Local Settlement Gaps

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4694

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Anna Lomas

Representation Summary:

I object to building on the green belt.

Full text:

I object to building on the green belt.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4889

Received: 21/03/2017

Respondent: Wildgoose Homes

Representation Summary:

Object to the boundary of the settlement gap between Stretton and Clay Cross. A site that has a live planning consent for 31 dwellings is included within the proposed gap and must be removed. A settlement gap should be permanent and provide longevity. Proposing to include a site that has planning consent causes confusion and does not accord with what the local authority have granted consent for. The site will be developed and a forthcoming application will be submitted. Please remove this site from the proposed settlement gap and redraw the boundary.

Full text:

I write to object to the proposed boundary of the settlement gap between Stretton and Clay Cross.
The attached document shows hatched in blue an area of land that has outline planning consent for up to 31 homes. This is a live planning consent and this area of land should not be included within the proposed settlement gap. You should have strategic gaps that have longevity and are permanent. It is not conducive to good planning to include a site that you as a local authority have granted planning consent for and that was seen to "round off" the top section of Stretton to be level with housing on three sides. As part of the planning process we were told that this section was agreeable but any further into the field would not be acceptable as Stretton and Clay Cross needed to have a break between the settlements. Has this site been included within your housing land supply figures? if it has then you should not be allowing for it to possibly become a settlement gap. The site will be developed and a forthcoming application will be submitted. Please delete this site from the proposed settlement gap and redraw the boundary.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5081

Received: 30/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helena Gayle Boulton

Representation Summary:

The plans for Dronfield will only leave one field between Dronfield and Unstone. When the new Peak resort is developed this then merges into Chesterfield. The proposals go against the need for local settlement gaps to preserve 'sense of place',

Full text:

The plans for Dronfield will only leave one field between Dronfield and Unstone. When the new Peak resort is developed this then merges into Chesterfield. The proposals go against the need for local settlement gaps to preserve 'sense of place',

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5227

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Mr David Munn

Representation Summary:

The Settlement Gap identified between Holmewood and Heath is unlikely to be effective in relation to its aspect from the A6175. The ground is generally higher than the road and as such it would be unclear whether housing on the Settlement Gap area is present or not. Consequently the perception will be that housing exists all the way from Holmewood to Heath. The Settlement Gap should be increased to extend to Heath's Settlement Development Limit thus preventing development where the ground is lower and new housing would be visible from the road.

Full text:

The Settlement Gap identified between Holmewood and Heath is unlikely to be effective in relation to its aspect from the A6175. The ground is generally higher than the road and as such it would be unclear whether housing on the Settlement Gap area is present or not. Consequently the perception will be that housing exists all the way from Holmewood to Heath. The Settlement Gap should be increased to extend to Heath's Settlement Development Limit thus preventing development where the ground is lower and new housing would be visible from the road.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5333

Received: 04/04/2017

Respondent: Mrs K Goodwin

Agent: Charlotte Stainton

Representation Summary:

Evidence on which LSG designation is based on is fundamentally flawed.

The Draft Local Plan does not include narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. It is resulting in loss of Green Belt land elsewhere.

Explanation for the Gap to south of New Street Higham is lacking. There is no gap between Higham and Shirland because the area to the north east is part of Shirland and the area to the north has Higham in the address. See map for information.

Full text:

North East Derbyshire Local Plan Representation - Chesterfield Road, Shirland
This letter is a representation to the Draft North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2011-2033 which is submitted on behalf of my clients Mrs K Goodwin and Miss S Goodwin.

This representation is accompanied by a 'New Site Form' and land registry plan to present the Council with an attractive opportunity to deliver additional homes for North East Derbyshire.

Housing Provision
The Council is proposing allocations for 5740 dwellings for the plan period (which together with the dwellings already constructed would give the potential to deliver 6,756 homes). The Council believes that these allocations would be sufficient to achieve the minimum housing requirement of 6600. The allocation of sites to plan for only 156 units above the minimum housing level required does not give sufficient certainty that even the minimum housing needs of the District will be delivered. In addition, planning for the minimum requirement is not a way to achieve the economic growth aspirations being promoted by the Council, particularly when considering the persistent under-delivery of housing.

