Callywhite Lane Extension, Dronfield

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 52

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4585

Received: 06/03/2017

Respondent: Mr Oliver Hewitt

Representation:

It does not seem appropriate to extend Callywhite Lane for employment use when there are so many empty units on this estate currently. Use of this land for housing which would help regenerate the area would seem to make more sense than housing development in greenbelt.

Full text:

It does not seem appropriate to extend Callywhite Lane for employment use when there are so many empty units on this estate currently. Use of this land for housing which would help regenerate the area would seem to make more sense than housing development in greenbelt.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4661

Received: 10/03/2017

Respondent: Mr Barry Gray

Representation:

With the proposed increase to the industrial estate at Callywhite Lane, what plans are in place to restrict heavy vehicles from the centre of town (ie Chesterfield Road).

Full text:

I would be pleased if you could furnish me with your proposals for the following:

1. How will residents gain entry to site "g" when completed.
2. Will residents to proposed sites "h" and "I" use existing roadways to gain access and if so are there plans to improve them as an estimated 400 plus vehicles will be using these roads daily.
3. With the proposed increase to the industrial estate at Callywhite Lane, what plans are in place to restrict heavy vehicles from the centre of town (ie Chesterfield Road).
4. The draft plan if implemented in its entirety will increase the population of the town by almost 10%, what plans are in place for additional schooling and doctor surgery both of which are under great pressure now.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4665

Received: 10/03/2017

Respondent: Mr IAN LIMB

Representation:

I also believe the proposed extension of Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate and the new access off Sheffield Road close to the Nature Park to be extremely detrimental to the environment of Dronfield.

Full text:

I am writing to you as a resident of Dronfield and with regards to the NE Derbyshire Local Plan Consultation Draft Feb 17.

I must state that I find it extremely disappointing that the Consultation Process is not more widely advertised and publicised by NEDCC. My family and I only became aware of the Local Plan and Consultation Process as a result of a leaflet put through our letterbox by other residents trying to make the neighbourhood aware of the situation.

The Consultation Process runs from 24th Feb 2017 to 7th Apr 2017. A period of 42 days to allow the public to review, understand and respond on these proposals is an extremely short period of time and believe the period should be extended to 12 weeks in line with most due process periods.

Having reviewed the relevant sections of the draft I must record my strongest opposition to the proposal for converting "Greenbelt" land into land allocated for future housing. The proposed greenbelt locations adjacent to Hill Top Road/Longacre Road/Southwood Avenue, Hallowes Lane and Eckington Road are most inappropriate and will undoubtedly destroy the neighbourhoods.

My parents moved to Dronfield in 1964 and purchased a newly constructed Wimpey house at Hill Top. Since then I have lived the majority of my life in Dronfield. As I grew up I witnessed the expansion of Dronfield from a village to a town with major residential development in the Gosforth Valley and Dronfield Woodhouse. As I remember Dronfield was infamous for being the largest new private housing estate in Europe in the 70's. I attended Gosforth School in the 70's and thereafter witnessed the closure of this and the Gladys Buxton Secondary Schools. The Gosforth School land and surrounding open space in the Leabrook Valley were sold off to National House Builders and used, in a large part for major new housing developments. Admittedly some of the playing fields were retained and now offer an exceptional venue for local sport. Dronfield has continually grown since with smaller more speculative developments in keeping with the town size. As a resident it is clear to see that the towns current infrastructure and local services are under constant and unrelenting pressure to serve the current population let alone another potential 1o% increase in the population over the next 15 years as set out in the local plan.

The Housing Provision for Dronfield set out in the plan is a total of 860 new homes proposed by 2033. This represents an increase in circa' 10% of the current housing stock and therefore a major and significant strain of local infrastructure and services. All the new housing is proposed on current "greenbelt" land which NEDDC are seeking to re-allocate for housing.

In my opinion Dronfield is a unique place and stands alone. It has never been a suburb of Sheffield and or similarly Chesterfield. It has always been protected by its greenbelt from the surrounding areas and I believe this must remain the case for Dronfield in order to prosper and maintain its identity as I and most of its residents believe it should. The eradication of greenbelt is a "one way" process in that once lost it will never be returned to its original and intended use. When one looks at the Dronfield area map and the proposed loss of greenbelt it is clear that this land take is detrimental to the locality and out of character with development in the past. For example, the area of land at the top of Hallowes Lane involves the loss of major part of the Golf Club which has been present in Dronfield for over 100 years. Whilst this is private land, it should not be left to commercially minded individuals to decide the future of such an historic and important area of the town. The other proposed area represented by the strip of land between Hill Top Road, Longacre Road and the Hallowes golf course is the outer extremes of the south ward and represents beautiful open space and a buffer to the A61 together with access to the Monk Wood and Barlow beyond.

I currently live on Hill Top Road and the idea of increasing vehicular traffic in order to access the proposed 190 new homes (400 cars) cannot be accommodated without a major upgrade of the roads to ensure public and more importantly child safety. Dronfield Hill Top also no local amenities except for the Hyde Park Public House and the few small businesses on Highfields Road. The nearest amenities are located in the Civic Centre and generally accessed by vehicle due to topography of Dronfield. The proposal would not only increase normal travel volumes but also local travel essential to access amenities.

I am also aware of Brownfield sites in Dronfield which haven't been brought forward for residential development. For example, the former Padley & Venables site on Callywhite Lane was purchased and demolished for residential development. I am aware that the de-contamination costs of this site make development unviable but why aren't the Local and District Council seeking regeneration funding to clean the site and assist the developer in bringing forward development instead of proposing eradication of greenbelt?

I also believe the proposed extension of Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate and the new access off Sheffield Road close to the Nature Park to be extremely detrimental to the environment of Dronfield. This will no doubt involve the loss of a very important nature area and promote access to Callywhite Lane from the south and via Unstone. Currently there is a substantial amount of unlet space and property on Callywhite Lane and therefore the plans to expand and improve vehicular access to be most inappropriate.

All in all I think the proposal to give up greenbelt for residential development on the scale proposed is completely unnecessary and contrary to the Council's responsibility and obligation to maintain greenbelt for the purposes of defining local settlement and maintaining the character of the places where we all live. For the reason I am extremely opposed to the proposals in the Local Plan and shall be doing all I can to support the substantial number of Dronfield residents and town councillors who also share the same feelings.

I also intend to attend the Consultation Meeting on 14th March 2017 at the Dronfield Civic Hall to reiterate my opposition to these proposals, in particular the loss of greenbelt.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4707

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Dr Clare Freeman

Representation:

Development of the Callywhite Lane site will bring welcome employment opportunities for the residents of Dronfield but it is important to recognise that expansion will cause a substantial increase in traffic through the town. The roads are narrow and the risk of air pollution is high.

Full text:

Development of the Callywhite Lane site will bring welcome employment opportunities for the residents of Dronfield but it is important to recognise that expansion will cause a substantial increase in traffic through the town. The roads are narrow and the risk of air pollution is high.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4743

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Believes this is ridiculous and unrealistic.

Full text:


I am making comments about Dronfield, the Green Belt and Housing.

"NE Derbyshire is experiencing an ageing population"
There is no mention of provision for bungalows to be built in Dronfield. Whilst the Plan mentions affordable housing need of 30-40% it does not stipulate the proportion of bungalows that should be built. Indeed Dronfield is losing its stock of bungalows as planning permission has been granted by this authority to convert bungalows into houses or they get demolished for the plot which then has a very large house built upon the site. In allowing this to happen the council is not making provision for an ageing population. As well as affordable housing, this council should stipulate a percentage of bungalows in new developments.

"set within attractive countryside and landscapes highly valued locally"
This statement should therefore guide the planners to maintain the highly valued landscapes and not remove land from the Green Belt which will have a significant impact upon them.
"There will inevitably have to be some loss of countryside"
Why is it inevitable? It is the easiest option. There are plenty of alternatives which this council has not fully explored.
"There is a need for more housing" This is a vague statement. "Only a quarter of the population in NE Derbyshire cannot afford market housing". This means 75% can. Where then is the demand for this affordable housing you wish to build on Green Belt land in Dronfield?
"there is need to provide local employment opportunities close to where people live in order to reduce out commuting"
This is unlikely to be achieved in Dronfield when housing is 860 for 6 hectares of employment land.
You identify that unemployment is high in Grassmoor, Holmwood, Heath and Clay Cross, therefore these are the areas that need the regeneration in terms of jobs and affordable housing, not Dronfield. You identify the Birchall Estate as being a growth area for tourism and employment. There are plenty of brownfield sites nearby on which to build houses. Building houses in Dronfield will encourage more commuting and congestion on local B roads through Dronfield Bottom and Unstone village.
"In the north of the district, growth and expansion of the towns of Dronfield will have met the development needs"
This is past tense and states that in fact the job has been done to achieve the desired outcomes. Dronfield has recently been ranked 9th in the top ten best places to live. Any further growth of Dronfield will have major adverse effects. However Dronfield does need a regeneration of its town centre - the Civic which has empty units and charity shops and which lets the rest of the town down badly.
Local Plan Objectives
D7 "To protect the separation and identity of settlements by identifying key areas of countryside where development should be restricted"
If this is an objective, then achieving it by taking land out of the Green Belt is totally contrary to this statement.
D13 "To ensure that housing and employment growth takes place in a way that protects local amenity and does not undermine environmental quality"
Again another objective that cannot be achieved by taking Green Belt land.

Strategic Co-operation "..working with neighbouring authorities"
Where in this plan has the council demonstrated that they are in any way doing this? Isn't it a directive from central government that where authorities are constrained by the Green Belt they can look to their neighbouring authorities to satisfy housing demand? Why doesn't this council look to work with Chesterfield Borough Council to explore land for housing on their respective boundaries at Brierley Bridge to the south of Unstone where there is a wealth of potential brownfield sites on the old boatyard and the old nursery with the prospect of 1300 jobs across the road at Peak Resort? You don't need to be a planner to realise that this is where the housing should be. Unless this option has been fully explored I do not consider that there are exceptional circumstances to take land from the Green Belt for housing.

Within the county are significant brownfield sites ripe for development in areas where unemployment is high like the Avenue and Biwaters. Why does there have to be growth across the county? It makes sense to target these sites first which because of their size will satisfy demand for jobs and housing. Dronfield is already an urban sprawl. Recognise that the town at its modest size is a good place to live. Regenerate its centre and leave it at that. There doesn't need to be growth everywhere. It is totally wrong and irresponsible to increase the size of a town by 10% before having an infrastructure plan in place first.

"meet the future needs of the District in locations where it is most needed" You have identified where these areas are and yet this plan seeks to build houses where they are not needed - in Dronfield and where there is no likelihood of employment on a large scale - Callywhite Lane.
"The local plan aims to provide new jobs along with new housing" Where are the new jobs in Dronfield for the 860 new households planned? Callywhite Lane is not one of your Strategic Sites and employment you have said is in storage and distribution which does not employ many. By building houses in Dronfield, this plan is further encouraging commuting which is already 61%
Why does an already large centre mean it has the greatest needs for new housing? I disagree. Modest sized towns like Dronfield should not become larger to eventually become mini cities or because of their urban sprawl join with Sheffield or Unstone. Can it not be said that Dronfield has reached its optimum development level to become the 9th best place to live in the UK?
Four Strategic Sites have been identified etc, along with 43ha of employment land and XXm26 of retail floorspace.
Callywhite Lane is not listed as amongst the four Strategic Sites where most of the housing will be along with a large proportion of employment land so why build houses in Dronfield? This plan makes statements that Callywhite Lane is not attractive to investment - another reason not to build houses in Dronfield. It will only drive up commuting, unemployment and congestion.

