Sustainability Appraisal

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6953

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Para 1.35 and p119 of Sustainability Appraisal
As part of the consultation with Derbyshire County Council, in June 2017, the County Council had not undertaken a high level strategy to accommodate growth within NEDDC District.

The Draft Plan was proposing an OAN of 330 dpa without this in place with DCC. The representations made during the consultation last year highlighted a thorough lack of any Infrastructure Plan. Many described it as a 'cart before the horse Plan'. There is still no evidence about how supporting infrastructure will be funded and no commitment other than through S106 agreements for areas like Dronfield where housing allocations mean a 5% increase in the town's population.

Change suggested by respondent:

Apart from a document which identifies which schools are up to or over capacity and per pupil costs together with similar for medical practices, there is no commitment other than provision through S106 agreements which are likely to be simply
trade-offs with developers about how necessary Infrastructure will support the Plan.

How will the fact that Dronfield Sport's Centre which is currently operating at maximum levels be addressed for example?

Dronfield Cemetery will run out of capacity during the plan period. No land has been set aside for this. It is missing from Table 59 page 173 of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
This is not a Plan for the future. Unsound, not positively prepared with regard to Infrastructure Delivery.

Full text:

Para 1.35 and p 119 of Sustainability Appraisal
As part of the consultation with Derbyshire County Council, in June 2017, the County Council had not undertaken a high level strategy to accommodate growth within NEDDC District.

The Draft Plan was proposing an OAN of 330 dpa without this in place with DCC. The representations made during the consultation last year highlighted a thorough lack of any Infrastructure Plan. Many described it as a 'cart before the horse Plan'. There is still no evidence about how supporting infrastructure will be funded and no commitment other than through S106 agreements for areas like Dronfield where housing allocations mean a 5% increase in the town's population. 105 words

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7105

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Goodwin

Representation:

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (point 14) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
In my opinion, the North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19) does not comprehensively consider the above point. Specifically the Local Plan is omitting a sustainable approach at the Shakespeare site.

Change suggested by respondent:

Consider brownfield sites and a comprehensive sustainable approach.

Full text:

At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework (point 14) is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking.
In my opinion, the North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19) does not comprehensively consider the above point. Specifically the Local Plan is omitting a sustainable approach at the Shakespeare site.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7225

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: D Bullers

Representation:

This collection of documents is not very clear to members of the public as to how the various versions fit together when attempting to access them from the web site.

Assements subjective.

Change suggested by respondent:

Clarify and provide a plain English summary

Better labelling of files on website.

Break down into sections

Full text:

This collection of documents is not very clear to members of the public as to how the various versions fit together when attempting to access them from the web site.

Assements subjective.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7830

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Rippon Homes

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Representation:

Council Officer has amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

Representation refers to paragraph 1.35, 1.36, 4.36, 4.70, 5,5 of the Local Plan and the Sustainability Appraisal itself

RPS has considered the Sustainability Appraisal and how this has informed both the strategy in terms of distribution as well as site selection. There are a number of concerns:

Reasonable Alternatives: Site WW/1609 Land at Deerlands Road, Wingerworth is clearly within the geographical scope of the Local Plan and should have been considered as a reasonable alternative to other allocations and yet this has clearly not occurred.
Paper Chase: The Final SA Report does not make it clear why earlier options have been rejected in terms of why sites have been discounted.
Sustainability of Wingerworth: Wingerworth is a sustainable settlement where it is appropriate to make housing allocations.
Housing Site Assessment Critique of WW/1609: there are a number of criteria where RPS disagree with the Council's scoring

Change suggested by respondent:

Presently, the relationship of the SA, the Council's Housing LAA Appendix Site Assessment Report and the Local Plan is unsatisfactory. Whilst the Council has rejected the site at an earlier stage, they have failed to consider the more detailed analysis contained in the Officer's report relating to Planning Application NED/17/00268/OL, which directly contradicts the assessment in the Site Assessment Report and also in the SA / SEA.
The Housing Site Assessment Report and SA / SEA should be updated to reflect the Council's analysis as expressed in considering the planning application, and WW/1609 Land at Deerlands Road should therefore clearly be considered as a reasonable alternative.
The Council should therefore review their position on WW/1609 Land at Deerlands Road, and include this omission site within the plan as a way for the Council to meet the identified need for housing

Full text:

