularly to maintain and improve connectivity with the main urban areas within the Sheffield City Region and to the south and east of the District.

Spatial Strategy: Within Policy SS3 'Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Development' and Tables 4.1 and 4.2 Ridgeway is defined within Table 4.1 as a Level 3 Settlement. This is one which has limited sustainability and places Ridgeway on a par with other more rural settlements. The Settlement Hierarchy Study (2016) places no weight on the location of Ridgeway on the edge of Sheffield and its proximity to a range of public transport links and facilities a short distance away in locations such as Mosborough, Gleadless, Birley, Frecheville and Hackenthorpe.

In the context of the support and relationship of the District with Sheffield, as outlined above, the approach in Policy SS3 and the Settlement Hierarchy Study (2016) is questioned in that there is little regard to the sustainability of settlements such as Ridgeway which are located closer to Sheffield and the potential for good accessibility to services, jobs and transport outside of the District.

Review of Boundaries to Level 3 Settlements: The Draft Local Plan states at Paragraph 4.80 that the review of smaller settlement boundaries is still to be undertaken.

Although Maps for two settlements - Cutthorpe and Holymoorside - are provided, there is no reference within the Draft Local Plan to the decision to release land within these settlements following the Green Belt Review. This is considered further below.

The decision not to allocate any sites or remove land from the Green Belt within the Level 3 Settlements at this stage of the Plan preparation, particularly where these are well located to the adjacent Authorities, does not provide the flexibility to respond to accommodate changes required through the Duty to Cooperate or the Sheffield City Region work (see Paragraphs 1.16 and 4.22 of the Local Plan).

Consideration should be given to the removal of land from the Green Belt as part of the review of smaller settlement boundaries, which is still to be undertaken. Alternatively, the scope of Policy SS10 'Safeguarded Land' should be extended to allow for greater flexibility for the Plan to respond to any future changes to without the need for a full Green Belt Review to be undertaken.

Housing Figures: The Housing Figures within the Plan appear to be based upon the 2013 Strategic Housing Market Area Assessment ("SHMA") and the sensitivity testing in 2014 and not on an updated assessment. This document is now four years out of date, and an updated Assessment should be completed as soon as possible to determine the more localised need for new housing. This will be an important consideration in the review of the boundaries to the Level 3 Settlements.

Policy SS9 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt': The wording of this policy with regards to the exceptions listed from (a) to (f) should reflect the wording of Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") (2012). At present the policy as drafted does not reflect the NPPF and the wording of some parts of the policy is unclear.

Policy SS14 'Development in the Countryside': As drafted it is considered that there is conflict between this Policy and Policy SS9 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt'. Any proposals on land which fall within both the Green Belt and also the Countryside would be covered by conflicting policy with regards to 'limited infill' development, with there being no support for such development proposals under Policy SS14.

Furthermore, there is more scope for development in Level 4 Settlements under Policy SS13 which would allow for development of 1 to 2 dwellings than there would be for Level 3 Settlements which would be more sustainable locations in terms of access to facilities and public transport.

The wording of Policy SS14 should be amended accordingly to make reference to infill development being acceptable where this meets the other objectives and considerations of Policy SS9.

Policy LC3 'Exception Sites for Affordable Housing': the continuation of an Exception Site policy is welcomed. However the reference to an element of market housing only being allowed on sites outside of the Green Belt is disappointing. The financial impetus from an element of market housing in order to deliver an affordable housing scheme on sites within the Green Belt is no different to the requirement on sites outside of the Green Belt.

Furthermore it is considered that the other policies within the NPPF and elsewhere within the draft Local Plan could be used to constrain the extent of any such proposals on the Green Belt as these would need to meet an identified local need and be assessed in terms of the acceptability of any impact on the Green Belt.

Policy LC3 should also be clarified as to how proposals for specialist housing would be considered within the Green Belt. It is considered that as an exception Green Belt land is often well located to deliver such accommodation, and again any such proposals would be considered against the other policies within the Plan.

Policy SDC5 'Development within Conservation Areas': The terminology used within this Policy does not reflect the approach set out within Section 12 of the NPPF. The wording of this policy should be amended accordingly to reflect the NPPF.

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (2017)

The Sustainability Appraisal ("SA") also acknowledges at Paragraph 6.4.3 that the SHMA is now somewhat out of date and is being updated, which may affect the housing targets within the Local Plan going forward.