These points would seem to be the justification for removing land from the Green Belt. However housing need cannot be cited as the exceptional circumstances necessary to remove land from the Green Belt.
Within North East Derbyshire there are huge brownfield sites for housing and employment. Why can't the housing quotas be satisfied on these sites rather than taking Green Belt land? Why does there need to be further housing in Dronfield when there is little opportunity to create local employment (6 hectares) except in storage and distribution which employs few people on low wages? The number of proposed houses does not equate with employment provision in Dronfield, when elsewhere 2000 houses is in relation to 43 hectares of employment land.

Housing requirement for Dronfield is 860. A similar table two years ago had Dronfield's requirement at 285 houses to 2031. A review of the Green Belt seems to be cited as the reason that the housing figure for Dronfield has increased three-fold. It seems purely to satisfy a spatial strategy and a need to build everywhere. "The recommended growth for Dronfield is 285 dwellings over the 20 year plan period to 2031. Up to 31st March 2014, 34 dwellings had been built and another 70 dwellings had planning permission. This leaves another 181 dwellings to allocate in the local plan." Justify why it is now 860. This council has not considered the Strategic Housing Market Assessment evidence carefully or taken adequate time to consider whether there are environmental and policy constraints, such as Green Belt, which will impact on their overall final housing requirement.
.




N3 Employment Land "To improve the quality of employment land in the north and address infrastructure deficiencies to allow for the expansion of existing sites" This is yet another unachievable objective in terms of Callywhite Lane in Dronfield. There are empty sites, vacant land, empty units and this plan states that this area is not attracting businesses and hasn't done for a number of years. Given this status, why has this council not redesignated land for housing on Callywhite Lane or explored this as an option before taking Green Belt land? Because once again they have chosen the easiest option. "Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites allocated for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. Land allocated should be regularly reviewed." Callywhite Lane will never attract the sort of businesses that employs large numbers of people. At best it will be storage and distribution which employs few on zero hours contracts.
Better to look at redesignating vacant sites like the old Padley & Venables land to deal with housing shortages if it can be proven that in fact Dronfield needs all this extra housing. As for improvements to infrastructure, is the council really going to put a new road through from the end of Callywhite Lane to join Chesterfield Road? No because it will be too costly an option for what Callywhite Lane can deliver. It is time to redesignate this land and find a way to gain access to the site without using established cul-de-sacs.


Distribution of Growth and Settlement Hierarchy
Why does this council consider it necessary to make the largest centres of population even bigger whilst making no effort whatsoever to plan for the proposals? With an additional 860 houses in Dronfield that would mean a 10% increase in population, of 2064 people, with 680 children with 37.8 more children in every school year group, with 1760 more cars on Dronfield's already congested streets. Dronfield has been ranked the 9th best place to live in the UK. These proposed changes would seriously affect its rankings.
Green Belt Review "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered under exceptional circumstances." The need for housing does not constitute the exceptional circumstances. This council should consider whether there are opportunities to co-operate with neighbouring planning authorities to meet needs across housing market areas. Green Belt land is not only important to prevent the spread of urban sprawl into the countryside, it is valuable to local communities for recreation and access to green areas.
Green Belt land has more public footpaths on it than the countryside as a whole. There is a good deal of new evidence on the benefits which Green Belt land is delivering and how these relate to the ecosystem services they provide. For example, Green Belt land has a greater proportion of woodland and a more concentrated range of public access opportunities than other parts of England. This council needs to be "more ambitious" to further enhance the green belt protection for future generations.
The vast swathes of land that this council proposes to take from the Green Belt is land that is actively farmed currently. Between Unstone and Dronfield is very valuable agricultural land which has recently been ploughed. On a regular basis cattle graze in the fields below Shakespeare Crescent and as soon as you leave the urban sprawl of Dronfield, you immediately feel that you are in a rural area. To build the proposed 235 houses here would destroy what is currently a very narrow strip of Green Belt, but one which protects the separation and identity of Unstone village. The ancient village of Coal Aston has been subsumed under Dronfield's urban sprawl. I would argue that with release of any land from the Green Belt between Unstone and Dronfield, it goes against the principles of Green Belt legislation. The government attaches great importance to Green Belts to check urban sprawl and to keep land permanently open. I believe this council has just taken the easy option by taking not just small parcels of land, but vast swathes and I don't think they can demonstrate that this is an absolute last resort - or the 'exceptional circumstances' required.
The local settlement gap between Unstone and Dronfield is a narrow one. The ancient village of Coal Aston has been lost to Dronfield's urban sprawl. I suggest that where settlement gaps are the narrowest, protection of them should be the strongest whether they are held in the land banks of developers or not.

"Callywhite Lane This is a long-standing allocation from the 2005 Adopted Plan, the northern end of which has been partly developed. Despite lack of progress on this site it represents an important extension to a valuable industrial area in the North Sub-Area. Issues over access in particular need to be resolved but there is a likelihood that with the anticipated electrification of the East Midlands Main Line and (in the longer term) HS2, such issues will be resolved." For anybody who knows Callywhite Lane in Dronfield, its location and its association with heavy industry this statement in the local plan is just ridiculous. This council recognises a lack of progress on the site. Making a statement about electrification and HS2 resolving issues associated with Callywhite Lane is beyond belief. Neither of these schemes will have any effect on Callywhite Lane.



"meaningful levels of housing growth can only be accommodated by looking around the edge of the town within the Green Belt." Central government has said that Green Belt land should be protected almost at all costs. Local planning authorities with large areas of Green Belt may not be expected to provide the full quantum of their objectively assessed housing need within their area. Unmet need may have to be accommodated in less constrained neighbouring authorities and facilitated through the mechanism of the 'duty to co-operate' at the planning stage. Where in this plan is there any evidence that the council has looked to neighbouring authorities to address the housing need?


The plan makes the statement that Dronfield is significantly lacking in green spaces within the settlement development limit and that its parks need to be protected. All the more reason also to retain the easily accessed Green Belt land which has a public footpaths directly from Shakespeare Crescent onto it which then leads onto the millennium Dronfield Round Walk.

It is recognised in this plan that car parking is an issue in Dronfield but it offers no solution to the problem. With an additional 1760 cars from the 860 households parking will be a bigger issue.


"New development will put pressure on existing highway and public transport networks, services and facilities...."
To increase the population of Dronfield by 10% without any clear plan on local infrastructure is irresponsible. It is putting the cart before the horse. Having a train station only adds benefit if the station can be accessed by car for people living in Dronfield Woodhouse or Coal Aston and people can park at the station. This council is fully aware that there is not enough car parking at Dronfield Station.
Dronfield needs a bus service delivering people to the railway station from Dronfield's outlying parts or the provision of a much larger car park at the station.
The proposed building of 860 houses in Dronfield in terms of pressure on the local infrastructure means that Dronfield only has one 11-18 educational establishment on a constrained central site. Where will the 37.8 extra children per school year group be educated? Are new medical centres to be provided?
This plan has not provided the necessary information to demonstrate how issues of parking, road congestion, traffic management, pedestrian safety, health care provision and education will be addressed in proposing that Dronfield's population will increase by 860 households. Who will build the new link road from Callywhite Lane to Chesterfield Road? Is this a reality? An infrastructure plan should be in place first before deciding to build more houses. It seems we have to wait for the infrastructure delivery plans to see the site-specific details.


I challenge the council on the soundness of this plan. You have not: accurately assessed housing need for Dronfield, you have not examined other sites for housing within the settlement development limits, you have not redesignated land that has not attracted businesses within the last two years, you have not explored working closely with neighbouring councils to identify boundary fringes suitable for housing, you have not made any plans to allow bungalows to be built for Dronfield's ageing population, you have not taken into account the impact of increasing a town's population by 10% with regard to infrastructure and therefore there is serious doubt about whether many of your objectives are achievable.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4763

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Anna Lomas

Representation:

Comments made that extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate could cause traffic congestion on the roads at peak times.

Full text:

I wish to express my concerns surrounding the proposed building on various green belt sites around Dronfield. My concerns cover several areas and are as follows.

Firstly, Dronfield is a compact and pleasing small town to live in. It has a clear green belt which separates it from Unstone in the South and Sheffield in the North. The planned housing will merge it towards these other settlements and the distinctive character of Dronfield will be lost.

Secondly, many of the roads in Dronfield are in state of poor repair. Added traffic will only exasperate this problem. In addition, extending the Industrial Estate on Callywhite lane will also increase the number of HGVs. These large vehicles are not suited to the turning into Callywhite Lane and often cause traffic jams. Often, the congestion on the roads at peak times is a major problem and more cars and lorries will only make this worse. Crossing many of the roads at school drop-off and collection times is often dangerous and extra traffic is going to make this even more hazardous.

A further point of concern is that of the capacity of the local services. It often takes weeks to get a doctor's appointment and dental services are even more stretched. Car parking in the town is limited and at peak times it is hard to park at the Post Office, the Civic Centre and many of the supermarkets. Much of the proposed housing is far from the shops so this would add to the traffic and parking problems.

Also, most of the proposed housing is around a mile from the nearest Infant or Junior school so many people will choose to take their children by car. This causes more parking and traffic problems. Many of the schools are also already at capacity. This is especially the case for the Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School. This outstanding secondary school is on a very small site and it already has over 1770 pupils and 150 members of staff.

In summary, it seems irresponsible to build extra housing and industry on Dronfield's green belt. The roads, schools, local services and simply won't cope and the character of Dronfield will be lost as it merges ever more into Sheffield and Chesterfield.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4770

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Steve Hides

Representation:

Concern over the impacts the extension of Callywhite Lane industrial estate may have on roads in Dronfield.

Full text:

I write to voice my concerns regarding the proposed development of 860 new houses in and around Dronfield, the 15 acre extension of Callywhite Lane industrial estate and the removal of green belt land in our area.

First and foremost, I find the removal of green belt land to be shocking, especially when there are plenty of unused brown land sites that could be used instead of destroying areas of natural beauty, homes for wildlife and places for people to enjoy.

I feel the addition of hundreds of new houses will be detrimental to local services in the area such as schools, doctors surgeries (we already have to wait 4 weeks for an appointment now!) and the road network which will no doubt become jammed with traffic. Environment and health will suffer from increased traffic pollution especially if more industrial vehicles are tying up the streets.

Most roads in Dronfield are too narrow as it is and not designed for massive numbers of vehicles using them every day. Even the main roads through the centre struggle with a large flow of traffic, especially when HGV's are involved.

I know there is a large outcry at the announcement of these proposals and a justified feeling of opposition to them. I share that view.

I hope you take in to consideration the views of local people about this issue. This plan must be rethought before the local area is changed beyond recognition forever.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4776

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Lesley Jarvis

Representation:

Comment made that the extension of Callywhite Lane could negatively impact on existing roads in Dronfield.

Full text:

I wish to register that I strongly oppose the proposed additional 860 homes in Dronfield. The Council's own statement Consultation Draft (February 2017) defines the Green Belt issue,
"4.59 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence, providing long term protection and certainty from inappropriate development, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Green Belts can also assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land." This statement mirrors the view of Campaign to Protect Rural England, they state that the Development on Green Belt land is supposed to be tightly controlled so that it can fulfil its main purpose: to serve as a buffer between towns, and between town and countryside. This gives the incentive to regenerate damaged and derelict land within the urban areas surrounded by Green Belt. At the same time, Green Belts bring social, environmental and economic benefits, while giving people a chance to tap into natural capital on their doorsteps.

Green Belts prevent urban sprawl, keeping inappropriate development in check and helping to ensure that our towns and cities don't join up into one huge urban mass.

The proposal would only result in increased commuting traffic, congestion and pollution which would ultimately result in Dronfield losing its appeal of being the 9th most desirable post code. The infrastructure of Dronfield cannot sustain this type of development, the roads are narrow and not suitable for the amount of additional traffic, the schools cannot accommodate the additional influx of pupils and the doctors surgeries are already over capacity. Getting a same day appointment is already near on impossible.