RPS has considered the Sustainability Appraisal and how this has informed both the strategy in terms of distribution as well as site selection. There are a number of concerns with the SA incorporating SEA process, which can be summarised as follows.
Reasonable Alternatives
Site WW/1609 Land at Deerlands Road, Wingerworth is clearly within the geographical scope of the Local Plan as required by Article 5(1) of the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Directive 2001/42/EC and should have been considered as a reasonable alternative to other allocations and yet this has clearly not occurred. The purpose of the SA incorporating SEA is to consider reasonable alternatives and articulate how and why these have either been discounted or included within the plan.
Paper Chase
The Final SA Report does not make it clear why earlier options have been rejected in terms of why sites have been discounted. Furthermore, the documents are not organised and presented in a way that avoids a paper chase being required. Therefore, it is considered that the SA process is not legally compliant as it does not follow the principles regarding Regulation 12. 5. In Calverton Parish Council v Nottingham City Council [2015] EWHC 1078 (Admin) at [67] Jay J. summarised the following principles regarding the application of Regulation 12 and the requirement to assess reasonable alternatives: "(1) It is necessary to consider reasonable alternatives, and to report on those alternatives and the reasons for their rejection; (2) While options may be rejected as the Plan moves through various stages, and do not necessarily fall to be examined at each stage, a description of what alternatives were examined and why has to be available for consideration in the environmental report; (3) It is permissible for the environmental report to refer back to earlier documents, so long as the reasons in the earlier documents remain sound; (4) The earlier documents must be organised and presented in such a way that it may readily be ascertained, without any paper chase being required, what options were considered and why they had been rejected; (5) The reasons for rejecting earlier options must be summarised in the final report to meet the requirements of the SEA Directive; (6) Alternatives must be subjected to the same level of analysis as the preferred option."
Sustainability of Wingerworth
Table 2.5 of the SA sets out the Council's preferred approach for settlement distribution of new homes, and this clearly includes Wingerworth (+ the Avenue Strategic Site), which is identified within the table as a 'Large (level 2) settlement to which a proposed total quantity of new housing is 370 and allocations of 449 (+716). Paragraph 2.74 of the SA makes it clear that the remaining housing (other than at the four towns) "will be focused on the District's other most sustainable settlements, defined as level 2 settlements in the settlement hierarchy". It is therefore clear that Wingerworth is a sustainable settlement where it is appropriate to make housing allocations.
Housing Site Assessment Critique
The Local Plan Evidence Base includes the Council's Housing LAA Appendix Site Assessment Report (February 2018). Site WW/1609 Land at Deerlands Road, Wingerworth has been assessed was included in this assessment. The Council's Individual Site Assessments are provided at Appendix C of the document, and follow a colour coded site assessment matrix of Green (G), Amber (A), or Red (R) for 26 criterion. RPS has reviewed the Council's assessment of WW/1609, and whilst the Site scores Green for the majority of the criterion, there are a number of criterion where RPS fundamentally disagree with the Council's scoring of Amber or Red and an inconsistent approach appears to have been taken. The table below therefore sets out the Council's assessment on the left, with RPS's assessment against the Council's own Site Assessment Matrix on the right and comments in red text:

See table in full rep attached and sustainability appraisal critique.

RPS has submitted a substantial evidence base with its current application, which demonstrated that:
- there are no major landscape constraints or negative impact on built form and character, as confirmed by the appeal decision and by the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment supporting the outline application and as recognised by Council Officers in their report of 12 December 2017.
 - any potential impact on the adjacent woodland can be mitigated through design;
 - there is are unlikely to be impacts on heritage assets that cannot be mitigated;
 - the site is located within a Development High Risk Area (Referral Area), but this does not preclude development.

The Local Plan fails to recognise these conclusions and specifically, the Plan's Sustainability Appraisal / SEA process has failed to consider the site as a reasonable alternative to accommodate its growth options. The original SA (as contained in the 2015 report) is considered to be flawed as is the Council's Housing LAA Appendix Site Assessment Report table, particularly when compared against the Officer's advice when considering planning application NED/17/00268/OL.
The Final SA report does not make any mention of WW/1609 Land at Deerlands Road and has not provided any reasons for not selecting it as the preferred approach to be clearly articulated within the final Environmental Statement / SA Report. The Final SA Report should have considered the information provided in the Officer's reports relating to the site and then correspondingly updated the SA / SEA.


RPS have provided a critique of the Housing Site Assessments, contained in the Council's Housing LAA, February 2018 in relation to Site WW/1609 Land at Deerlands Road, Wingerworth. See full representation attached.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7944

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; council officer has made an interpretation

The sustainability appraisal must consider all reasonable alternatives the same level of detail as the preferred option that is taken forward through the plan

Change suggested by respondent:

none suggested

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7951

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: DLP (Planning) Ltd - Sheffield office

Representation:

Representation not received on rep form. Council Officer has made interpretation. Full representation attached.

