Table 4.2: Housing Provision by Level 1 and Level 2 Settlement

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 4705

Received: 14/03/2017

Respondent: Dr Clare Freeman

Representation Summary:

The proposed housing provision for Dronfield is an additional 860 dwellings, roughly a 9% increase. There has been no assessment of the capacity of the existing infrastructure to absorb these levels of development, nor has there been any thought as to the social and environmental ability of the existing community to accommodate this number of new houses.

Full text:

The proposed housing provision for Dronfield is an additional 860 dwellings, roughly a 9% increase. There has been no assessment of the capacity of the existing infrastructure to absorb these levels of development, nor has there been any thought as to the social and environmental ability of the existing community to accommodate this number of new houses.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5073

Received: 30/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helena Gayle Boulton

Representation Summary:

Dronfield has already grown to its capacity. Any additional development should be in the spirit of regeneration and bring something new to the town. Callywhite lane is underused and not attractive to industry due to its access. The infrastructure and roads where these areas have been identified can not support this level of additional housing.

Full text:

Dronfield has already grown to its capacity. Any additional development should be in the spirit of regeneration and bring something new to the town. Callywhite lane is underused and not attractive to industry due to its access. The infrastructure and roads where these areas have been identified can not support this level of additional housing.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5075

Received: 30/03/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helena Gayle Boulton

Representation Summary:

The number for Dronfield appears to have been arrived at by looking at the space which landowners are keen to profit from but he removal of its green belt status and THEN working out how many houses they can fit on this land.

Full text:

The number for Dronfield appears to have been arrived at by looking at the space which landowners are keen to profit from but he removal of its green belt status and THEN working out how many houses they can fit on this land.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5404

Received: 05/04/2017

Respondent: Mrs Helen F Lawton

Representation Summary:

Objection to category allocated to Morton on grounds of oversubscribed school that cannot meet any increase in homes in the village and the lack of a bus service to the area where development is proposed.

Full text:

You have classed Morton as Level 2 settlement which is challenged on the grounds of lack of facilities. The village has very poor public bus service in that buses mainly pass through the bottom of the village and the proposed allocation site is at the top of the village. Additionally the school already takes more children than it was designed for and therefore would not be able to meet the increase arising from the proposed new development.
Education and the public bus service are significant factors that must be taken into account.
I would challenge the definition of Morton being a large village in view of these factors and the lack of a doctors surgery, and the fact that there is only 1 shop which is also the Post Office.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5412

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Planning & Design Practice Ltd.

Agent: Planning & Design Practice Ltd.

Representation Summary:

Object to the housing allocations through Green Belt release at Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh. More limited alloccations should be made which can be accommodated within existing urban areas or form part of proposals for redevelopment or intensification.

Full text:

Object to the housing allocations through Green Belt release at Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh. More limited alloccations should be made which can be accommodated within existing urban areas or form part of proposals for redevelopment or intensification.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5471

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Woodall Homes Ltd

Agent: Peacock and Smith Ltd

Representation Summary:

There is capacity to increase the overall housing provision in Level 1 and Level 2 Settlements through increased capacity on identified sites and identification of additional sites.

The amount of housing provision identified for each settlement is insufficient to provide for the full OAN for NEDDC for the plan period.

Please see attached statement for further details.

Please see attached statement

Full text:

6.016 It is considered that given the need for housing in the District over the plan period, particularly the significant amount of affordable housing, it is considered that the exceptional circumstances exist to make further green belt releases, where it has been demonstrated appropriate to do so, around settlements only partially constrained by the Green Belt such as Grassmoor.
6.017 Release of Green Belt land on sites that abut Level 1 and 2 settlements are considered to promote sustainable patterns of development and such settlements will be able to accommodate the housing needs of smaller less sustainable settlements in neighbouring areas.
6.018 Even if the Inspector is of the view that the housing requirement identified in Policy SS2 Scale of Development provides for the full OAN, a view not supported by Woodall Homes, the Council has failed to give any consideration to the longer term development needs of the District. Given the constrained supply of housing land in NEDDC, this is likely to result in the need for a further review of Green Belt boundaries at the end of the plan period, contrary to the policies in the Framework.