The roads are already over populated; I was literally stuck in a traffic jam outside the Forge shopping centre at 4pm on a Friday afternoon! I also have firsthand experience of the traffic on Callywhite Lane and I can say that, particularly during the warmer weather, there is a real danger of accidents outside Cliffe Park, opposite Wm Lee Ltd. The parking area inside the park becomes full, which encourages people to park on the roads, not realising the danger from the amount and type of heavy traffic servicing the Companies that are situated on the industrial estate. Even if the far end of Callywhite Lane was opened up, heavy vehicles M1 north bound would take the exit adjacent to Green Lane and Chesterfield Road.

Recently, road works were carried out at the same period of time at the traffic lights at Wreakes Lane/Chesterfield Road, Green Lane and Sheffield Road Unstone. Congesting three of the main routes in and out of Dronfield and this was not only at peak traffic times, the roads were congested at 3pm in the afternoon. Additional road users would only compound the problem in this type of situation.

At a time when councils have to make further cuts and would look to other means of funding to balance their budget, "selling off the family silver" should not be the answer.

The only growth that would result in increasing the population of Dronfield would be the growth detrimental to the town and its infrastructure.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4801

Received: 16/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Haslam

Representation:

Dronfield does not need more factories. Concerns raised over potential impact on roads.

Full text:

Dronfield is bursting at its seams why build anymore houses we are already overcrowded

1. The doctors are absolutely full to capacity. We cannot get an appointment with the doctor we would like to see.

2. Where are you building extra schools, because these houses will all have children especially if they are immigrants.

3. Buses are a nightmare in Dronfield, we have to fight tooth and nail to keep the buses running in some areas. Remember Dronfield isn't flat and bus companies don't like hills. Where I live at Hallowes there are many elderly people buses are missing on a regular basis. We don't have a bus from Friday to Monday. None in the evening and at Christmas we are without for a whole week. Not all of us have cars. The last bus to Sheffield through the Civic Centre is 3:40pm from Hallowes.

4. The Civic Centre in Dronfield in my opinion is a disgrace it wants a good face lift and clean-up. Your building plans would be put to better use by upgrading the shopping area, it needs a central bank, post office and some decent shops which we can all get to by bus. Dronfield shops are far too scattered with no buses to get to them.

5. I don't think we need anymore factories in Dronfield we cannot get to the ones we have. The main road through Dronfield would be very busy it's busy now. These roads round here were only built for horse and carts.

Please leave our children some green fields. Bring back the farmers and grow our own wheat and vegetables etc. when I think of the lovely childhood I had and my friends and family I get very upset and frustrated to say the least. Leave us some countryside.

Keep us in Derbyshire and don't take any land out of green belt.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4825

Received: 17/03/2017

Respondent: Terry Pashley

Representation:

Concern over the impact the extension of Callywhite Lane might have on existing roads in Dronfield.

Full text:

I am writing to express my concern and objections to the proposed "Dronfield Local Plan".

Generally, I am outraged that areas of Green Belt can seemingly be earmarked for convenient development purposes. The whole point of Green Belt is to protect community boundaries. The current government has expressed its commitment to preserving the Green Belt, and that boundaries should only be amended in exceptional circumstances. Dronfield itself does not need 860 new homes - this proposal is to satisfy imposed external factors. If local housing is such an issue why wasn't the land now being developed for the Peak Resort used?

Dronfield is a town with it's own specific character, which is why people wish to live here. The proposals threaten to destroy major elements of this character, and turn it into another housing sprawl. Ironically I understand recent research has found that Dronfield is regarded as the 9th most desirable place to live in the country. I'm just concerned that it remains somewhere existing residents wish to continue to live.

The main proposed development is concentrated on the southern area, an area with an already fragile infrastructure - narrow and steep roads, with constant potholes, lack of facilities like shops, schools, doctors, lack of visible policing, an inadequate bus service, and problematic access for service vehicles due to parking issues and adverse winter conditions.
There is no reference as to what new facilities might be introduced, or where would they be sited? The idea that infrastructure can be designed and modified after housing plans are passed is a dubious concept at best. It would likely lead to more liberties being taken with the character of the area.

The Hallowes area in particular has a character heavily dependent on the existence of older properties, the golf course as is, and the immediate proximity of the Green Belt. The circular walk around the area provides a beautiful healthy facility for residents. Scant regard seems to have been given to the topography of the area and the visual impact any development would have on the the area - planting a housing estate on the golf course would completely destroy the character and experience of the area, and in no way be "sympathetic to the character and distinctiveness of Dronfield"!

The Hallowes area may not be a "designated wildlife site" (I presume unlike the "nature reserve" threatened by the Callywhite development), but still is an area of sensitivity for endangered species. It is the habitat for many rare species - gold crests, siskins, owls, various finches, hedgehogs, bats in the clubhouse, frogs and newts in the pond on the course, to name but a few I have personally seen at various times.

I am curious as to why the golf course is not designated the status of a recreation area when the football club near Stubley is?


The golf course obviously has it's own inherent problems as regards building suitability - such as subsidence and sink holes - from a history of mining so old it's unlikely appropriate mining records still exist. Drainage has always been an issue. Access to the area for heavy lorries would also be a threat to the existing road system and cause major disturbance to residents for an extended period.

I am also concerned about the proposal to expand the Callywhite industrial site because of existing noise and traffic pollution. Already the hum of the extractor fans at night can be very disturbing when we want windows open. I wonder if this is ever monitored? Official limits don't necessarily comply with the needs of residents. Existing problems caused by heavy goods vehicles manoeuvring at the bottom of Green Lane by Henry Fanshawe School would only get worse with expansion.

Henry Fanshawe is the only comprehensive school in the area, and already has nearly 2,000 students. Despite a good reputation, there has to be a viable limit to the size of any school.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4827

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Pat Basford

Representation:

Objection to Callywhite Lane extension.

Full text:

180 houses proposed on green belt land at Eckington Road as part of a wider plan for 860 houses on Dronfield's green belt and 15 acre extension of Callywhite Industrial Estate and fracking also in the area of Marsh Lane - is there anything else likely to hit this area over the next 15 years as part of the labour District Council's draft Local Plan?

With no consideration being given to how our infrastructure will cope with what has been proposed - unbelievable.

Below are listed the negatives as I see them - can someone from the Labour District Council fill in the positives.

Negatives
Extra lorries with the 14.83 acre extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial estate - air pollution - noise - congestion.

Housing will inevitably bring with it adults and children and cars -

Larger (extra)? schools -

Medical matters = more doctors more surgeries -
All the above means that Dronfield - already very busy on the roads which are narrow and are totally unsuitable for more lorries/cars/buses - will have chaos.

Finally who is going to pay for all this infrastructure?

Please list the positives below:

Callywhite Lane

Housing - On Green Belt

Larger and/ or new schools

Doctors' Surgeries

Traffic/ Pollution

Funding from all of the above from?

With the threat of fracking in nearby Marsh Lane, we are being sent back 200 years to the Dronfield of old with mining.

When someone has given me the positives to all this upheaval can you also give me the present pollution readings in this area - they are very likely to rocket - surely one final nail in this 'plan'.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4845

Received: 17/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Concern over impact on roads from Callywhite lane extension.

Full text:

I am making additional comments about Dronfield.
According to the proposals in the Local Plan, Dronfield is facing major housing development which increases its housing stock and its population by 10% . Your plan states that "it is essential that new development is supported by the necessary infrastructure" and yet it seems that we must wait for the site specific details until you have produced your detailed Infrastructure Study and Delivery Plan. Surely this is what's known as 'putting the cart before the horse' and it will achieve just the opposite of your desired outcomes meaning it will place massive strain on the existing infrastructure, services and facilities.
"New development will put pressure on existing highway and public transport networks, services and facilities" Once more we have to wait for modelling and Transports Assessments. They should have been done first so that housing quotas are based on how the local infrastructure will be affected. NE Derbyshire is simply passing responsibility to others.

If an additional 80 dwellings are likely to generate 'significant additional journeys' how many journeys are 860 dwellings likely to generate? We are talking thousands of extra journeys. If as has been suggested it is likely that Sheffield will provide employment for Dronfield's new dwellers, I would suggest the houses should be built on Dronfield's northern fringe. Build houses in the south and you will drive up commuting through Dronfield Bottom. The locations chosen being just too far from the railway station for walking to be an option, with bus services one an hour which don't actually coincide with train times. How likely is it that the word 'sustainable' could be applied? Of course if the plan is suggesting that the 6 hectares of land at Callywhite Lane will provide all the jobs for all the new dwellers to the south of Dronfield, then it might be sustainable.

I can't believe that you are suggesting providing showers in new office developments to encourage cycling. Is this a plan for London, Manchester or Birmingham? There are few office blocks near Dronfield. Sheffield is a hike up hill of more than 6 miles on roads crammed with traffic along the main artery through Woodseats and Heeley. Buses don't connect with trains. There are no buses circling Dronfield to deliver passengers from outlying parts of Dronfield's sprawl to the railway station. There is one bus an hour from Coal Aston or Hill Top. Dronfield's infrastructure is broken. Not enough car parking at the railway station. That encourages on-street parking and further clogs the side streets. There is the likelihood that parking charges will be made in future to park at Dronfield Station which will also drive up commuting by car and increase on street parking. It all begins to be too costly and too much effort to use the train.

As Dronfield's urban sprawl continues with the proposed housing allocations outside the settlement development limits, it drives up the short journeys by car that you are aiming to reduce to the town centre or to the nearest supermarket. You don't tend to walk or cycle when you go to a supermarket for a weekly or bi-weekly shop. As the sprawl continues into the Green Belt which is currently farmland so the short car journeys increase, meaning more air pollution which is significantly worse as a result of short car journeys.

"The availability of car parking has a major influence on the choice of means of transport". "The consequences of limiting parking supply on residential estates however were often parking in non-designated areas such as verges and gardens, leading to visual clutter and localised traffic management problems." This is Dronfield's problem precisely. Dronfield has a railway station which offers a sustainable means of travel to Sheffield at a price not dissimilar to buses but with a much shorter travel time. However it is not used by those who could use it because invariably there is not enough parking at the railway station. Buses don't connect with train times to get commuters to the station. People either take their cars and commute to Sheffield or Chesterfield by car or they park on nearby streets. These vehicles cause congestion on narrow back streets and compromise pedestrian safety. So yes there is a need for more parking at Dronfield railway station and an improvement of bus connectivity but will that be delivered? Unlikely because there is no release of the old Goods Yard for car parking and there is no other land available to put anything like a big enough car park on and the council know this. So do people really have a choice? No they don't. You can't risk the train because you might miss it while you try and find a car parking space and then you are late for work. Better to take the car, risk the commute down through Woodseats and Heeley and hope you can park somewhere in Sheffield or at Meadowhall where it is free anyway. Not enough parking at the railway station increases greenhouse gas emissions and causes congestion. Now it is likely that there will be car parking charges made at the station and a reduced number of spaces because parking down the middle of the car park will not be allowed as it is now. All these issues tip the balance in favour of using your car for daily commuting. The issues are so inter-linked that you can't look at one or change another without everything being affected. So an additional charge of say £3-£5 to park for the day on top of the train fare means you take the car and pay to park near your place of work in Sheffield. This plan encourages commuting by car.

'The safe efficient and free flowing movement of people and vehicles across the highway network' is so far off the sustainability scale it is a joke. Written by an idealist, a theorist but not someone who lives in Dronfield and works in Sheffield or Leeds.

Identify priority projects, addressing current capacity issues, unlocking development, working with, production of a strategy, support growth, work in partnership are all phrases that mean actually NE Derbyshire is going to do nothing at all. Paying lip service, window dressing and passing the proverbial buck. Nothing is even vaguely mentioned about the proposals to deal with a 10% increase in Dronfield's households, meaning 1760 more cars which need to pass through it, or round it or park upon its streets. This is a massively weak chapter in this plan. It should not be Chapter 9 but chapter 1 or 2. 860 houses in Dronfield. Where is the clear directive on infrastructure?

