Introduction

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5036

Received: 29/03/2017

Respondent: Mr Paul Dethick

Representation:

In summary real investment is needed in local roads, in particular the A61 before any further construction should be allowed.

Full text:

As is typical of all development plans when it comes to infrastructure this is lacking in detail when it comes to road expansion. There is no talk of increasing capacity on the already heavily congested local routes. With Clay Cross' current population the A61 though the town already grinds to a halt during rush hour taking up to fifteen minutes to travel half a mile which is simply not tolerable.

If with the proposed development of over 3000 properties being added to the local area with an average number of cars per property of two this would mean 6000 additional cars using the existing road infrastructure at peak times which will simply not cope! Provision needs to be made for expanding roads, bringing in double lanes and possibly building a town centre bypass before the proposed development takes place.

Local Government seems to be under the illusion that given suitable public transport people will give up their vehicles and use this instead, which is simply not the case. People want to use their own vehicles, they are a sign of status and still one of the largest aspirations of youth which without provision for them will see people leaving the area.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5106

Received: 30/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helena Gayle Boulton

Representation:

without seeing the Council's infrastructure delivery plan it is not possible to know from these proposals how Dronfield can accommodate a further 860 homes. There is nothing to suggest at present that this will be possible with the current road layout, school or medical provision.

Full text:

without seeing the Council's infrastructure delivery plan it is not possible to know from these proposals how Dronfield can accommodate a further 860 homes. There is nothing to suggest at present that this will be possible with the current road layout, school or medical provision.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6081

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Chesterfield Borough Council

Representation:

We note that effective delivery of infrastructure may require cross boundary and multi LPA co-operation on specific schemes using mechanisms already in place through Derbyshire County Council (and the emerging Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan in particular) and the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw Local Plan Liaison Group.

Full text:

See attachment.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6083

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Chesterfield Borough Council

Representation:

Para 9.5
SUPPORT the general approach to infrastructure provision set out. We note that there are likely to be specific instances of infrastructure provision where the Duty to Co-operate may apply, particularly in respect of the Staveley Waste Water works and the Tin Mill Flood reservoir. We note that CBC has implemented CIL and there exists the potential that some of this expenditure could support projects within North East Derbyshire to the benefit of both LPAs.

Full text:

See attachment.