It is noted at paragraph 4.23 that the evidence underpinning the housing and employment targets is still under review and that targets may be amended in a future version of the Local Plan. This gives an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to this consultation exercise.

1270 of the allocated dwellings would be on two strategic sites and 2125 of the proposed 5740 dwellings would be in the green belt (59% of the total housing number
made up of the strategic sites and Green Belt sites). This is a significant weakness in the Council's strategy. Given the previous under-delivery of housing on the two strategic sites (particularly Biwaters) the anticipated delivery rates for these two sites is unrealistic. In addition, the disproportionate reliance on the two strategic sites makes the strategy for the provision of housing numbers weak.

The significant reliance on so many Green Belt dwellings is also a significant weakness in the draft Local Plan. The recent Housing White Paper gives a clear direction that Green Belt should only be released where "all other reasonable options have been explored". Whilst I am not against Green Belt release where appropriate, we believe that there are numerous non-Green Belt sites across North East Derbyshire which have been discounted for reasons which should not outweigh a Green Belt designation. We therefore do not believe that all other reasonable options have been explored in this case. This makes the plan unsound.

Local Settlement Gaps
The evidence that the Local Settlement Gaps designation is based on is fundamentally flawed. This is because the perceived 'gaps' that the designations are seeking to protect do not exist in reality and there is no consistency or logic to which areas are concluded to be important settlement gaps in the evidence.

The Council has then adopted this flawed evidence by including the recommended settlement gaps in the Draft Local Plan without any narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. The provision of local settlement gaps is actually resulting in the loss of Green Belt land elsewhere.

In the case of the Local Settlement Gap shown to the south of New Street at Higham, the explanation of why this area forms a settlement gap of such importance that it should be protected from development (at the expense of Green Belt elsewhere), is severely lacking. There is already development on the east side of Chesterfield Road and there is no clear separation between the areas alleged as Higham and Shirland.

The proposed 'gap' is not in fact a gap between Higham and Shirland because the area to the north east is part of Shirland (including the former Shirland Primary School) and the area to the north (including New Street) has Higham in the address. There is no gap between these areas and this is not harmful to the landscape or to the identity of the people who live in this area. The attached plan shows the areas classified as Shirland, Higham and Stonebroom according to the Derbyshire Mapping Portal and demonstrates the lack of distinction between the areas. The A61 eastern boundary of the site promoted below is wholly in Shirland. The proposed settlement gap in this location serves no useful purpose as there is no gap to protect.

Proposed Site -South of New Street and West of Chesterfield Road, Shirland
On behalf of the site owners, Mrs K and Miss S Goodwin, I wish to promote the site shown on the attached plan, for residential development.

The total area of this site is approximately 4.2 hectares although the owners would be very open to discussing the allocation of only part of this area (possibly the northern
section and/or the site frontage). Even if the whole site were to be developed for housing this would still leave a significant area of the proposed Local Settlement Gap if the Council concluded that this was justified. The site could deliver approximately 100 homes (126 homes based on 30 per hectare). This would make a significant contribution to the Council's housing delivery in an area of the District that complies with the Local Plan Strategy.

This development would deliver a high quality residential scheme which would respond to the various constraints and opportunities presented by the site e.g. site frontage to A61, retention of hedgerows and footpath, backing on to properties on New Street, soft edge to the countryside boundaries (outward facing) and the delivery of dwellings to meet the local market such as bungalows for the retirement market etc.

The development of this site would sit comfortably adjacent to the existing built up area as a natural extension. Agricultural land will remain to the south and west and there is already development on the eastern side of the A61 in any case.

The site owners are keen to see the site developed in an appropriate and high quality way and they are very willing to meet with representatives of the Council to discuss how this could be achieved.

We therefore request that this site be allocated for residential development and as such that the Local Settlement Gap designation is removed from this site.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5389

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Ackroyd & Abbott Homes Ltd.

Agent: Charlotte Stainton

Representation Summary:

Evidence on which LSG designation is based is fundamentally flawed.

The Draft Local Plan does not include narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. It is resulting in loss of Green Belt land elsewhere.

Explanation for the Gap at Hanging Banks is lacking. There is already development on the east of the A61, which is part of Wingerworth. It is not logical to keep a field between two parts of the same settlement. The development would unify the settlement, not harm.