Here you state that no account is taken in the modelling of proposed housing development in the school's catchment area. Why not? When you can estimate the number of houses needed why can you not then estimate how many school places are likely to be needed? Isn't it a policy that if you build 1000 houses you have to build a new primary school? In taking 4 parcels of land out of the Green Belt for houses you are making existing local schools cope with intakes of around 38 extra pupils per year group. Presumably you expect those pupils to go to one or other of Dronfield's ten primary schools. Evenly spread, probably no problem but what if they all choose to go to Dronfield Infant and Junior Schools which because they are 'good' or better schools will no doubt attract the 38 pupils per year group. Surely there has to be a plan for this. In building 860 houses you will be below the threshold for a new primary and secondary school. In other words existing schools will have to somehow accommodate these extra pupils in already crowded classrooms.


It will be no good developers simply putting in new infrastructure where the proposed developments will be. What about how the rest of Dronfield will cope with all these extra people, their children and their cars? Roads like Lea Road, Church Street and High Street just can't take any more traffic.

In order to utilise Callywhite Lane as employment land, this plan sets out a requirement for the building of a link road to join it with Chesterfield Road. The distance is minimal but the topography is challenging passing over Lee's tip and the main railway line near Midland House. This road is an essential prerequisite to bring this employment land in the council's portfolio at the end of Callywhite Lane on stream. Is the council saying that they will not allow housing to be built in the area below Shakespeare Crescent until this road is in place?
This plan makes rather too much about Dronfield having a train station. The advantages of train travel soon slip away because there is not enough parking at the railway station, buses don't co-ordinate with train times, parking charges are likely to be enforced and parking spaces reduced. What is the use of having this facility unless other factors are addressed?

Why make large settlements even larger? What is driving this unmet housing need if population increase is 1.4%? Once again we don't have current data. This seems to suggest that housing need could be even greater, so how many more parcels of land will have to be taken from the Green Belt?

The town centre ie the Civic in Dronfield currently has two empty units left by the bank. There are three charity shops and because the hairdresser has moved to High St, that is an empty unit and you say the town centre remains relatively buoyant. Relative to what? I disagree. I think the town centre badly lets the town down while the High Street has never looked so good.
The Regeneration Framework quoted in point 7.9 was based on the views of 110 respondents. I would like the Council to explain how they will achieve point e) i in SP1and point f) i and iii if there is no identified monitoring and no target.

I believe that keeping the designation of employment land for the old Padley and Venables site is contrary to the NPPF. There has been no reasonable prospect of this as an employment site. This is a site that could be used for housing rather than taking Green Belt land. How can Callywhite Lane be a primary employment site when its classification for storage and distribution is a sector employing few? Callywhite Lane cannot be regarded as providing a supply of employment land. It is not attractive to businesses so there are empty units and derelict sites, a legacy from heavy industry which are not going to attract professional sector businesses.
This is what the plan says about Callywhite Lane - a long-standing allocation from the 2005 Adopted Plan - so it is 12 years on. Despite lack of progress on this site etc How can it be a valuable extension? "Issues over access in particular need to be resolved but there is a likelihood that with the anticipated electrification and in the longer term HS2 such issues will be resolved." I absolutely challenge the council's whole plan when they make statements like this. It is beyond belief. Just no credibility at all on this point. Explain how?

Callywhite Lane is neither attractive nor in a sustainable location. Vacant sites, empty units, derelict land, fly-tipping, issues with litter. The way to change it is to begin developing it for housing through innovative landscaping and planting schemes. If as you claim, people are so desperate for affordable homes, then Callywhite Lane may well be more attractive to them than to businesses. Immediate access to Frith Wood and joining the many well-used footpaths and bridleways as well as the Dronfield Round Walk.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4885

Received: 20/03/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Wilson

Representation:

The plan also includes a 15acre extension to the Callywhite industrial estate which will means more industrial and HGV traffic, more pollution and deterioration of air quality.

Full text:

I am writing to express my concern regarding the recently publicised plan to take land out of the Green Belt in Dronfield to build 850 houses.
The purpose of a Green Belt is self explanatory and by definition it means that building should not take place on it.
No consideration appears to have been given to how the infrastructure will cope.This surely should be done in tandem with any such plans and not as an afterthought.
A development on this scale will seriously affect our traffic, school places, doctors surgeries and parking, all of which are already under pressure.
If this goes ahead the building will merge the town with surrounding settlements changing the nature of our town as we know it.
The proportion of social housing seems to be high at 40% in relation to the present housing stock.
There are surely brown field sites which can be considered for building before any encroachment on green belt.
The plan also includes a 15acre extension to the Callywhite industrial estate which will means more industrial and HGV traffic, more pollution and deterioration of air quality.
I hope that that permission will not be granted for a plan that will spoil the quality of of one of the countries most pleasant areas to live.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4888

Received: 20/03/2017

Respondent: Linda and Trevor Dawes

Representation:

Increasing the capacity of land for industrial use at Callywhite Lane seems likely to increase the traffic problems and particularly so close to a school.

Full text:

As longstanding residents of Dronfield, having moved here in 1972, brought up two children, schooled locally, members of guide an scout group again locally and users of local sports facilities, medical facilities and local business up to the present day, we are totally mystified at the proposals to build 860 houses on green belt land. Which would totally change the dynamics of a pleasant town albeit with already over subscribed facilities.
As far as I can see one of the reasons the green belt was set up was to prevent urban sprawl and to protect settlements between large conurbations such as Sheffield and Chesterfield. These current plans will have exactly the opposite effect. Additionally as Unstone the next settlement to Dronfield is currently starting to be developed the chance of becoming one long conurbation is increasingly likely unless we take steps to stop in now.
Another reason the green belt was set up was for recreational purposes. The Green Belt around Dronfield is a well used and loved asset to the area. Witness to this is the number of walkers, organised walking groups, horse riders, cyclists and people using the golf club. Which by the way was established in 1892 and the part of the course which is now up for potential development is the original land used for the first 9 hole golf course.
The building of 860 houses, which could generate at least a thousand cars and over 3000 people will put an untenable strain on the existing schools, medical facilities, transport infrastructure etc. Not to mention the already ridiculous problem of off street parking.
It has been suggested that a new school would be provided by the developers but I understand that there is no guarantee of this if the number of houses built is less than 1000.
The developers would not be responsible for providing new medical facilities!
Another point we wish to make is that increasing the capacity of land for industrial use at Callywhite Lane seems again likely to increase the traffic problems and particularly so close to a school.
I understand that this is an existing brown field site that a developer has already shown interest in developing with private housing, I believe over 200 houses! But has repeatedly been refuse permission.
The NEDCC Strategic Green Belt Functionality Study-Draft Report November 2017, indicates on page 20, paragraph 2.17 that in relation to affordable housing, needs would in most cases be expected to be of a proportionate size to the existing housing.( The definition of affordable housing from the government website is as follows:-In the United Kingdom affordable housing includes "social rented and intermediate housing, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.")
I would be very interested to know just what proportion of the 860 houses are going to be social housing and just where these properties are to be situated.
These plans have the making of a complete change of environment and the dynamics for the residents of Dronfield who have made this town, up to now a lovely place to live and bring up a family.
We wish to reiterate our objections to any encroachments onto the green belt around Dronfield and suggest that the Council look again at existing if smaller parcels of brown field sites the development of which would actually enhance the surrounding areas. I am thinking in particular of the land at the Unstone boatyard and old unused garden centre.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4897

Received: 20/03/2017

Respondent: Mr David Murray

Representation:

The proposal to increase the size of the industrial site at Callywhite lane must surely be dependent on being able to build a new access road. The existing access at Dronfield bottom is already inadequate and could not cope with any increase in HGV's accessing the site.

Full text:

Re; New Local Plan Dronfield (Consultation February 2017)
I write in response to the draft Local Plan for Dronfield and would draw your attention to the following.

Loss of Green belt land. I am concerned at the amount of green belt land that will be lost to housing. Whilst I appreciate the need for more housing the current plan is for too much housing especially in areas g, h and l. This will result in the loss of most of the green belt land on the left as you approach Dronfield from the Unstone direction. Could the plan in these areas be scaled back to create less impact.

Infrastructure. The proposal to increase the size of the industrial site at Callywhite lane must surely be dependent on being able to build a new access road. The existing access at Dronfield bottom is already inadequate and could not cope with any increase in HGV's accessing the site.

In conclusion I wish to register my objections to the proposed plan based on the above.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4899

Received: 20/03/2017

Respondent: June and Trevor Reed

Representation:

Comment made that Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate is proposed to extend onto Dronfield's Nature Park.

Full text:

Green Belt/ Local Plan
We live at the above address in Hallowes. As one of the green belt areas threatened, we are strongly opposed to any development that will take away our green belt land and country walks.

You haven't given any consideration as too how our infrastructure will cope, doctor and dentist appts school places for countless more children etc. Traffic will be horrendous putting heavy construction vehicles on our already busy narrow roads e.g. Highgate Drive, Hallowes Rise and Lane. My peaceful existence will be turned into a nightmare of traffic noise.

Dronfield is a town of heritage value and should remain a single entity and not be forced to merge with neighbouring settlements. This plan for social/ new housing means inflicting hundreds more people on Dronfield town. In my experience, social housing attracts the wrong kind of person and all Dronfield's present residents will suffer.

To top it all you also plan to extend Callywhite Industrial Est. on Dronfield Nature Park.

No building on green belt land.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4925

Received: 22/03/2017

Respondent: Margaret Harrison

Representation:

The 15 acre proposed plan to extend Callywhite Lane is also a major issue. This is an industrial estate which has factories, warehouses, buildings, engineering etc. which all add to the pollution of our town. Do we need any more industries in our residential areas. This would be better housed away from houses.

Full text:

I am writing to oppose the proposal to build 860 houses in total on our precious green belt land surrounding Dronfield. This amount of housing in our small town will have a huge effect on our services, schools, doctors, roads and complete infrastructure of the town. Whilst there are plenty of primary schools within the area there is only one secondary school. The amount of people living in these proposed houses would no doubt have children of differing ages and would need to be schooled. The primary schools are full to capacity as it is and there is no plan to build more, and more to the point where would you put them. The secondary school is a top school, it has great Ofsted reviews and takes mainly children from Dronfield. If we were to increase the amount of housing then this would put a huge strain on the resources of the school. There is no room for expansion and people moving into the area would end up getting their children into the school over our long standing residents who many of them have lived here all their lives. The boundaries of green belt are there to keep our town a nice independent place to live. If these areas were to go and be built on then we would all merge into one area with our immediate neighbours being Jordanthorpe or Lowedges. We are a historic town with lots of history dating back to 1086 when it was first mentioned in the Doomsday Book. It would be so sad to leave a legacy for our children that loses all sense of history and meaning. The surrounding areas of houses, i.e. Lowedges/Batemoor would be able to go to our primary/secondary school as the boundaries would change meaning that they would be in the catchment area. This would mean half of Dronfield people that have lived in the area from being children themselves would find their children not getting a place. The amount of traffic that this amount of housing would create, not only in the building stages but afterwards as most houses now have 2 or 3 cars each, this would mean our roads would become very overcrowded and our local high street etc. would struggle to cope with the demand of the traffic. The roads would ultimately suffer in potholes, subsidence, general wear and tear on our roads.
The green belt land should be left alone or Dronfield will lose its identity. We have to wait 2 weeks before a general appointment with or doctors at the present time, if you bring 860 houses into the area, each with average of 4 people living in them, that is 3440 extra people ringing for a doctor's appointment, 1720 more school places to be found, possible 1800 more cars on our roads, with the pollution levels rising too. The 15 acre proposed plan to extend Callywhite Lane is also a major issue. This is an industrial estate which has factories, warehouses, buildings, engineering etc. which all add to the pollution of our town. Do we need any more industries in our residential areas. This would be better housed away from houses. I agree it will bring in more jobs to the area but it's too close to its residents. This would be better applied for at Sheepbridge where there are no residential houses around the area.
The amount of social housing planned will also bring in a certain clientele from poorer areas and it is a well known fact that when a few poorer people get together on a "housing estate" it brings the tone of the whole area down. Therefore there would be knock-on effect with burglaries, trouble with gangs, police presence would have to be stepped up and we know this is not going to happen so it will be a case of existing residents finding themselves living in a "rough" area. House prices will suffer on the whole but the main reason is Dronfield has been voted the 9th most desirable place to live in the UK, this will not remain so if this building goes ahead.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4935

Received: 22/03/2017

Respondent: George Lee

Representation:

Support given to development of industrial site at Callywhite lane.