Furthermore within the SA there is no assessment of the approach to focus on the larger settlements and not to provide any site allocation for Level 3 settlements. There are also no discussions regarding the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the conclusions drawn from this process. These issues should be considered within the SA.

GREEN BELT REVIEW (FEB 2017)

Within this document our clients' site is included within the parcel of land assessed under RID/GB/002. This parcel of land included both their land at Camdale Rise (Ref ECK/2201) and a significant area of land to the west between the rear of the Settlement Boundary and the boundary with Sheffield City Council.

The overall conclusion on Parcel RID/GB/002 is that this scores 'Red' in an assessment against the Purposes 1 to 3 of the Green Belt by having a role in checking unrestricted sprawl, preventing neighbouring towns from merging into one another and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The 'Common Approach to Green Belt Review across the Sheffield City Region' (August 2014) was prepared to set out a cohesive approach across the region to the Green Belt review process. This outlines a staged approach which can be summarised as:

* Stage 1 - Identify general areas within the Green Belt
* Stage 2 - Technical site assessment
* Stage 3 - Re-appraisal of resultant land parcels.

The NEDDC Green Belt Review notes at Paragraph 2.10 that "Whilst Officers at Sheffield City Council acknowledged there were some differences between their approach and this Study, they accepted that these are not necessarily inconsistencies and merely reflect a slight difference of approach taken in reaching the same end point and are nevertheless in accordance with the SCR. In order to minimise any potential inconsistency with Sheffield's approach, the Study will undertake a 'reconciliation process' between Green Belt sites/parcels on either side of the Sheffield/NEDDC boundary, ensuring that conclusions are broadly comparable..."

Within the NEDDC Green Belt Review large parcels of land are considered, for example Parcel RID/GB/002 covers an area of 8.702 ha. However there does not appear to be any consideration of smaller elements within each parcel which may score different in terms of the purposes of the Green Belt and therefore may be suitable for removal without impacting on the overall objectives of the Green Belt in that location. The Review process therefore seems to be at odds with the detail of Stage 2 of the 'Common Approach to the Green Belt Review' document.

Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency in the approach to selecting parcels for assessment. Had the same approach been taken to our clients' site (along with land to the west) as that taken for Parcel HOLY/GB/024 within Holymoorside, which covered an area of 0.877ha, the conclusions regarding our clients' site ECK/2201 may have been different and the land closest to the existing built up area of the Settlement Boundary to Ridgeway would be scored differently to the land at the northern most edge of the overall Parcel of land being considered.

A detailed consideration of how the removal of our clients' site at Camdale Rise from the Green Belt would be considered against the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt was set out in the representations made in respect of this site on 23 December 2015. The detail of this has not been repeated as part of this submission, but the key points relating to the entire site are summarised below.

In addition in considering this site as a whole, without the additional land included under RID/GB/002, it may be that parts of the site ECK/2201 closest to the existing Settlement Boundary would have even less of an adverse impact on the purposes of the Green Belt in this location and removal from the Green Belt of these alone would be considered acceptable.

In summary site ECK/2201 can be considered as follows:

* Purpose 1 'To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas': The site is adjacent to the urban area of both land within Ridgeway falling in NEDDC and SCC. It is bounded by clear and strong change in the topography to the east, residential properties on Camdale View, Camdale Rise, Ribblesdale Drive and other residential properties to the south and south east. The site is adjacent to agricultural land to the north and west, but existing hedgerows and additional strong landscaped boundaries can be formed to further enhance the existing physical edge of the site, minimising any impact on the openness of the Green Belt. To the north beyond the furthest extents of the site is The Birley Wood Golf Club which forms a strategic gap to settlements on the edge of Sheffield, limiting the urban sprawl in this direction.

The existing boundary in this location is defined only by the extent of built development and there are no topographical or landscape features which reinforce this boundary.

It is therefore considered that new strong boundaries, and ones which are stronger than those currently in place could be established through the release of all or part of the site from the Green Belt. For these reasons it is considered that the application of a Red score for our clients' site on this point is incorrect.

* Purpose 2 'To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another': The assessment has been carried out on the basis of the entire parcel of land at RID/GB/002, rather than any consideration of smaller elements within this. Furthermore, the existing residential area to the east, which falls within SCC, has a relationship with adjacent settlements of below the distances outlined as the criteria within the Review.

The removal of the ECK/2201 site from the Green Belt and its new boundaries would still prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. The urban area of High Lane already merges with Quarry Hill and no physical gap currently exists between these settlements, with residential development forming a continuous line of development alongside the northern urban edge of the B6388.