Full text:

Four letters have been submitted as representations to the Draft North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2011-2033 which is submitted on behalf of clients Ackroyd and Abbott Ltd.

North East Derbyshire Local Plan Representation - Station Road, Killamarsh

Housing Provision
The Council is proposing allocations for 5740 dwellings for the plan period (which together with the dwellings already constructed would give the potential to deliver 6,756 homes). The Council believes that these allocations would be sufficient to achieve the minimum housing requirement of 6600. The allocation of sites to plan for only 156 units above the minimum housing level required does not give sufficient certainty that even the minimum housing needs of the District will be delivered. In addition, planning for the minimum requirement is not a way to achieve the economic growth aspirations being promoted by the Council, particularly when considering the persistent under-delivery of housing.

It is noted at paragraph 4.23 that the evidence underpinning the housing and employment targets is under review and that targets may be amended in a future version of the Local Plan. This gives an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to this consultation exercise.

1270 of the allocated dwellings would be on two strategic sites and 2125 of the proposed 5740 dwellings would be in the green belt (59% of the total housing number made up of the strategic sites and Green Belt sites). This is a significant weakness in the Council's strategy. Given the previous under-delivery of housing on the two strategic sites (particularly Biwaters) the anticipated delivery rates for these two sites is unrealistic. In addition, the disproportionate reliance on the two strategic sites makes the strategy for the provision of housing numbers weak.

The significant reliance on so many Green Belt dwellings is also a significant weakness in the draft Local Plan. The recent Housing White Paper gives a clear direction that Green Belt should only be released where "all other reasonable options have been explored". Whilst I am not against Green Belt release where appropriate, we believe that there are numerous non-Green Belt sites across North East Derbyshire which have been discounted for reasons which should not outweigh a Green Belt designation. We therefore do not believe that all other reasonable options have been explored in this case. This makes the plan unsound.

Station Road, Killamarsh - 07/00865/FL
Full planning permission 07/00865/FL has been granted for the residential development of the site of the Old Station at Killamarsh and we believe that it should be shown as a housing allocation in the Local Plan. We have a letter dated 22 May 2015 from Adrian Kirkham which confirms that this permission remains extant. Failure to allocate this site appears to be a missed opportunity to deliver housing within the built framework of Killamarsh.

The development of this site stalled due to the crash in the housing market and then latterly due to uncertainties about the route of HS2. I confirm however that this site is now available and deliverable.

We therefore request that the site covered by 07/00865/FL be allocated for residential development. The development of this site is in accordance with the Council Local Plan Strategy and could reduce pressure on the Green Belt surrounding Killamarsh.
North East Derbyshire Local Plan Representation - Hasland

Housing Provision
The Council is proposing allocations for 5740 dwellings for the plan period (which together with the dwellings already constructed would give the potential to deliver 6,756 homes). The Council believes that these allocations would be sufficient to achieve the minimum housing requirement of 6600. The allocation of sites to plan for only 156 units above the minimum housing level required does not give sufficient certainty that even the minimum housing needs of the District will be delivered. In addition, planning for the minimum requirement is not a way to achieve the economic growth aspirations being promoted by the Council, particularly when considering the persistent under-delivery of housing.

It is noted at paragraph 4.23 that the evidence underpinning the housing and employment targets is under review and that targets may be amended in a future version of the Local Plan. This gives an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to this consultation exercise.

1270 of the 5740 allocated dwellings would be on just two strategic sites. This is a significant weakness in the Council's strategy. Given the previous under-delivery of housing on the two strategic sites (particularly Biwaters) the anticipated delivery rates for these two sites is unrealistic. In addition, the disproportionate reliance on the two strategic sites makes the strategy for the provision of housing numbers weak.

In terms of the Green Belt review and the subsequent draft housing allocations within Green Belt, there is no evidence that this has been undertaken in consultation with the adjoining Local Authorities and this lack of cooperation potentially makes the plan unsound.

Land at Churchside, Hasland
The two parcels of land shown on the attached plan were previously submitted to the 'call for sites' process for consideration. They can be considered as one large site or two separate sites. They are both available and deliverable within 5 years.