Full text:

I would like to register my objections to the proposal to build 860 houses on green belt in Dronfield.
This number is far to high and will destroy the Village Community of the Town , there is not sufficient infra structure ,road access , parking at civic amenities, schools ,doctors etc. This development coupled with the Holiday Village at Unstone would put extreme pressure on the infrastructure of the area even to breaking point .

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4942

Received: 23/03/2017

Respondent: Mr Roger Howe

Representation:

Concern over extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate which could cause even more problems with the increased amount of heavy traffic coming

Full text:

I wish to strongly object to NEDDC plans to change areas of Green Field sites in the Dronfield area to Brown Field sites.
My main concerns are that the infrastructure in Dronfield is not up to coping with so many new houses. Also the extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate would cause even more problems with the increased amount of heavy traffic coming through the town.
The roads are already under pressure from current traffic, the schools and Doctors surgeries are full to capacity.
The Green Belt sites are there to keep the identities of the Town and surrounding villages separate and not to allow one large Urban sprawl.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4944

Received: 23/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Susan Howe

Representation:

Concern over how the extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate could cause even more problems with the increased amount of heavy traffic coming through the town.

Full text:

I wish to strongly object to NEDDC plans to change areas of Green Field sites in the Dronfield area to Brown Field sites.
My main concerns are that the infrastructure in Dronfield is not up to coping with so many new houses. Also the extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate would cause even more problems with the increased amount of heavy traffic coming through the town.
The roads are already under pressure from current traffic, the schools and Doctors surgeries are full to capacity.
The Green Belt sites are there to keep the identities of the Town and surrounding villages separate and not to allow one large Urban sprawl.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4949

Received: 23/03/2017

Respondent: North East Derbyshire Liberal Democrats

Representation:

Concern raised over potential impact on traffic from proposed extension of Callywhite Lane. Suggestion made that a link road should be instead made from the site to Chesterfield Road.

Full text:

I am writing to make representations about the Consultation Draft for the Local Plan. I am concerned about the proposals to remove land from the Green Belt and allocate it for housing, and particularly about the proposal for land between Shakespeare Crescent and Chesterfield Road in Dronfield.
I was one of the people who opposed a similar proposal at the Public Enquiry about the earlier Local Plan, at which the Inspector supported our objections. It seems to me that the circumstances now are very similar to those which obtained at the time of the last Public Enquiry.
The five purposes of the Green Belt set out in Government guidance all apply in this particular area, and I have been unable to find any statement to the contrary in the Council's proposals. This leads me to believe that the land in question should remain in the Green Belt.
Other factors which apply to all the proposed development of the Green Belt in Dronfield are those of infrastructure in the town. Traffic is already heavy and the addition of the vehicles from an extra 850 houses will make matters infinitely worse. Schools would be overcrowded - indeed the Chair of Governors at Dronfield Junior School has stated that the school is already full. Doctors' surgeries, where it is already difficult to get an appointment, would be similarly overwhelmed. The proposed developments are all on the periphery of the town and this would not be sustainable development. An additional consideration is that Dronfield is woefully shorty of car parking facilities and this existing problem can only be exacerbated by hundreds of additional cars seeking to park in the town.
Again on the subject of sustainable development, I believe that unless substantial new employment opportunities become available in Dronfield the occupants of the proposed new houses will add to the existing large numbers of residents who commute to work in Sheffield, Chesterfield and elsewhere. This would add to the traffic-generated pollution which already exists. The experience of recent decades suggests that there will be no such substantial employment opportunities.
My final point on housing is that, according to the Council, the population of Dronfield has fallen in recent years. It has been claimed that this fall is due to the comparatively high house prices making it an area which is unaffordable to many younger people. It could equally be due to the absence of local employment opportunities driving people out of the area. In either case, a falling population does not suggest a need for new housing on anything like the scale proposed in the consultation papers.
On the subject of the proposed allocation of further land at Callywhite Lane for employment purposes, this appears to be a repeat of a proposal put forward a few years ago. If new industrial use on this area arises there will be an increase in traffic and possibly many HGVs at the congested junction between Green Lane, Callywhite Lane and Chesterfield Road/Sheffield Road. The solution would appear to be to provide another road at the opposite end, linking to Chesterfield Road, but it must be doubtful that the County Council would agree such a road because of the need to build bridges to cross the river and the railway line.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4954

Received: 23/03/2017

Respondent: Kyle Hammond

Representation:

Concern over the Callywhite Lane extensions impact on roads.

Full text:

I wish to object the NE Derbyshire local plan to remove sections from the Dronfield greenbelt for housing and industrial use.


If these sections of greenbelt land are given up for houses, it could set a precedent for more greenbelt to be taken in future, merging Dronfield with Sheffield and / or Chesterfield.


The character of Dronfield will change from a rural town, surrounded by quality green space that is used by many, to an over-congested, urban sprawl.


The district council plan states that "Dronfield is significantly lacking in green space." The greenbelt land they wish to build on around the town presently helps to make up for this. Walkers, runners, horse-riders, golfers, outdoors and wildlife lovers all use it. It is nature's great playground for our children.


Studies show that green spaces are very important for our mental health. With mental health problems on the rise, especially in children, the new housing our country needs should not be built on quality greenbelt!


Several roads next to these quality greenbelt spaces are presently safe enough for children to walk and ride bicycles on, and to reach the recreation space our greenbelt provides; these are under threat.


Pollution levels will rise; this is a particular worry for children and those with asthma (myself included), breathing difficulties and heart disease. Removal of green space, especially trees, also increases flooding risks.


860 new houses will mean many more cars in Dronfield (at least 1000+) and extension to the industrial estate will mean more HGVs and commercial traffic. Traffic congestion and road safety throughout the town will worsen. Parking is already a struggle, especially around schools and for the train station.


Schools in Dronfield have little or no room to expand and some have very big class sizes already. In particular, the primary school buildings that serve south Dronfield (where 655 extra houses are proposed), stand on a very small plot with no room for extension and very limited outdoor play-space already.


GP services are already overstretched and recruiting GPs is very difficult these days. Getting a GP appointment could become even more difficult.


It is not clear yet if, or how, extra GP services and school places would be provided in Dronfield. A new primary school cannot be guaranteedas 1000+ houses is the usual threshold for a new school. Many residents are worried how new services would be funded and don't think there's enough space.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4956

Received: 24/03/2017

Respondent: Laura Hammond

Representation:

Concern over the Callywhite Lane extensions impact on roads.

Full text:

I wish to object the NE Derbyshire local plan to remove sections from the Dronfield greenbelt for housing and industrial use.


If these sections of greenbelt land are given up for houses, it could set a precedent for more greenbelt to be taken in future, merging Dronfield with Sheffield and / or Chesterfield.


The character of Dronfield will change from a rural town, surrounded by quality green space that is used by many, to an over-congested, urban sprawl.


The district council plan states that "Dronfield is significantly lacking in green space." The greenbelt land they wish to build on around the town presently helps to make up for this. Walkers, runners, horse-riders, golfers, outdoors and wildlife lovers all use it. It is nature's great playground for our children.


Studies show that green spaces are very important for our mental health. With mental health problems on the rise, especially in children, the new housing our country needs should not be built on quality greenbelt!


Several roads next to these quality greenbelt spaces are presently safe enough for children to walk and ride bicycles on, and to reach the recreation space our greenbelt provides; these are under threat.


Pollution levels will rise; this is a particular worry for children and those with asthma (myself included), breathing difficulties and heart disease. Removal of green space, especially trees, also increases flooding risks.


860 new houses will mean many more cars in Dronfield (at least 1000+) and extension to the industrial estate will mean more HGVs and commercial traffic. Traffic congestion and road safety throughout the town will worsen. Parking is already a struggle, especially around schools and for the train station.


Schools in Dronfield have little or no room to expand and some have very big class sizes already. In particular, the primary school buildings that serve south Dronfield (where 655 extra houses are proposed), stand on a very small plot with no room for extension and very limited outdoor play-space already.


GP services are already overstretched and recruiting GPs is very difficult these days. Getting a GP appointment could become even more difficult.


It is not clear yet if, or how, extra GP services and school places would be provided in Dronfield. A new primary school cannot be guaranteedas 1000+ houses is the usual threshold for a new school. Many residents are worried how new services would be funded and don't think there's enough space.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4978

Received: 26/03/2017

Respondent: MR JOHN NAYLOR

Representation:

Concern over impact on roads from Callywhite Lane extension.

Full text:

I wish to lodge an objection to the proposals to destroy part of the greenbelt land around Dronfield for the 5 proposed housing sites. If these sections of greenbelt land are given up for houses, it could set a precedent for more greenbelt land to be taken in future, merging Dronfield with Sheffield and / or Chesterfield, thereby losing its unique character as a rural town. The greenbelt strip in Coal Aston in particular, is already very narrow and removing this to build houses will increase both the likelihood of further development and the risk of merging with Sheffield and becoming part of this sprawling city. Similarly, destroying the greenbelt land to the south will reduce the gap between Unstone, which has virtually become part of Chesterfield, and thereby join Dronfield to that town. Again, this will destroy the feel in Dronfield as a historical, rural town surrounded by quality green space.
The green belt is our most successful planning innovation, preventing development that consumes countryside needed for recreation, food production and forestry. The green belt around Dronfield has enabled the preservation and enhancement of the unique local character of both town and country. The greenbelt has been described as 'sacrosanct' and I find it unbelievable that these proposals seek to diminish the land around Dronfield for housing. It is clear that removal of greenbelt land should only take place under "exceptional circumstances"; alleged 'housing demand' does not qualify as exceptional, particularly when there are brownfield sites and derelict houses in the district that can be developed. Why would anyone think it a good idea to develop housing on land (I,J and K) in high risk areas containing potential hazards arising from former mining activity, as identified by the Coal Authority?
Greenbelt is also successful in limiting greenhouse gases, locating homes close to where people work, shop, use services, go to school, and engage in sport and community events. Such proximity encourages the establishment of businesses that meet local needs. The removal of Dronfield's green belt would lead to extended suburbs reliant on car journeys. The Green Belt has considerable environmental value, not least the proposed site to the north of Coal Aston which borders a SSSI. Development here will destroy wildlife habitats and wildlife corridors around this important site. In the face of climate change, the greenbelt has an increasingly important role in storing carbon and preventing flooding and is a vital economic resource for food security and soil protection.
As the country experiences increasing health problems linked to inactivity, air pollution and mental health problems, especially in young people it seems to make no sense at all to destroy areas of greenbelt land around Dronfield, which "is significantly lacking in green space". The land around Dronfield is important for recreation, relaxation and well-being.
By proposing an increase in housing on this scale there will inevitably be an increase in vehicles and the associated pollution levels, congestion will worsen and road safety will be an increasing concern. There is already limited parking available in the town. The rise in traffic pollution will lead to increased incidence of asthma and breathing difficulties, exacerbated by the increase in commercial traffic and lorries, if the proposed extension of Callywhite Lane goes ahead.
The impact on services and amenities in the town cannot be underestimated. Schools are already oversubscribed and are full. There are extensive waiting lists at local nurseries for parents with children already living in Dronfield and the schools have little or no room to expand. Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School cannot possibly take any more students as it does not have sufficient outdoor space as it is, with students having to undertake some PE lessons in Cliffe Park! The plan does not make clear how services will be improved, if they will at all, if the proposals go ahead. The GP surgeries are already overstretched and struggling to meet the demands from the current population in the town. I have recently tried to get an appointment to see a doctor and was offered one in 2 months' time. TWO MONTHS! The site at Coal Aston would also lead to the destruction of the bowling green, having a negative impact on the activity and health of its 150 members, in addition to this the football fields which are extensively used will be lost. This can only have a deleterious effect on the health and well-being of the people who use the amenities at a time when we should be encouraging individuals to undertake more exercise.
I believe that these proposals are ill conceived and I find it incredible that a council that proports to have amongst its vision 'supporting our communities to be healthier, safer, cleaner and greener' considers the local plan around Dronfield to be acceptable. I urge the plan to be rethought to utilise the extensive brownfield sites available within the area for housing. Do not destroy the precious greenbelt land which is this country's heritage and once removed, will be gone forever.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5028

Received: 28/03/2017

Respondent: Unstone Parish Council

Representation:

The proposed extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate and the new link road onto Chesterfield Road will result in a significant increase in HGV traffic travelling through Unstone Village, which will have a potential detrimental effect on air quality and noise levels, for local people living along the route.