Further Table 4.2 that sets out the Housing Provision by Level 1 and Level 2 Settlements should be amended to include additional housing provision figures in Grassmoor and Tupton plus a 10% uplift overall.

Additional Comment:

The amount of housing provision identified for each settlement is insufficient to provide for the full OAN for NEDDC for the plan period.

Please see attached statement for further details.

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5554

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation Summary:

We support the 5,740 new homes identified within level 1 and 2 settlements, including 553 at Eckington and 860 at Dronfield. To some extent, delivery of new homes in these locations supports Sheffield's growth, as there is a relationship with Sheffield's urban area, as well as a strong commuting link.

Full text:

We support the 5,740 new homes identified within level 1 and 2 settlements, including 553 at Eckington and 860 at Dronfield. To some extent, delivery of new homes in these locations supports Sheffield's growth, as there is a relationship with Sheffield's urban area, as well as a strong commuting link.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5600

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Gleeson Regeneration Ltd

Agent: Peacock and Smith Ltd

Representation Summary:

Please see attached statement

Full text:

6.05 There are opportunities for some of the Level 2 Settlements to support higher levels of housing provision. For example an extension to LC1ao) Land to the rear of 10-52 Ashover Road, Old Tupton would provide a further 60 dwellings and would provide a sustainable form of development in this location. The Sustainability Appraisal scores Tupton as a sustainable settlement with good access to services, facilities and public transport, which supports its inclusion as a Level 2 Settlement.
6.06 The inclusion of the site at Tupton would increase the provision of housing over the plan period. It is considered that the Council are at risk of submitting a plan that will be found unsound, unless they can identify further sources of housing land and extend where appropriate identified housing allocations, such as LC1ao).

6.015 It is considered that given the need for housing in the District over the plan period, particularly the significant amount of affordable housing, it is considered that the exceptional circumstances exist to make further green belt releases, where it has been demonstrated appropriate to do so, around settlements only partially constrained by the Green Belt.
6.016 Release of Green Belt land on sites that abut Level 1 and 2 settlements are considered to promote sustainable patterns of development and such settlements will be able to accommodate the housing needs of smaller less sustainable settlements in neighbouring areas.
6.017 Even if the Inspector is of the view that the housing requirement identified in Policy SS2 Scale of Development provides for the full OAN, a view not supported by Gleeson Regeneration Ltd, the Council has failed to give any consideration to the longer term development needs of the District. Given the constrained supply of housing land in NEDDC, this is likely to result in the need for a further review of Green Belt boundaries at the end of the plan period, contrary to the policies in the Framework.

Additional comment from duplicated rep:

Further Table 4.2 that sets out the Housing Provision by Level 1 and Level 2 settlements should be amended to include additional housing provision in Tupton with an overall uplift of 10%

There is capacity to increase the overall housing provision in Level 1 and 2 Settlements through increased capacity on identified sites and the identification of additional sites.

Please see attached statement

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5636

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: W Redmile & Sons Ltd

Agent: DLP (Planning) Ltd - Sheffield office

Representation Summary:

To be amended in accordance with increased housing requirement.

Full text:

To be amended in accordance with increased housing requirement.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 5651

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr Robert Gilmore

Representation Summary:

The level of housing proposed in Dronfield is a concern due to the lack of evidence provided to support the Town's ability to accommodate this level of growth. These further assessments should relate to local highways, schools & medical/health facilities. In order for the Plan to be sustainable & be found sound by an Inspector, the Council should provide this level of detail upfront. At present, it is not available.