We do not believe that sufficient consideration has been given to the opportunity that these sites offer to deliver housing adjacent to Chesterfield under the Duty to Cooperate.
These sites are positioned immediately adjacent to the built-up settlement of Hasland. The release of this land parcel would not result in harm to the countryside to the east or west and an area of open green belt would remain to the south, thus avoiding the coalescence of settlements.

Numerous areas of land are proposed to be taken out of the Green Belt in the north of the District and the removal of these sites in Hasland would be no more harmful to the purposes of Green Belt than the majority of those Green Belt sites that are proposed housing allocations. There is a lack of consistency in approach and because of this the Green Belt evidence is flawed.

For the reasons submitted as part of the Call for Sites, we therefore request that these sites at Hasland be removed from the Green Belt and allocated for residential development.

Another option would be to safeguard these sites for future development, possibly to deliver future housing for Chesterfield.

The development of these sites could therefore reduce pressure on the Green Belt to the north of the District and/or deliver future housing for Chesterfield.

North East Derbyshire Local Plan Representation - Holmewood
Proposed Housing Allocation - Holmewood (ab)
We wish to support the allocation of the housing site in Holmewood given the reference - ab. The site has planning permission under reference 14/00312/OL.

We confirm that this site which has planning permission is available for development and discussions are ongoing with potential developers and the landowner.

The site can confidently be included in the Local Plan as available and deliverable within 5 years.

It is important however that the viability issues relating to the provision of affordable housing and developer contributions are recognised for this site which is in a relatively low value area.

We therefore request that draft housing site allocation ab is carried forward to future drafts of the Local Plan.
North East Derbyshire Local Plan Representation -
Hanging Banks, Wingerworth
Housing Provision
The Council is proposing allocations for 5740 dwellings for the plan period (which together with the dwellings already constructed would give the potential to deliver 6,756 homes). The Council believes that these allocations would be sufficient to achieve the minimum housing requirement of 6600. The allocation of sites to plan for only 156 units above the minimum housing level required does not give sufficient certainty that even the minimum housing needs of the District will be delivered. In addition, planning for the minimum requirement is not a way to achieve the economic growth aspirations being promoted by the Council, particularly when considering the persistent under-delivery of housing.

It is noted at paragraph 4.23 that the evidence underpinning the housing and employment targets is under review and that targets may be amended in a future version of the Local Plan. This gives an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to this consultation exercise.

1270 of the allocated dwellings would be on two strategic sites and 2125 of the proposed 5740 dwellings would be in the green belt (59% of the total housing number made up of the strategic sites and Green Belt sites). This is a significant weakness in the Council's strategy. Given the previous under-delivery of housing on the two strategic sites (particularly Biwaters) the anticipated delivery rates for these two sites is unrealistic. In addition, the disproportionate reliance on the two strategic sites makes the strategy for the provision of housing numbers weak.

The significant reliance on so many Green Belt dwellings is also a significant weakness in the draft Local Plan. The recent Housing White Paper gives a clear direction that Green Belt should only be released where "all other reasonable options have been explored". Whilst I am not against Green Belt release where appropriate, we believe that there are numerous non-Green Belt sites across North East Derbyshire which have been discounted for reasons which should not outweigh a Green Belt designation. We therefore do not believe that all other reasonable options have been explored in this case. This makes the plan unsound.

Local Settlement Gaps
The evidence that the Local Settlement Gaps designation is based on is fundamentally flawed. This is because the perceived 'gaps' that the designations are seeking to protect do not exist in reality and there is no consistency or logic to which areas are concluded to be important settlement gaps in the evidence.

The Council has then adopted this flawed evidence by including the recommended settlement gaps in the Draft Local Plan without any narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. The provision of local settlement gaps would actually result in the loss of Green Belt land elsewhere.

In the case of the Local Settlement Gap shown to the south of Nottingham Drive, Wingerworth (in the area known as Hanging Banks) the explanation of why this area forms a settlement gap of such importance that it should be protected from development (at the expense of Green Belt elsewhere), is severely lacking. There is already development on the east side of the A61, which is also part of Wingerworth. It is not logical to try to keep a field between two parts of the same settlement. The development of Hanging Banks would unify the settlement, not result in harm to the identity of the settlement.