Full text:

At the Unstone Parish Council meeting on Thursday 16th March, the proposals contained within the Local Plan were discussed. The Council voted unanimously to object to the proposals, for the following reasons:

* The proposals constitute an unacceptable loss of green belt land around the neighbouring town of Dronfield.

* In bringing the Dronfield settlement limit closer to Unstone village, the proposals are contrary to national planning policy on the green belt, which clearly states such land is to be protected in order to prevent the coalescence of neighbouring communities.
The planned development would in fact create an unbroken conurbation between Dronfield and Unstone, with no discernible greenbelt between the two distinct areas.

* The plan makes no provisions for how our local infrastructure (schools, health facilities, roads etc.) will cope with the scale of development put forward. Many local schools are currently oversubscribed and clearly do not have the capacity to deal with additional demand.

* The proposed developments seem to be based on unrealistic and overinflated housing targets, which are significantly higher than the rate of housing completions in recent years.

* The proposed extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate and the new link road onto Chesterfield Road will result in a significant increase in HGV traffic travelling through Unstone Village, which will have a potential detrimental effect on air quality and noise levels, for local people living along the route.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5094

Received: 30/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helena Gayle Boulton

Representation:

There are many unoccupied sites on Callywhite Lane - it is not attractive due to its access limitations for HGVs. Recognising that this area is in decline for large industry would be sensible and looking at developing this into a mixed use space would be of interest - affordable housing and apartments in easy reach of the station and centre. There is already a thriving park. This type of area could then attract digital industries and other types of commerce - providing the types of jobs that the people of Dronfield would benefit from.

Full text:

There are many unoccupied sites on Callywhite Lane - it is not attractive due to its access limitations for HGVs. Recognising that this area is in decline for large industry would be sensible and looking at developing this into a mixed use space would be of interest - affordable housing and apartments in easy reach of the station and centre. There is already a thriving park. This type of area could then attract digital industries and other types of commerce - providing the types of jobs that the people of Dronfield would benefit from.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5197

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Alan Tomlinson

Representation:

Industrial Development
o Dronfield does not have an access road from any point on the compass which is suitable for HGV's e.g. Dyche lane, Green lane, Chesterfield road from the rail under pass to Snape hill lane.
o The current junction of Callywhite lane with green lane and Chesterfield road is a disaster in waiting.
o Part of the area outlined for industrial development was developed by the council as a nature park less than 5 years ago. How can the council now declare this as prime industrial development land?

Full text:

I would like to register my objection to the proposed N.E.D.D.C. housing and industrial developments on greenbelt land around Dronfield . My objection is based on the following points
* The development of this land would increase urban sprawl eventually leading to one large conurbation with Dronfield being joined to Sheffield in the north and Unstone / Chesterfield in the south. The greenbelt was set up to prevent such developments.
* The effect of 890 new properties with residents and vehicles would have critical detrimental effects on Dronfields already overloaded infrastructure.
o The roads are already dangerous and unsafe particularly at peak periods due to the volume and speed of traffic.
o Congestion would be increased at existing bottlenecks and schools thus increasing pollution.
o Parking, already a major problem on Chesterfield road and critical at the railway station would be impossible.
o Medical cover in the area cannot cope with the existing population with waiting times up to four weeks for non- urgent doctor's appointments. Ambulance call outs? Who knows
o Schools already oversubscribed or bursting at the seams with the only option to expand is by taking up playing field space ( Dronfield School already using the public park for some sports activities ) What happened to fighting child obesity?
o Police. The Dronfield Police Station Is virtually closed now. How will they cover the problems associated with 870 new houses. They cannot deal with the traffic problems at current levels and response times to other incidents are excessive.
o Fire Services. Can they cover this proposed development ?
* Global environment
o Whilst the government is committed to building new houses the government has also committed to reduce the countries carbon footprint to combat climate change. There are virtually no employment opportunities in Dronfield hence any new residents will be commuting to work travelling 20 miles per day minimum on average. Assuming a low estimate of 1200 vehicles this would be 24000 miles per day. Effect on climate change? But definitely not beneficial. Why not build where there is work?
* Industrial Development
o Dronfield does not have an access road from any point on the compass which is suitable for HGV's e.g. Dyche lane, Green lane, Chesterfield road from the rail under pass to Snape hill lane.
o The current junction of Callywhite lane with green lane and Chesterfield road is a disaster in waiting.
o Part of the area outlined for industrial development was developed by the council as a nature park less than 5 years ago. How can the council now declare this as prime industrial development land?
* Coal Aston, site specific. In addition to the above, further factors should also be considered.
o The land in the past has been subjected to considerable bell pit coal mining with no details as to precise locations, subsidence is a major problem especially to the north of Eckington road.
o Conservation. This area is covered by conservation orders covering both flora and fauna being the home to several endangered bird species such as tawny owls, little owls, grey partridge house sparrows with occasional barn owls and lesser spotted woodpeckers. There are also brown hares and badgers on the site along with abundant other wildlife. There are numerous very large old oak and sycamore trees covered by tree preservation orders along with several protected hedgerows.
o This land is also crossed by high voltage electricity supply cables
o Within the last 7 months a planning application for the erection of a telephone mast was rejected as being inappropriate for the area. How can the same council planning team now bring forward a plan for building 180 houses on the same site?
o The plan proposes to remove an area of sporting amenities from the green belt. Why?
I would also suggest there are areas of brown field / undeveloped green spaces both in Dronfield and NE Derbyshire which are more suitable for development.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5199

Received: 01/04/2017

Respondent: Mrs Christine Tomlinson

Representation:

Industrial Development
o Dronfield does not have an access road from any point on the compass which is suitable for HGV's e.g. Dyche lane, Green lane, Chesterfield road from the rail under pass to Snape hill lane.
o The current junction of Callywhite lane with green lane and Chesterfield road is a disaster in waiting.
o Part of the area outlined for industrial development was developed by the council as a nature park less than 5 years ago. How can the council now declare this as prime industrial development land?

Full text:

I would like to register my objection to the proposed N.E.D.D.C. housing and industrial developments on greenbelt land around Dronfield . My objection is based on the following points
* The development of this land would increase urban sprawl eventually leading to one large conurbation with Dronfield being joined to Sheffield in the north and Unstone / Chesterfield in the south. The greenbelt was set up to prevent such developments.
* The effect of 890 new properties with residents and vehicles would have critical detrimental effects on Dronfields already overloaded infrastructure.
o The roads are already dangerous and unsafe particularly at peak periods due to the volume and speed of traffic.
o Congestion would be increased at existing bottlenecks and schools thus increasing pollution.
o Parking, already a major problem on Chesterfield road and critical at the railway station would be impossible.
o Medical cover in the area cannot cope with the existing population with waiting times up to four weeks for non- urgent doctor's appointments. Ambulance call outs? Who knows
o Schools already oversubscribed or bursting at the seams with the only option to expand is by taking up playing field space ( Dronfield School already using the public park for some sports activities ) What happened to fighting child obesity?
o Police. The Dronfield Police Station Is virtually closed now. How will they cover the problems associated with 870 new houses. They cannot deal with the traffic problems at current levels and response times to other incidents are excessive.
o Fire Services. Can they cover this proposed development ?
* Global environment
o Whilst the government is committed to building new houses the government has also committed to reduce the countries carbon footprint to combat climate change. There are virtually no employment opportunities in Dronfield hence any new residents will be commuting to work travelling 20 miles per day minimum on average. Assuming a low estimate of 1200 vehicles this would be 24000 miles per day. Effect on climate change? But definitely not beneficial. Why not build where there is work?
* Industrial Development
o Dronfield does not have an access road from any point on the compass which is suitable for HGV's e.g. Dyche lane, Green lane, Chesterfield road from the rail under pass to Snape hill lane.
o The current junction of Callywhite lane with green lane and Chesterfield road is a disaster in waiting.
o Part of the area outlined for industrial development was developed by the council as a nature park less than 5 years ago. How can the council now declare this as prime industrial development land?
* Coal Aston, site specific. In addition to the above, further factors should also be considered.
o The land in the past has been subjected to considerable bell pit coal mining with no details as to precise locations, subsidence is a major problem especially to the north of Eckington road.
o Conservation. This area is covered by conservation orders covering both flora and fauna being the home to several endangered bird species such as tawny owls, little owls, grey partridge house sparrows with occasional barn owls and lesser spotted woodpeckers. There are also brown hares and badgers on the site along with abundant other wildlife. There are numerous very large old oak and sycamore trees covered by tree preservation orders along with several protected hedgerows.
o This land is also crossed by high voltage electricity supply cables
o Within the last 7 months a planning application for the erection of a telephone mast was rejected as being inappropriate for the area. How can the same council planning team now bring forward a plan for building 180 houses on the same site?
o The plan proposes to remove an area of sporting amenities from the green belt. Why?
I would also suggest there are areas of brown field / undeveloped green spaces both in Dronfield and NE Derbyshire which are more suitable for development.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5275

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Dee and John Smillie

Representation:

Concern over: access, impact on roads, lack of quality jobs.

Full text:

We are responding as concerned residents of Dronfield who believe that the Green Belt is sacrosanct in our district and should be protected from development.
The aim of the Plan is to improve the quality of life for people living, working and visiting the District. Therein lies the conflict in Dronfield.
The prospect of 860 homes in the north of the district on Green Belt land will not improve the quality of life for all residents in Dronfield as they experience more congestion on the inadequate road system with more exhaust and noise pollution.
It is likely that developers will determine the types of properties, sizes and tenure to be built. Properties built on farm land to the north of Eckington Road will increase traffic congestion in that area, remove recreational land and have a significant and deleterious impact on the Moss Valley Conservation Area.
The use of land on the Hallowes Golf course for housing removes more recreational land and would exacerbate the existing problems for pedestrians and motorists on Hallowes Lane.
Building dwellings on land off Shakespeare Crescent and Sheffield Road would remove an existing valuable green, open space between the town of Dronfield and the village of Unstone.
Roads in the vicinity of Stubley Hollow are already congested with HGVs making their way to the Gunstones and Wreakes Lane sites. It is recognised that highway access is an issue here.
It is obvious to people living in Dronfield that the infrastructure is inadequate to accommodate the impact of a further 860 houses. Many roads are already in a poor state of repair and extra vehicular traffic will exacerbate the situation.
There should be a greater investigation of the available brown field sites which, if developed, could ease the need for housing in a more sustainable way.
Public services in Dronfield are stretched at present. The new homes are likely to be properties for families and this will add pressure to all our public services namely school places, public transport, doctors and dentists.
In all the areas where housing is proposed there will be a massive visual impact.
The expansion of Calleywhite Lane to accommodate more businesses in warehousing and distribution will produce low skilled, low paid jobs. The access roads are inadequate for the types of heavy vehicles which already service the site. The junction with Green Lane next to a secondary school is dangerous at peak times. It is not easy to see how HS2 and the electrification of the main railway line will ease this situation. A sustainable community needs high quality jobs as demonstrated in the success of the Advanced Manufacturing Park near Rotherham.
Calleywhite Lane is badly maintained and does not give a good impression of the District for those working and visiting there. Dronfield residents generally commute to jobs further afield.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5283

Received: 01/04/2017

Respondent: Heather Brown

Representation:

Objection to extension of Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate. Concern over: traffic, impact on existing roads, road safety.

