Killamarsh Policies Map

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4903

Received: 21/03/2017

Respondent: Eric Stubbins

Representation:

Objection to proposed release of the green belt around Killamarsh. Concern over wildlife and the town's infrastructure, and the impact the proposed release of land for development could have. Suggestion to use empty homes instead.

Full text:

Having seen the proposed development of land taken out of green belt I would like to object because of the damaging effect on the local wildlife, there's enough empty houses around derbyshire to be redeveloped without ripping the guts out of a already overcrowded village the extra amount of houses plus people & vehicles is not sustainable here there isn't the infrastructure here.this is a village with not enough green space already, so to build on green belt is utterly irresponsible.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5033

Received: 29/03/2017

Respondent: mr david taylor

Representation:

It was noted that two of the recreation sites on your map were behind Killamarsh Junior School and St Giles Primary School, suggestion that they should be removed from the plan as it make it look as if Killamarsh has around a third more areas for recreation than is actually available to the public.

Full text:

I visited the exhibition on 20th March in Killamarsh and was advised to email my thoughts.

1. You referred to car parking and said it was something which needed consideration...at the moment there are, according to the Parish Council, 36 allocated parking spaces for residents in the centre of the village apart from the car park at Aldi. 36 spaces for a growing village which already has around 10,000 inhabitants is very insignificant and I believe, is driving people to take their business outside the village. There is a desperate need for greater parking facilities especially as the Methodist Church which, I am led to believe, was given a number of spaces prior to Aldi, and their premises are regularly in use throughout the week by the community. Also anyone wanting to use the Health Centre were allowed to park there and can find it difficult to get a space. People park in the 'Aldi' car park , shop at Aldi , climb into their cars and go home. We have lost the local Florist in the past month, due in the main to Aldi selling cheap flowers and taking away that business. The Bear Emporium, who also sell baby clothes, is due to close in the next few weeks for a similar reason, Aldi are selling similar products. What effect they are having on the local News Agents since they began selling News Papers and Magazines I do not know. There is no SIGNIFICANT SIGNAGE telling people that the village has other shops and small businesses will tell you that foot fall on Bridge Street has significantly reduced since Aldi arrived. It may seem that I am getting at Aldi but as someone who visits the local shops and speaks to the owners, it is how it is perceived.

2. Would it not be possible to make Bridge Street a one way street, if that happened people would have to go down the street to get out of/ into the village and they would see what is available to them. Many who live on the Walford Road / Rowan Tree Road estate, rarely go into the village shopping centre and when they do they have been surprised at some of the shops on Bridge Street.

3. Heavy goods vehicles are using the village as a through road the Motor Way from the Halfway Trading Estates and to the Trading Estates from the Motor Way. At times this is causing significant heavy traffic flow throughout Sheffield Road, Mansfield Road, Rotherham Road, High Street. There is a Bypass from Junction 31 of the M1, can the Lorries be made to use that route. I know this will add on time but it will help alleviate the traffic problems the village is experiencing which will only increase when the extra housing is built.

4. I noted that two of the recreation sites on your map were behind Killamarsh Junior School and St Giles Primary School, should these not be removed from the plan as it make it look as if we have around a third more areas for recreation than is actually available to the public.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5246

Received: 03/04/2017

Respondent: Andrew Fletcher

Agent: Mrs Linda Trollope

Representation:

I would like to support the removal of the sites to the east of Rotherham Road (shown as site r on the policies map) and to the east of Upperthorpe Villas (part of site q on the policies map)from the Green Belt and their allocation for residential development. These sites only partially meet the five purposes of the Green Belt. Their exclusion from the Green Belt would do little harm to the open character of the Green Belt and their development for residential purposes would provide a valuable contribution to housing need in the area.

Full text:

I would like to support the removal of the sites to the east of Rotherham Road (shown as site r on the policies map) and to the east of Upperthorpe Villas (part of site q on the policies map)from the Green Belt and their allocation for residential development. These sites only partially meet the five purposes of the Green Belt. Their exclusion from the Green Belt would do little harm to the open character of the Green Belt and their development for residential purposes would provide a valuable contribution to housing need in the area.