The proposed settlement gap in this location is not based on a clear understanding of the settlement and should be removed from the Local Plan.

Hanging Banks, Wingerworth - 16/00656/OL
Planning permissions 14/00763/OL and 16/00656/OL have been granted for the residential development of the Hanging Banks site and we firmly believe that it should be
shown as a housing allocation in the Local Plan.

There was minimal local objection/comment to these planning applications which suggests that the protection of this land as countryside is not of significant concern to local residents.

In determining the initial outline planning application, the Council concluded that the development of this site would be sustainable and that all technical requirements could be met. In addition, the Council participated in the OPUN design review process and carried out significant work with the District Valuer. It does not make sense for all this work to be put to one side when the site is an available and deliverable housing development opportunity.

This development would deliver a high quality residential scheme which would respond to the various constraints and opportunities presented by the site e.g. site frontage to A61, retention of hedgerows, responding to the woodland, backing on to properties on Nottingham Drive, soft edge to the countryside boundaries (outward facing) and the delivery of dwellings to meet the local market and deliver affordable housing such as bungalows for the retirement market etc. The development of this site would sit comfortably adjacent to the existing built up area as a natural extension. Agricultural land and woodland will remain to the south and west and there is already development on the eastern side of the A61.

We therefore request that this site be allocated for residential development and as such that the Local Settlement Gap designated is removed from this site. The development of this site is in accordance with the Council Local Plan Strategy and would reduce pressure on the Green Belt.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5540

Received: 04/04/2017

Respondent: Mr David Burton

Agent: Charlotte Stainton

Representation Summary:

Evidence on which LSG designation is based is fundamentally flawed.

The Draft Local Plan does not include narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. It is resulting in loss of Green Belt land elsewhere.

Explanation for the Gap on the south side of Mill Lane is lacking. Statement that the settlement gaps is unneeded as a gap between Wingerworth and Grassmoor will always exist because of the River Rother, mainline railway and wildlife site.

Full text:

This letter is a representation to the Draft North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2011-2033 which is submitted on behalf of their client the owner of the site to which planning application 17/00227/OL relates.

Housing Provision
The Council is proposing allocations for 5740 dwellings for the plan period (which together with the dwellings already constructed would give the potential to deliver 6,756 homes). The Council believes that these allocations would be sufficient to achieve the minimum housing requirement of 6600. The allocation of sites to plan for only 156 units above the minimum housing level required does not give sufficient certainty that even the minimum housing needs of the District will be delivered. In addition, planning for the minimum requirement is not a way to achieve the economic growth aspirations being promoted by the Council, particularly when considering the persistent under-delivery of housing.

It is noted at paragraph 4.23 that the evidence underpinning the housing and employment targets is under review and that targets may be amended in a future version of the Local Plan. This gives an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to this consultation exercise.

1270 of the allocated dwellings would be on two strategic sites and 2125 of the proposed 5740 dwellings would be in the green belt (59% of the total housing number made up of two strategic sites and Green Belt sites). This is a significant weakness in the Council's strategy. Given the previous under-delivery of housing on the two strategic sites (particularly Biwaters) the anticipated delivery rates for these two sites is unrealistic. In addition, the disproportionate reliance on the two strategic sites makes the strategy for the provision of housing numbers weak.

The significant reliance on so many Green Belt dwellings is also a serious weakness in the draft Local Plan. The recent Housing White Paper gives a clear direction that Green Belt should only be released where "all other reasonable options have been explored". Whilst we are not against Green Belt release where appropriate, we believe that there are numerous non-Green Belt sites across North East Derbyshire which have been discounted for reasons which should not outweigh a Green Belt designation. We therefore do not believe that all other reasonable options have been explored in this case. This potentially makes the plan unsound.

Local Settlement Gaps
The evidence that the Local Settlement Gaps designation is based on is fundamentally flawed. This is because many of the perceived 'gaps' that the designations are seeking to protect do not exist in reality and there is no consistency or logic to which areas are concluded to be important settlement gaps in the evidence.

The Council has then, without question, adopted this flawed evidence by including the recommended settlement gaps in the Draft Local Plan without any narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. The provision of local settlement gaps would result in the loss of Green Belt land elsewhere. This means that the Council is seeking to preserve the alleged identity of settlements which, in reality, are often not separate entities, and this is being done at the expense of the Green Belt.