Full text:

DRONFIELD'S GREEN BELT

Your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt are not in tandem with central government's approach. Housing Minister Gavin Barwell stated in February 2017 that the government intended to focus, as a government, on developing brownfield land, specifically in those parts of the country where additional homes are required. He talked about new measures to help councils identify locations for development, and in all but exceptional circumstances, that will exclude the Green Belt.

Your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt do not adhere to the guidelines issued from the Department of Communities & Local Government, which state that "... local councils should be looking to brownfield first and foremost, and be in line with government policy of protecting Green Belt."

Your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt are contrary to Point 89 of The National Planning Policy Framework, which states "A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt."

Your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt fail to take account of the wishes of the majority of residents. Policy S S9: North East Derbyshire Green Belt in The Plan states that "...the majority of local residents want to maintain the Green Belt boundary ..."

Your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt, build 860 houses on Green Belt land, and the adverse consequences of this, is in conflict with your Vision, which reflects your responsibility as a local authority to act in a way which enhances the quality of life and well-being of your residents: "By 2033 everyone in North East Derbyshire will enjoy a high quality of life, with residents, businesses and visitors all benefiting from what the district has to offer." The loss of Green Belt, and the resulting loss of recreation opportunities, coupled with the shift in character of the nature of the town from rural to urban, will reduce the quality of life for residents (especially when the recent studies on the benefits of nature to mental well-being are taken into consideration), particularly for those whose homes border the proposed sites.

Your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt will reduce even further those areas of recreation presently available to residents (we don't just look out onto our Green Belt - we actively use it!). You recognise in 7.6 Sustainable Places that Dronfield already is "significantly lacking in green space, outdoor sports and children's play space".

The effects of your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt around Dronfield will be disproportionate in relation to similar measures around other settlements. The Strategic Green Belt Functionality Study shows that that all proposed Dronfield development areas are in the top 50% of Green Belt sections that would suffer most when measured against Green Belt objectives; yet this is where you propose to build a large number of houses.

Your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt do not take into account the 731 properties which you have recorded as being Empty Homes across the whole of the NEDDC area, including 133 in Dronfield, Dronfield Woodhouse and Coal Aston, figures which I obtained from you as a result of a Freedom of Information request. Your response states that for the years of 2015 and 2016, you have assisted no owners in recycling those properties back into use as homes, the result being where those homes are now in full use; nor are you currently assisting owners to do same; nor have you taken formal enforcement measures against owners to bring about same. Your document, "Growth Strategy - Unlocking our Growth Potential" states, "if [empty homes were] brought back into use would contribute towards meeting housing needs and improve neighbourhoods".

I am unsure how your proposals to redesignate areas of Green Belt qualify as "limited infilling" and therefore "exceptional circumstances"; the proposed number of houses is significant in each location, each location is considerable in size, and in no way can be regarded as limited. The sheer size of each development would result in a huge impact on Dronfield, surrounding farmland, and the remaining Green Belt, and alter the character of the town and the area in which it sits, completely.

Therefore, I believe that you have not made the case for "exceptional circumstances" as a reason for your proposals to build on Dronfield's Green Belt. Unmet housing need is not "exceptional circumstances" for the redesignation of Green Belt. Nor do I believe that you have taken sufficient steps to consider alternatives to the redesignation of Green Belt; namely, bringing brownfield land back into use, consideration of other brownfield sites across the district as a whole and in neighbouring council areas, and the recycling of Empty Homes across the district. Redesignation of Green Belt should be the last resort, to be undertaken only when ALL other options have been fully exhausted.

Questions:
1. What pro-active initiatives have you undertaken to identify brownfield sites?
2. Where is your evidence that you have considered all brownfield sites, including those which would support fewer than ten dwellings?
3. In the event that you have considered brownfield sites, but taken
the decision not to situate any of the proposed 860
houses thereon, where is the analysis of each site?
4. What are the issues around the viability of delivering large numbers of sites in a relatively small area in the south, which you refer
to in your leaflet, "Frequently Asked Questions for Dronfield"? What
are the reasons that you do not consider these sites for development?
5. What incentives have you offered to property development
companies to develop brownfield sites?
6. What incentives have you offered to businesses currently occupying brownfield sites in residential areas for those businesses to relocate to nearby business parks and industrial estates, which may prove more suitable for their needs and thus render the vacated brownfield sites available for house-building?
7. What pro-active initiatives have you undertaken to identify employment land which has been vacant or unviable for several years?
8. To what extent has the fact that Dronfield is an affluent area played a part in the decision to redesignate parts of its surrounding Green Belt land (is it due to pressure from property development companies? Their profit margins will be higher for providing the types of houses which predominate in Dronfield)?
9. How do you seek to adopt the new measures referred to by Housing Minister Gavin Barwell to help councils identify locations for development,
in all but exceptional circumstances excluding the Green Belt?
10. Why the emphasis on redesignating Green Belt in the north, when
there may be sufficient brownfield sites in the south?
11. What action do you propose to take in order to bring the 733 long-term empty properties across the district back into full-time use as homes?


THE FORMER PADLEY AND VENABLES SITE, CALLYWHITE LANE

I note that you refused an application in 2013 for the erection of 51 new residential dwellings on the former Padley and Venables Site, Callywhite Lane, and that refusal was stated (a) on the basis that the proposed development would result in a change of use of land protected for employment; (b) the proposed residential development land is adjacent to industrial units, and that this would introduce potential conflict for residents and businesses; (c) the application was considered unacceptable as it would lead to additional traffic movements from the proposed housing along Frithwood Drive, Shireoaks Road and Stonelow Road (d)
a coal mining risk assessment and contaminated land assessment had not been submitted and there was insufficient evidence that the application site was safe, stable and suitable to accommodate the proposed development.

Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate has been poorly-maintained for a long time, and is unattractive to prospective businesses. Empty units are evidence of this. Unless the area is redeveloped, the situation is unlikely to change.
Taking into account the high level of interest and objection that Dronfield residents have in The Plan, demonstrated in the very active "Dronfield Greenbelt" campaign, it is likely that future objections to applications for planning permission to build houses on the five sites will far surpass in number those received in 2013 regarding the Padley and Venables site.
I note that you have not carried out a coal-mining risk assessment for the three sites which are considered high risk development areas by the Coal Authority - sites H, I, and J. Yet you propose to build houses at these locations, and you refused permission for the 2013 application from Bloor Homes on the basis
that a coal-mining risk assessment had not been carried out.

Questions:
1. Given the fact that the majority of Dronfield residents do not find their work in the town but commute to Chesterfield/Sheffield, and given the scarcity of suitable land for homes, is it now time to reconsider the use of this land and release it for the building of homes?
2. Close proximity to industrial units does not adversely affect the popularity of Cliffe Park, nor affect its visitors. Given the scarcity of suitable land for homes, and mindful of government policy regarding the building of homes on Green Belt, should the thinking change regarding this site, in order to redesignate it as building land, accompanied by appropriate landscaping to provide demarcation between residential and industrial areas?
3. Why is it that you required a coal-mining assessment for the Padley and Venables site, yet have not carried out these assessments on sites H, I and J BEFORE considering them for housing?


INFRASTRUCTURE

The Plan does not follow government policy, which states that "The Local Plan should make clear, for at least the first five years, what infrastructure is required, who is going to fund and provide it, and how it relates to the anticipated rate and phasing of development." This information is not contained within The Plan. In failing to follow policy, you do not comply with the spirit of the principles supporting Local Plans, which are to provide a clear, coherent, long-term plan to avoid a piecemeal approach.

I wish to raise the following concerns regarding infrastructure and potential consequences of the redesignation of the Green Belt:

1.

You state in 9.12 Greenways & Multi-User Routes that public rights of way provide considerable opportunities for people to enjoy the countryside, and that it is important to ensure that development does not have an adverse impact upon the integrity of these routes. In 9.13, you state that you will support the use of all public rights of way ... and safeguard them against development likely to prejudice their integrity.
The proposals to build housing at H and I do not support this. Nor do they support your statement in D11 Natural Assets, where you seek to "recognise the value of natural assets by protecting, enhancing and expanding North East Derbyshire's network of green and blue infrastructure including its distinctive landscape character, open spaces and nature conservation sites in part by supporting opportunities to improve countryside access."
Area H is bordered by a public bridleway which bisects Hallowes Golf Course, and by Hill Top Road which, at this point, has the appearance of a single-carriageway tarmacked farm track with no pavement. Both connect with footpaths, which lead to open countryside. The public bridleway and the whole of Hill Top Road act as links from one part of the popular Dronfield Round Walk to another, and also to the Chesterfield Round Walk. Their key appeal is the quick and easy access they provide to the countryside. Development at H will compromise the integrity of this public bridleway, as the bridleway would border a housing development; its character will change entirely. Development at I, which would increase vehicular traffic from this site onto Hill Top Road (via which route? - the Plan fails to include details of proposed access to this site), will compromise the integrity of the Dronfield Round Walk and the Chesterfield Round Walk.

You state in this section that residents identified tranquility, landscape quality and access to the countryside as key assets of living in the District. The setting of the bridlepaths, and the setting and nature of the whole of Hill Top Road, contributes significantly to this; residents feel connected with the landscape around them. Thus, the proposals fail to take into account the wishes of residents.

2.
You state in Policy ID3: Open Space, Sports and Recreation Facilities that the Council will seek to protect and enhance existing open spaces, sports and recreation facilities. You state in Sustainable Places Para 7.6 that Dronfield is "significantly lacking in green space, outdoor sports and children's play space." Your overall Vision in The Plan talks about "protecting and creating open spaces to provide accessible green infrastructure and biodiversity networks which promote healthy lifestyles..."
Your proposals for the green belt land at H and J do not support Policy ID3: H is made up of part of Hallowes Golf Course, and J, sports facilities and the Moss Valley Conservation area. Your proposals for J do not support your policy at D11 Natural Assets owing to the presence of the Moss Valley Conservation Area. Nor do your proposals for H, I and J support your overall Vision.
Your proposals for the land at G, H and I contradict your statement in Sustainable Places Para 7.6, and also your overall Vision. Houses in the quantity you are proposing will change the nature of Hill Top Road and Salisbury Road from quiet safe roads where children play football and ride their bikes. In the event that access to G is created via Burns Drive (you do not give details of access to site G in your Plan), this would drastically change the nature of Burns Drive from a cul-de-sac with a small grassed area, thus highly attractive to local children, to that of a thoroughfare, removing this location as a pleasant play area.
Additionally, your proposals fail to support central government's policy on reducing obesity. Department of Health Guidelines, "An Update on the Government's Approach to Tackling Obesity", state that "Local authorities will be instrumental in implementing plans that encourage people to do more exercise." NEDDC does this well when promoting its sports and leisure centres, which people have to pay to access. Use of the bridle paths around the land at H and Hill Top Road is free, thereby providing inclusive exercise opportunities for people at all income levels.
The benefits of close proximity to nature have been upheld in the Institute for European Environmental Policy's March 2017 study, the most wide-ranging probe yet into the dynamics of health, nature and wellbeing.

