Former Biwaters Site, Clay Cross

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6471

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr David Wilson

Representation Summary:

This site has previously suffered from high levels of toxicity and despite attempts to clean it up, there will always be a stigma, particularly by people who live locally, who will make up the majority of the people buying the new houses on the site. Accordingly, it is maintained that too much significance has been put on this site as far as housing development is concerned. Switching the focus of the housing development back to other adjacent, sustainable settlements in the South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 Draft Plan, would certainly alleviate these concerns about toxicity.

Full text:

Subject: NEDDC February 2017 Draft Local Plan Consultation - Comments

1.Local Plan Objectives

1.1The development needs of the district should be met in a sustainable way, as far as possible. Accordingly, it is maintained that the proposed development on greenbelt land can in no way be considered to be 'sustainable'. Developing greenbelt land should only be considered as a last resort, where there are no other suitable alternative options. This is certainly not the case in the February 2017 version of the Draft Plan. Plans to develop greenbelt land should therefore be scrapped and replaced by plans to develop areas that are more sustainable, particularly the South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 version of the Draft Local Plan.

1.2The economic benefits of development should be aimed at regenerating the settlements within the district itself, as opposed to benefitting adjacent settlements in other local authority areas. Accordingly, it is maintained that substantial development in Dronfield, Eckington, Killamarsh and Renishaw is highly likely to benefit the adjacent local authority areas of: Sheffield, Rotherham, Bolsover and Chesterfield, more than the NEDDC local authority area itself. Switching the focus of the housing development back to the more sustainable South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 version of the Draft Plan, would ensure that far more of the economic benefits of development are used to regenerate the settlements in the NEDDC local authority area itself.

2.Proposed Housing Development on Greenbelt Land

2.1The comments at 1.1 also apply here.

3.Proposed Housing Development on the former Biwater Site

3.1 This site has previously suffered from high levels of toxicity and despite
attempts to clean it up, there will always be a stigma attached to it, particularly by people who live locally, who will make up the majority of the people buying the new houses on the site. Accordingly, it is maintained that too much significance has been put on this site (and the Avenue Site - see 4.1 below) as far as housing development is concerned. Switching the focus of the housing development back to the other adjacent, sustainable settlements in the South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 version of the Draft Plan, would certainly alleviate these concerns about toxicity.

4.Proposed Housing Development on the Avenue site

4.1The comments at 3.1 also apply here.

4.2The capacity of the road network, notably the A61 between Wingerworth and Chesterfield, is without doubt inadequate and would be unable to cope with the increased traffic flow caused by up to 1,100 new homes on the Avenue site, 172 to the rear of 1-59 Adlington Avenue, and the significant number planned for the site at Wingerworth opposite the end of Mill Lane that is currently shown as a settlement gap in the February 2017 version of the Draft Local Plan.

5.Proposed Housing Development on Land at Dronfield

5.1Dronfield is already a relatively prosperous settlement and is located close to Sheffield and other local authority areas. In addition, 100% of the total number of new homes proposed for Dronfield (860) are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 undoubtedly apply here.

6.Proposed Housing Development on Land at Eckington

6.1Although probably slightly less prosperous than Dronfield, Eckington is also located relatively close to Sheffield and other local authority areas. In addition, 435 out of the proposed 553 new homes (i.e. 79%) are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 also definitely apply here.

7.Proposed Housing Development on Land at Killamarsh

7.1Killamarsh is located extremely close to several other local authority areas. In addition, 560 out of the proposed 618 new homes (i.e. 91%) are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 also unquestionably apply here.

7.2It is understood that other adjacent local authority areas are planning to build about 3000 new homes around the areas that border with Killamarsh. It is understood that the road network is old and inadequate, and that it is unlikely to be able to cope with the increased demands caused by these massive house building plans, without significant and proportionate infrastructure enhancements.

7.3It is understood that the vast majority of the homes are proposed to be built on land described as 'high-risk' because of the extensive prevalence of former underground coal mining workings from both deep and opencast mines in the area.

8.Proposed housing development on land at Renishaw

8.1Renishaw is also located extremely close to several other local authority areas. In addition, 100% of the proposed 270 new homes are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 definitely also apply here.

I trust these comments are helpful.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6482

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Paul Wilson

Representation Summary:

This site has previously suffered from high levels of toxicity and despite attempts to clean it up, there will always be a stigma, particularly by people who live locally, who will make up the majority of the people buying the new houses on the site. Accordingly, it is maintained that too much significance has been put on this site as far as housing development is concerned. Switching the focus of the housing development back to other adjacent, sustainable settlements in the South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 Draft Plan, would certainly alleviate these concerns about toxicity.