In the case of the Local Settlement Gap shown to the south side of Mill Lane at Wingerworth (east of draft allocation aq), the explanation of why this area forms a settlement gap of such importance that it should be protected from development (at the expense of Green Belt elsewhere), is severely lacking.

In addition, the position of the Wingerworth Policies Map key means that it is not actually possible to see the proposed extent of the settlement gap to the east of site aq which is unreasonable for the purposes of a consultation.

The proposed settlement gap to the east of the Bellway development site, aq, would not result in the protection of any important gap between settlements. The Avenue site to the north of Mill Lane extends east in line with the proposed gap and therefore the gap designation would actually sit to the south of this strategic major development site.

It appears that the gap which the Plan is seeking to protect is the east-west gap between Wingerworth and Grassmoor so the proposed settlement gap on Mill Lane (south of Avenue) would not achieve this aim. A gap between Wingerworth and Grassmoor will always exist because of the River Rother, the mainline railway and the wildlife site. It is not necessary to create a settlement gap designation to achieve this aim.

The proposed settlement gap on Mill Lane is not based on a clear understanding of these settlements, is not necessary and should be removed from the Local Plan.

Land south of Mill Lane (east of aq) - 17/00227/OL
Planning application 17/00227/OL is under consideration by the Council and we firmly believe that it should be shown as a housing allocation in the Local Plan.
Application 17/00227/OL is accompanied by a Supporting Planning Statement which sets out why the development would be sustainable and also addresses the Settlement Gap issue mentioned above. All technical issues will be addressed as part of the application process. During the course of the application it is expected that detailed discussions will be held regarding the delivery of affordable housing and community infrastructure.

This site is an available, deliverable and sustainable housing development opportunity.

This development would deliver a high-quality scheme which would respond to the various constraints and opportunities presented by the site e.g. site frontage to the highway, retention of hedgerows, soft edge to the countryside boundaries (outward facing) and the delivery of dwellings to meet the local market.

The development of this site would sit comfortably adjacent to the existing built up area, including the Bellway development currently under construction to the west (site aq) and Avenue to the north, as a natural extension. To the east of the site the wildlife site, river and railway would all ensure that the development would be seen as part of Wingerworth.

We therefore request that this site be allocated for residential development and as such that the Local Settlement Gap designation is removed from this site. The development of this site is in accordance with the Council Local Plan Strategy and would reduce pressure on the Green Belt.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5545

Received: 04/04/2017

Respondent: S&G Dore

Agent: Charlotte Stainton

Representation Summary:

Evidence on which LSG designation is based is fundamentally flawed.

The Draft Local Plan does not include narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. It is resulting in loss of Green Belt land elsewhere.

Explanation for the Gap West of Chesterfield Road at Holmewood is lacking. There is no discernible gap between Holmewood and North Wingfield. There is no justification for keeping the two settlements separate as they already adjoin each other. LSG in this area should be removed.

Full text:

This letter is a representation to the Draft North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2011-2033 which is submitted on behalf of S & G Dore the owners of the site to which planning application 14/01290/OL relates.

Housing Provision
The Council is proposing allocations for 5740 dwellings for the plan period (which together with the dwellings already constructed would give the potential to deliver 6,756 homes). The Council believes that these allocations would be sufficient to achieve the minimum housing requirement of 6600. The allocation of sites to plan for only 156 units above the minimum housing level required does not give sufficient certainty that even the minimum housing needs of the District will be delivered. In addition, planning for the minimum requirement is not a way to achieve the economic growth aspirations being promoted by the Council, particularly when considering the persistent under-delivery of housing.

It is noted at paragraph 4.23 that the evidence underpinning the housing and employment targets is under review and that targets may be amended in a future version of the Local Plan. This gives an unacceptable degree of uncertainty to this consultation exercise.

1270 of the allocated dwellings would be on two strategic sites and 2125 of the proposed 5740 dwellings would be in the green belt (59% of the total housing number made up of two strategic sites and Green Belt sites). This is a significant weakness in the Council's strategy. Given the previous under-delivery of housing on the two strategic sites (particularly Biwaters) the anticipated delivery rates for these two sites is unrealistic. In addition, the disproportionate reliance on the two strategic sites makes the strategy for the provision of housing numbers weak.