3.
Car Parking
Your justification of the presence of the railway station in Dronfield to build 860 houses in Dronfield is flawed.
The station is served by one car park which is insufficient for passengers' needs. There is no possibility of additional parking: the lease of the car park is to revert to the rail operator, which may consider introducing parking charges and may reduce the number of spaces. The majority of car park users are people undertaking short journeys; any disproportionate charge for parking could discourage them from using the train (source: Friends of Dronfield Station). Network Rail will not release the yard at the rear of the car park for additional parking. The development at Manor Farm will mean the loss of around 25 car parking spaces.
For electrification of the East Midland line to occur, the station may need to be moved out of the town - the two listed bridges at Dronfield prevent electrification.
It is a two-mile round trip from four out of the five proposed housing sites to the railway station. There is a steep incline on the return journey for sites at H, I and J. All proposed sites are on the rural fringe of Dronfield and as far from the railway station as it is possible to get. Therefore, is possible that rail passengers living on the new estates may not wish to make this journey on foot, and may use less-sustainable means of travel, compounding the existing parking and congestion problems.

4.
Road Congestion
Your proposals to build 860 homes at sites G, H, I, J and K is contrary to Policy ID6: Sustainable Travel - "The Council will seek to maximise walking, cycling, and the use of public transport through the location and design of new development, with the aim of reducing congestion, and improving air quality and health."
There is insufficient car parking at Dronfield Railway Station for additional rail users. When the car park is full, rail passengers tend to park their vehicles on neighbouring roads. This results in severe congestion, particularly on School Lane and Lea Road. Congestion is aggravated by cars picking up/dropping off pupils at Dronfield Infant School and Dronfield Junior School on School Lane. There are approx. 600 pupils at these schools.
Dronfield is served by shopping areas at the Civic Centre, Pentland Road, and Greendale Shops. The Civic Centre area offers a health centre, pharmacy, sports centre, library, shops, meeting places, and places of worship; it is a real "hub" for the town.
Severe congestion and standing traffic occurs at the junction with Hallowes Lane/Chesterfield Road, and along Dronfield Bottom, including the entrance point to Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate, and on High Street. All are main routes from one part of Dronfield to another. Hallowes Lane is a main access route for residents living at Hallowes and Hill Top, where you propose to build 420 homes. Hallowes Lane is narrow to the point where it can be impossible for two vehicles to pass side-by-side.

5.
Air Pollution
The Plan is likely to reinforce a commuter community, and therefore contribute to air pollution. You acknowledge in The Plan that "most people commute to other areas for work (Chesterfield or Sheffield) and that most commute by road." It is likely that the many of the house purchasers at all sites will follow suit.
Should planning permission be granted to Ineos Upstream for exploratory drilling at Bramleymoor, the preferred route indicated by Ineos Upstream for vehicles to access the site is via Dyche Lane and Eckington Road. They have stated that there are likely to be 100 vehicles a day in the setting-up phase alone, and due to the nature of the operation, many of these vehicles will be heavy freight. In addition, Dyche Lane and Eckington Road are likely to be main access routes for visitors to St James Retail Park at Norton - a development that is likely to prove very attractive to Dronfield residents. Air pollution is likely to be compounded by the proposals for 180 houses at J, on the basis that individual households have at least one car.
The Environment Act 1995 requires all local authorities to review and assess air quality.
Question:
1. Given the increase in vehicular traffic which 860 new homes in Dronfield will bring, and the situation with the proposed plans for exploratory drilling at Bramleymoor, what steps does NEDDC intend to take to ensure that it complies with the Act?

6.
Co-operation with Neighbouring Planning Authorities
The population of Chesterfield Borough is due to rise by 9100 by 2031. Sites in the Borough have been made available for an additional 7600 homes by 2013. Using the average of 2.5 people per household (NEDDC planners' figures), there is spare capacity here.
Peak Resort is likely to provide employment for 1300 people. Given this fact, and the proximity of the resort to the areas of the disused Unstone Boat Yard, Lister's Car Sales, and the disused nursery, these sites are likely to prove attractive as a
place to live; they directly border the NEDDC council area.
Question:
1. What steps have you taken to cross-reference your proposals and co-operate with neighbouring authorities, such as Chesterfield Borough Council and the Sheffield City Region, to meet the need for unmet housing need across neighbouring council areas?

7.
Urban Sprawl
Your proposals to redesignate the Green Belt at G do not comply with government policy, which states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt is to keep land permanently open and prevent urban sprawl (NPFF, Section 9).
The Green Belt between Dronfield and Unstone is already very narrow. Land at G is actively farmed and provides access to the open countryside and the Dronfield Round Walk. Houses on this site will contribute to the urban sprawl of Dronfield, and this effect will be exacerbated by the new-build semi-detached homes on Chesterfield Road, and the proposed building of seven homes on the site of the Fleur de Lys public house. There will, therefore, be no discernable gap from Dronfield to Unstone.

8.
Employment
Your proposals to build 860 homes in Dronfield are contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, which aims to provide jobs where people live. The Plan fails to include a plan for employment provision in Dronfield for 860 new homes. You state in The Plan that there will be insufficient growth in local jobs to support 860 households.
You state in your leaflet, "Frequently Asked Questions for Dronfield" that you have "considered but dismissed [land at Callywhite Lane] due to their importance and suitability for employment and creating jobs." Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate contains long-standing empty units, vacant plots and derelict land. These have not attracted interest from businesses for some time and in their current state are unlikely to do so, particularly businesses which employ large numbers of people.
I note that Chesterfield Borough Council takes a different approach; their Local Plan identifies Ash Glen Nursery, and Lister's Car Sales as sites for residential development. The planning status of the latter two is "allocation employment".

Questions:
1. What steps have you taken to bring sites at Callywhite Lane into use as sites for some of the 860 proposed homes?
2. What options have you explored with Sheffield City Region regarding employment opportunities, given that many Dronfield residents work in Sheffield?
3. What steps have you taken to identify suitable sites to the north of Dronfield, which owing to proximity are likely to prove more suitable for those working in Sheffield, and provide benefits in terms of air pollution due to the shorter distance travelled to work?

9.
Access to Medical Services
There are four GPs surgeries in Dronfield; most, if not all, are already at capacity.
Question:
1. How do you intend to ensure that additional residents in Dronfield have access to a GP in the town?

10.
Distribution of proposed dwellings
In the Plan, you focus on Dronfield for such a substantial increase in homes because it is the largest settlement in the north of the District. It could also be said that, owing to its size, it has the least room for expansion.
You state in the leaflet, "Frequently Asked Questions for Dronfield" that detailed analysis found a high level of potential supply in the south of the District where there are issues around the viability of delivering large numbers of sites in a relatively small area. Whereas in the North and West of the District, areas with particularly high demand, there is significant undersupply of housing land ..."
You provide this as justification for the review of the Green Belt, yet unmet housing needs do not constitute exceptional circumstances for the redesignation of the Green Belt, as stated in the NPPF.
Information provided by the Coal Authority indicates that the sites at H, I and J are areas of high risk and contain potential hazards arising from former coal mining.

Question:
1. Why do you seek to make larger towns even larger without ensuring that those towns have the requisite infrastructure already in place?
2. Why have you not spread the extra housing required over more villages and towns?
3. Why did you not make provision for low-cost housing, suitable for older people, at Manor Farm? This central site, with excellent level access to shops, health centre, pharmacy, library, sports facilities and public transport, is being considered for family homes! I note the comment made by Cllr Baxter that the development is "To provide a significant financial surplus to support the Council and Rykneld's ongoing investment programme in new and refurbished publicly owned homes." This indicates that profit is the overall driver here, as opposed to a coherent approach to the provision of homes across the whole of the town.
4. Have you commissioned the carrying-out of a survey regarding the suitability of this land for house building? If not, then why have these areas been included within The Plan, given that their suitability has not yet been determined?

11.
Schooling Provision

Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School is the only secondary school in Dronfield and is over-subscribed. Space to extend the school on its Green Lane site is lacking. The majority of the primary schools in Dronfield are at capacity. Ironically, several schools in the district have closed and have been developed for housing (for example, Apperknowle Primary School). This suggests a piecemeal approach to school and housing provision.
The overwhelming majority of children of secondary-school age living in Dronfield attend Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School; it is popular, successful, and highly-regarded by residents. This contributes significantly towards the strong sense of community in the town; it helps to bring the town together. Were some secondary-school students living in Dronfield forced to attend secondary school provision elsewhere, this sense of "one-ness" that many feel, living in Dronfield, is likely to be eroded.
Question:
1. How do you intend to ensure that primary and secondary school provision is sufficient for Dronfield children, without resorting to new-school provision on Green Belt land?

12.
Roads and Road Safety
You have not demonstrated in The Plan that the highway network in Dronfield has sufficient capacity for this scale of development, nor that improvement works can be carried out.
Homes at H and I are likely to have adverse effects on Hallowes Lane and in the centre of Dronfield - areas which presently experience congestion and standing traffic. Homes at H and I are likely to significantly alter the character of Hill Top Road and Salisbury Road.

Hallowes Lane
Hallowes Lane, which is narrow, steep, and busy, is a main route for vehicles and pedestrians at Hallowes and Hill Top to access the rest of Dronfield and to leave the town in both a southerly and northerly direction. The road is reduced in part to one lane, owing to the presence of parked vehicles. The pavement is narrow - there is no pavement at all at the bottom of the road opposite The White Swan. Pedestrians walking on the pavement are in close proximity to moving vehicles; on bin collection day, pedestrians have no choice but to walk into the road in order to continue their journey, owing to wheelie bins blocking the pavement.
The vast majority of the pedestrians are students making their way to and from Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School, and parents with primary-school-aged children. Pedestrians are in large numbers at the beginning and end of the school day, a time when traffic is at its greatest because of commuters and school-run traffic. The junctions with Hollins Spring Avenue, Cemetery Road, Quoit Green and Chesterfield Road are busy. The junction with Lea Road is busy, has poor visibility, and there is no safe refuge for pedestrians.
Any proposed access to H via Highfields Road, bisecting Salisbury Road, is likely to exacerbate existing traffic problems on Hallowes Lane.

High Street
High Street is a main route through the town; the road is already narrow and busy. There is no crossing point enabling easy pedestrian access from one part of the town centre to another - it is a "life in your hands" situation when trying to cross from the Sainsbury's side to the library side. The car park at the Civic Centre is often full.

Entrance to Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate

The extension to Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate is likely to result in an increase in heavy traffic. The present entrance to the Estate is in close proximity to Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School, from which almost 1800 students emerge every weekday afternoon. It is situated at the junction of three main routes through Dronfield. The area is busy. The road layout is complicated and does not facilitate easy passage for vehicles. There is no crossing point on Callywhite Lane, nor neighbouring Mill Lane. Both are hazardous for pedestrians who have no safe route across.
Questions:
1. How do you intend to ensure that additional heavy traffic does not compound the existing traffic problems and the congestion at the present entrance to the Estate?
2. What steps do you intend to take to ensure that pedestrians, and students en route to/from Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School, are kept safe?
Hill Top Road

190 homes at I are likely to change the character of Hill Top Road from that of a very quiet, residential road and farm track, to that of a main access road to the new houses and possible through-route.

In the event that the access route to I is via a new road through the car park of the Hyde Park, this would contribute to on-street parking within close proximity to a junction, and may reduce the attractiveness of this pub to potential customers - the pub is the sole amenity in this area.
Hill Top Road is narrow. In part, it is a single-carriageway tarmacked farm track with no pavement. The parked vehicles of residents reduce part of the road to a single lane. The road is popular with joggers, children riding pedal cycles, and horse-riders - the road is a direct route to a farm. It is a link from one part of the Dronfield Round Walk to another, and also to the Chesterfield Round Walk. It provides direct access to footpaths through Monk Wood and towards Cowley Lane. Other than the Hyde Park public house, there are no amenities in this area of Dronfield.
There is no direct access to I. The site is hemmed in by houses, a pub, and a pub car park.

The Plan does not state how access will be gained to this site. In the event that access is via Hill Top Road and Long Acre Road, this would mean that vehicles for a total of 420 houses would be using the road; assuming that the majority of households now have two vehicles, this would mean an additional 840 vehicles using these roads.