Full text:

Subject: NEDDC February 2017 Draft Local Plan Consultation - Comments

1.Local Plan Objectives

1.1The development needs of the district should be met in a sustainable way, as far as possible. Accordingly, it is maintained that the proposed development on greenbelt land can in no way be considered to be 'sustainable'. Developing greenbelt land should only be considered as a last resort, where there are no other suitable alternative options. This is certainly not the case in the February 2017 version of the Draft Plan. Plans to develop greenbelt land should therefore be scrapped and replaced by plans to develop areas that are more sustainable, particularly the South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 version of the Draft Local Plan.

1.2The economic benefits of development should be aimed at regenerating the settlements within the district itself, as opposed to benefitting adjacent settlements in other local authority areas. Accordingly, it is maintained that substantial development in Dronfield, Eckington, Killamarsh and Renishaw is highly likely to benefit the adjacent local authority areas of: Sheffield, Rotherham, Bolsover and Chesterfield, more than the NEDDC local authority area itself. Switching the focus of the housing development back to the more sustainable South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 version of the Draft Plan, would ensure that far more of the economic benefits of development are used to regenerate the settlements in the NEDDC local authority area itself.

2.Proposed Housing Development on Greenbelt Land

2.1The comments at 1.1 also apply here.

3.Proposed Housing Development on the former Biwater Site

3.1 This site has previously suffered from high levels of toxicity and despite
attempts to clean it up, there will always be a stigma attached to it, particularly by people who live locally, who will make up the majority of the people buying the new houses on the site. Accordingly, it is maintained that too much significance has been put on this site (and the Avenue Site - see 4.1 below) as far as housing development is concerned. Switching the focus of the housing development back to the other adjacent, sustainable settlements in the South Sub-Area, as envisaged in the February 2015 version of the Draft Plan, would certainly alleviate these concerns about toxicity.

4. Proposed Housing Development on the Avenue site

4.1 The comments at 3.1 also apply here.

4.2 The capacity of the road network, notably the A61 between Wingerworth and Chesterfield, is without doubt inadequate and would be unable to cope with the increased traffic flow caused by up to 1,100 new homes on the Avenue site, 172 to the rear of 1-59 Adlington Avenue, and the significant number planned for the site at Wingerworth opposite the end of Mill Lane that is currently shown as a settlement gap in the February 2017 version of the Draft Local Plan.

5.Proposed Housing Development on Land at Dronfield

5.1Dronfield is already a relatively prosperous settlement and is located close to Sheffield and other local authority areas. In addition, 100% of the total number of new homes proposed for Dronfield (860) are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 undoubtedly apply here.

6.Proposed Housing Development on Land at Eckington

6.1Although probably slightly less prosperous than Dronfield, Eckington is also located relatively close to Sheffield and other local authority areas. In addition, 435 out of the proposed 553 new homes (i.e. 79%) are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 also definitely apply here.

7.Proposed Housing Development on Land at Killamarsh

7.1Killamarsh is located extremely close to several other local authority areas. In addition, 560 out of the proposed 618 new homes (i.e. 91%) are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 also unquestionably apply here.

7.2It is understood that other adjacent local authority areas are planning to build about 3000 new homes around the areas that border with Killamarsh. It is understood that the road network is old and inadequate, and that it is unlikely to be able to cope with the increased demands caused by these massive house building plans, without significant and proportionate infrastructure enhancements.

7.3It is understood that the vast majority of the homes are proposed to be built on land described as 'high-risk' because of the extensive prevalence of former underground coal mining workings from both deep and opencast mines in the area.

8.Proposed housing development on land at Renishaw

8.1Renishaw is also located extremely close to several other local authority areas. In addition, 100% of the proposed 270 new homes are planned to be built on greenbelt land. Accordingly, the comments at 1.1 and 1.2 definitely also apply here.

I trust these comments are helpful.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6729

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Representation Summary:

St Modwen's have a comprehensive strategy for bringing forward redevelopment of the Biwaters Site and are working closely with the Council, the policy wording for the site should be amended to reflect this and their proposals and aspirations for the site's redevelopment. A number of amendments and rewordings have been recommended for the supporting paragraphs 4.44-4.48 in the full submission.

Full text:

See attachments

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6735

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: St Modwen Developments Ltd

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Representation Summary:

The site allocation boundary illustrated on Figure 4.2 does not reflect the development proposals for the site. Figure 4.2 should be amended to reflect the new outline planning application being prepared for the site and to ensure the Local Plan is fully consistent with the developer's proposals. The site area has been expanded to include additional land to the north of the Derby Road parcel.

Full text:

See attachments