The significant reliance on so many Green Belt dwellings is also a significant weakness in the draft Local Plan. The recent Housing White Paper gives a clear direction that Green Belt should only be released where "all other reasonable options have been explored". Whilst we are not against Green Belt release where appropriate, we believe that there are numerous non-Green Belt sites across North East Derbyshire which have been discounted for reasons which should not outweigh a Green Belt designation. We therefore do not believe that all other reasonable options have been explored in this case. This makes the plan unsound.

Local Settlement Gaps
The evidence that the Local Settlement Gaps designation is based on is fundamentally flawed. This is because the perceived 'gaps' that the designations are seeking to protect do not exist in reality and there is no consistency or logic to which areas are concluded to be important settlement gaps in the evidence.

The Council has then adopted this flawed evidence by including the recommended settlement gaps in the Draft Local Plan without any narrative about the merits of each gap and whether the perceived need for a gap should outweigh the opportunity to deliver development adjacent to existing settlements. The provision of local settlement gaps would result in the loss of Green Belt land elsewhere.

In the case of the Local Settlement Gap shown to the west of Chesterfield Road at Holmewood the explanation of why this area forms a settlement gap of such importance that it should be protected from development (at the expense of Green Belt elsewhere), is severely lacking.

There is existing development to all four sides of the roundabout junction of Williamthorpe Road, Tibshelf Road, Heath Road and Chesterfield Road with no discernible gap between Holmewood and North Wingfield. Most drivers travelling from the roundabout to the west towards North Wingfield would not be able to tell you the point they enter North Wingfield from Holmewood.

Technically the land covered by the proposed settlement gap in this location is within North Wingfield Parish but most local people would consider it to be Holmewood. There is no justification for trying to keep these two settlements separate. They already adjoin each other and this is in no way harmful to the landscape or to the identity of the people who live in this location.

The proposed settlement gap in this location is not based on a clear understanding of these settlements and should be removed from the Local Plan.

Land West of Chesterfield Road, Holmewood - 14/01290/OL
Planning permission 14/01290/OL has been granted for a mixed use, residential-led development of the site to the west of Chesterfield Road, Holmewood and we firmly believe that it should be shown as a housing allocation in the Local Plan.

In determining the outline planning application, the Council concluded that the development of this site would be sustainable and that all technical requirements could be met. In addition, the Council and promoter participated in the OPUN design review process. It does not make sense for all this work to be discarded when the site is an available, deliverable and sustainable mixed use development opportunity.

This development would deliver a high-quality scheme which would respond to the various constraints and opportunities presented by the site e.g. site frontages to the highways, retention of hedgerows, soft edge to the countryside boundaries (outward facing) and the delivery of dwellings, pub/restaurant and commercial units to meet the local market. The development of this site would sit comfortably adjacent to the existing built up area as a natural extension. The outline scheme included a significant area of green space to the western edge of the development in order to provide a visual break between the development and the houses to the west.

We therefore request that this site be allocated for residential development and as such that the Local Settlement Gap designation is removed from this site. The development of this site is in accordance with the Council Local Plan Strategy and would reduce pressure on the Green Belt.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5703

Received: 05/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Peter MacKay

Representation Summary:

Section 4.73 notes that "the Local Plan seeks to protect settlement identity and avoid further settlement coalescence and erosion of character by identifying Local Settlement Gaps". Releasing the land off Shakespeare Crescent & Sheffield Road, Dronfield (Section 5.19) would move the physical boundaries of Dronfield significantly closer to Unstone, leaving only a small green space to separate the two. As Chesterfield Council has given planning permission for Residential development right up to the southern borders of Unstone the net effect will be to remove the distinct nature of Dronfield.

Full text:

I wish to register my objection to the proposed local plan currently in the consultation period, produced by North East Derbyshire County Council.

My objection centres around the removal of the Green Belt land surrounding Dronfield.