It is not considered that the release of this site, in whole or part, will lead to the coalescence of settlements in this location given that a large gap will still exist between the northern edge of the site and the nearest settlement. The Birley Wood Golf Course is also located beyond White Lane which ensures the gap between settlements is maintained and will prevent any coalescence of settlements in this location.

* Purpose 3 'To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment': Part of the overall site is already contained by the existing development to the south and east. The release of site ECK/2201 from the Green Belt may have minor impact on safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, but this needs to be considered in the context of the Council's need for Green Belt release to meet their housing requirement over the plan period and any need for additional housing which arises from the Duty to Cooperate.

Furthermore, the Housing Site assessment makes reference to the north western part of the site encroaching into the countryside. It is considered that should this be a barrier to the entire site being taken out of the Green Belt then the areas of the site closest to the Settlement Boundary should be considered without this peripheral part of the site.

* Purpose 4 'To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns': The conclusion within the Review is supported in that the release of the site from the Green Belt is unlikely to have any significant impact on the historical part of Ridgeway village.

* Purpose 5 'To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land': No comment is provided on this given the approach taken within the Review with regards to this purpose.

In summary it is requested that the Green Belt Review of Parcel RID/GB/002 be reconsidered with regards to the potential for the removal of smaller elements of the Parcel, forming all or part of Site ECK/2201, from the Green Belt. This would be on the grounds that the elements of Site ECK/2201 closer to the existing Settlement Boundary could be removed without having the same impact on the purposes of the Green Belt as those for the wider RID/GB/002 site.

Furthermore, the release of land within the location would help NEDDC have the flexibility to meet any housing which may come out of the updated SHMA and the Duty to Cooperate process.

Housing Sites Assessment Report (Feb 2017)

Within this document our clients' site is assessed under Ref ECK/2201 - Land at Camdale Rise. The whole of the site put forward has been assessed as a single proposal in its entirety and we maintain that the entire site remains available, suitable and achievable. However it is requested that the also Council review the option for the partial removal of the site from the Green Belt should it be that this would reduce the concerns outlined in the Assessment with regards to the Green Belt and countryside.

The assessment of the site is considered incorrect for the following reasons:

* Green Belt: The site is assessed in its entirety within the Green Belt Review under RID/GB/002. For the reasons set out above it is considered that this assessment does not consider the differences across the parcel and the assessment should be revisited, with regards to the potential to remove all or part of site ECK/2201 from the Green Belt.

* Access: The assessment states that 'No satisfactory access can be achieved, because the site has no frontage to an adopted highway. Third party land would be required.' This is incorrect. Access to the site can be obtained from the highway via the existing gated access from Camdale View which is in the control of our clients. This existing gate provides access to a made track across part of the site, already accessed by public utility authorities.

* Services: No acknowledgement is made of the proximity of Ridgeway and the site to Sheffield and the range of public transport and services within the wider area within Sheffield.

* Nature Conservation: Whilst the site boundary included as part of the original Call for Sites submission does include an area of woodland, this forms part of the boundary to the site. This area could be excluded from any area removed from the Green Belt.

* Achievability: The site does not require third party land for access. This should be amended.

In summary, for the reasons outlined above it is considered that the conclusion not to consider Site ECK/2201 further as a Housing site is based on an incorrect assessment of the site and should be revisited.

SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY STUDY (2016)

As outlined above, our client is concerned that the assessment carried out under this document does not given any weight to the location of Ridgeway, and in particular High Lane, on the edge of Sheffield and its proximity to a range of public transport links and facilities a short distance away in Mosborough, Gleadless, Birley, Frecheville and Hackenthorpe.

The draft Local Plan notes the heavy reliance on Sheffield for employment and outlines objectives within the Plan to maximise on the relationship with Sheffield and the Sheffield City Region as a whole.

It is therefore considered that greater weight should be afforded to Ridgeway as a sustainable location that could deliver housing which is well located to Sheffield.

SUMMARY

In summary it is considered that the site remains available, suitable and achievable and should be released from the Green Belt to meet the district's housing needs over the plan period.

We would therefore urge the Council to review the draft Local Plan and Evidence Base documents in the light of the above submission and consider the removal of all or part of our clients' site from the Green Belt as part of the review of Level 3 Settlement Boundaries which is still to be undertaken at the next stage of the Local Plan process.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6410

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Paul Stock

Representation Summary:

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).

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.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6412

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Paul Stock

Representation Summary:

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. 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.

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.