Full text:

The level of housing proposed in Dronfield is a concern due to the lack of evidence provided to support the Town's ability to accommodate this level of growth. These further assessments should relate to local highways, schools & medical/health facilities. In order for the Plan to be sustainable & be found sound by an Inspector, the Council should provide this level of detail upfront. At present, it is not available.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6556

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation Summary:

Harworth Estates comments that further concentration of housing growth in the more sustainable northern settlements can and should be targeted in the evolving document. If the Biwaters site would be included within Clay Cross then this settlement would accommodate a total of 1,037 dwellings over the plan period which is far beyond of Killamarsh's housing figure despite the fact that Killamarsh is comparable in size. The draft Local Plan would not reflect the northern settlements' innate qualities for accommodating growth which represents a thread to the document's soundness. The distribution of housing growth must therefore be further developed.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6561

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Plexus Consultants Ltd

Agent: Emery Planning

Representation Summary:

We consider that Grassmoor should accommodate a greater proportion of the proposed housing requirement. The settlement is a sustainable location for growth, offering good access to jobs, services and amenities. This is accepted through the identification of Grassmoor as a Level 2 Settlement (large village).

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6570

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Messrs FS, FJ & WV Rodgers

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation Summary:

Messrs Rodgers comment that further concentration of housing growth in the more sustainable northern sub-area can and should be targeted in the evolving document. If the Biwaters site would be included within Clay Cross then this settlement would accommodate a total of 1,037 dwellings over the plan period which is beyond of Dronfield's housing figure despite the fact that Dronfield is a more sustainable settlement than Clay Cross. Although there are constraints for the northern sub-area present the draft Local Plan would not reflect the northern sub-areas' innate qualities for accommodating growth which represents a thread to its soundness.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6610

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr J White

Agent: JVH Town Planning Consultants

Representation Summary:

We object to table 4.2 as the table fails to recognise that site r in Killamarsh should be extended and therefore the total dwellings allocated for Killamarsh should be increased by an addition 70 dwellings. The Plan is over reliant on strategic allocation sites, which are previously developed and which do not deliver homes speedily to the market.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6628

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Mr T Gaskill

Agent: JVH Town Planning Consultants

Representation Summary:

Calow is a Level 2 settlement which is a sustainable location for additional new development Table 4.2 should be amended to include for a modest increase in development to allow for the redevelopment of the Duckmanton Lodge site.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6641

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Wheeldon Brothers Ltd

Agent: Planning and Design Group

Representation Summary:

Wheeldon Brothers Ltd objects to the specific housing requirement being proposed for Level 2 Settlements and considers that in the context of housing growth needs these should be minimum figures reflecting the acknowledged sustainability of these locations. The settlement boundary around Shirland is already tight. The approach advocated by Policies LC1 and SS12 would allow only restricted development opportunities to be realised. Proposed revisions to settlement boundaries have not yet been published as part of the Local Plan preparation process.

Full text:

See attachments

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6662

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Planning and Design Group

Representation Summary:

Table 4.2 Housing Provision by Level 1 & 2 Settlement & para 4.38: object to
lack of specific housing requirements for Level 3 Settlements (and therefore lack
of proposed allocations)

Full text:

See Attached. Cover letter/Summary and Full reps.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6725

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Harron Homes Ltd.

Agent: ID Planning

Representation Summary:

Harron Homes objects to the housing provision set out in table 4.2, in particular to the level of distribution for Morton and North Wingfield which are at the lower end of scale compared to other Level 2 settlements. It is argued that the Council's evidence base would demonstrate that both settlements could support a higher level of growth. According to the Council's Settlement Hierarchy Study North Wingfield would achieve the highest score and Morton would achieve the same score than Shirland. Also, Harron Homes criticises the Council's approach for the proposed housing provision.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Representation ID: 6734

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Harron Homes Ltd.

Agent: ID Planning

Representation Summary:

Harron Homes also objects to the proposed housing provision for Renishaw because the Council would have to show that there are exceptional circumstances for release from the Green Belt but this was not provided. The Green Belt review would conclude that for Renishaw more houses are provided than the housing requirement identified in several growth scenarios. Also, the Schedule of Potential Housing Sites identified less homes. In short, the proposed housing provision for Renishaw would be too high and there would be alternative options with the non-Green Belt sites proposed by Harron Homes in North Wingfield and Morton.

Full text:

See attachment