My reasons for this objection are as follows:-
* Green Belt Review/Evidence base for the removal of land from the Green Belt:
o Section 4.65 claims that in order to achieve a "sustainable pattern of development... we must accept that this will have an impact on the Green Belt", but the Council's approach to removing land from the Green Belt in Dronfield is does not fit a "sustainable pattern of development". The land proposed for removal from the Green Belt at Hallowes Lane, Dronfield (Section 5.20) and Hilltop Dronfield (Section 5.21) come with a list of factors that have not been investigated. As such removing these areas of land from the Green Belt cannot reasonably be described as part of a "sustainable pattern of development" as it is not yet clear that the land is suitable for development.
* Local Settlement Gap
o Section 4.73 notes that "the Local Plan seeks to protect settlement identity and avoid further settlement coalescence and erosion of character by identifying Local Settlement Gaps". Releasing the land off Shakespeare Crescent & Sheffield Road, Dronfield (Section 5.19) would move the physical boundaries of Dronfield significantly closer to Unstone, leaving only a small green space to separate the two. As Chesterfield Council has given planning permission for Residential development right up to the southern borders of Unstone the net effect will be to remove the distinct nature of Dronfield.
o Further there is a duty on the Council to co-ordinate planning with neighbouring councils, but there is no evidence that the Council has undertaken co-ordination with Chesterfield Council or Sheffield, which are key influences on the NEDDC region. This is particularly regrettable as the councils in both areas demonstrate good efforts and practice in the re-use of Brown Field sites, something that is obvious in it's omission from the NEDDDC Draft Local Plan.
* Infrastructure:
o The Draft Local Plan proposes (section 9.71) sites for several hundred new homes in and around Dronfield, notes some (but by no means all) of the infrastructure challenges that this would bring to the town and then defers any solution to these challenges to further assessments. As such it is not possible to say that the infrastructure challenges can be met, which calls into question the feasibility of the developments and undermines the assertion that land is being removed from the Green Belt as part of "sustainable pattern of development".
o The plan for the additional housing is based around the ability to commute from Dronfield to places such as Sheffield and Chesterfield, primarily via the railway station. This is currently in a position where the line through Dronfield is part of a plan to electrify the East Midlands mainline (as noted in the Draft Local Plan, Section 9.62). However Arriva/Northern Rail/Network rail are currently analysing the possibility of moving the station out of the town as there are listed bridges in the town centre that prevent the electrification taking place. This currently has no workable solution and as such cannot be used as the basis for the justification of supporting additional housing from the Green Belt.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6037

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation Summary:

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

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.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6262

Received: 04/04/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jane Hardwick

Representation Summary:

Support for the importance of local settlement gaps 4.70 - 4.75

Full text:

NEDDC Local Plane (2011-2033) Consultation Draft

I am writing to SUPPORT the Draft Plan

I support the re-categorisation of Ashover and Kelstage as level 3 settlements and Alton, Fallgate and Littlemoor as level 4 settlements which realistically reflect these communities. I support that there is "no specific housing requirements" for level 3 & 4 settlements

I support the removal of housing growth targets for the rural west of the District

I support the importance of local settlement gaps 4.70 - 4.75

My concerns are:

4.80 I am concerned that the revised settlements boundaries will be published alongside the Publication Version of the Local Plan without public consultation.

Policy SDC2 - I am concerned that there isn't enough protection for Trees, Woodland and Hedgerows. It is too easy for developers and landowners to destroy all of these without punishment. and I feel this policy should be stronger.

Overall I SUPPORT the Draft Plan and would urge the Council to progress the Plan with speed.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6566

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Plexus Consultants Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

Representation Summary:

We object to the proposed designation of land to the south-west of Grassmoor as a Strategic Gap. We disagree with the findings of the Local Settlement Gap Study (LSGS) in relation to Grassmoor. We consider that the threat of actual merger between the two settlements is non-existent. We agree with the authors of the LSGS in this regard. We also consider that the potential for visual merger has been hugely overstated in the LSGS. There are very limited public vantage points.
Grassmoor.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6764

Received: 10/05/2017

Respondent: Clay Cross Parish Council

Representation Summary:

The settlement gap which extends into the single field adjacent to Kenning Park. Should it be taken back to the line of CX Footpath 1?

The Parish Council needs to re-enforce and agree to any realignment of the settlement gap and this must be a main priority.

There is a need to add and re-enforce the buffer zone in the southern boundary.

Full text:

See Attached.