This representation objects to the Sustainability Appraisal which assessed a number of sites against the SA framework. The concern is that Green Belt release should be considered against its alternative of no Green Belt release. In this case the consideration of reasonable alternatives would be to consider the allocation of safeguarded sites rather than dismissing the concept of safeguarded sites on the ground that the level of need was uncertain. It would also be appropriate to consider a variety of sites that could be released to meet different levels of unmet need in Sheffield.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Sustainability Assessment should consider Green Belt and no Green Belt sites, in this case the consideration of reasonable alternatives would be to consider the allocation of safeguarded sites rather than dismissing the concept of safeguarded sites on the ground that the level of need was uncertain. It would also be appropriate to consider a variety of sites that could be released to meet
different levels of unmet need in Sheffield.

Full text:

This representation covers the following points:
a. The General Strategy and the duty to cooperate
b. Object to the Sustainability Assessment in the failure to properly assess
reasonable alternatives
c. Objects to Policy SS2 in relation to the level and distribution of Housing.
Alternate policy wording is provided;
d. Objects to Policy SS10 and promotes the identification of Safeguarded Land and
the identification of land South of Bochum Parkway to be removed from the
Green Belt and allocated as Safeguarded land;
e. Objects to the scoring of the two sites subject to this objection in the Green Belt
Review 2017;

Full representation attached.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7981

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation:

HLM object to the Sustainability Appraisal(SA)and state that the amendments to the SA have resulted in an unfair comparison for the sites chosen for allocation in Dronfield as an example. The three sites selected for allocation DR1 - Land off Shakespeare Crescent & Sheffield Rd, DR2 - Land north of Eckington Road and DR3 - Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow have each seen their scores for Transport increase from 'Minor Beneficial' to 'Major Beneficial. The reasoning behind this amended scoring is contained in the SA's Appendix A 'Site Assessments' but the justification for awarding Major Beneficial would appear to equally apply to our client's site at Land off Hill Top, Dronfield. However, because the reasonable alternatives have not been revisited from the 2017 SA, this position is not examined or acknowledged.

Please see accompanying Freeths LLP Representations Statement Section 3 - Sustainability Appraisal

Change suggested by respondent:

Please see accompanying Freeths LLP Representations Statement
Section 3 - Sustainability Appraisal

Full text:

Sustainability Appraisal
The Sustainability Appraisal ("SA") that accompanies the Plan has been updated with a February 2018 version. Appendix A of SA contains the site assessments and this is restricted to sites that are proposed for allocation. Paragraph 1.1.5 P3 of Appendix A explains that "Some site allocations have been assessed in previous iterations of the SA. The assessments and outcomes for each objective of each site allocation do not necessarily match the assessments and outcomes in previous iterations of the SA. This is because the latest assessments in this report take into account the latest data and evidence and the sites are assessed individually and in greater detail."
The NPPG (paragraph 001 Reference ID: 11-001-20140306) states "A sustainability
appraisal is a systematic process that must be carried out during the preparation of a Local Plan. Its role is to promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan, when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental, economic and social objectives." In this instance we have a situation whereby the 2018 SA contains the sites proposed for allocation and it advises the 'reasonable alternatives' were considered through the 2017 SA3.
It is explained in the 2018 SA that the assessments of the proposed allocations do not necessarily match the assessment in previous iterations of the SA. On closer inspection of the sites allocated in the four main towns (level 1 settlements), it is noted that the 2018 version contains a number of changes to the 2017 SA assessments. Across the four main towns and including the Former Biwater Strategic Site there are 17 proposed allocations and 16 show a number of changes to their individual SA assessment scores in the 2018 version (the exception is KL5 which was not part of the 2017 SA).
Whilst in principle there is no objection to reviewing the SA scores, the purpose is to
compare the proposed allocation against reasonable alternatives and therefore these
must also be reviewed to ensure fair comparison. The adjustments to the SA scores has seen both favourable and unfavourable amendments for allocated sites but without an explanation to why such a review is not justified for the reasonable alternatives, the SA is fundamentally flawed. It is noted that a small number of allocated sites have had adjustments to site area etc, but this alone is not sufficient to justify a re-appraisal of only proposed allocated sites. One particular example of where the amendments to the SA have resulted in an unfair comparison is the sites chosen for allocation in Dronfield. The three sites selected for allocation DR1 - Land off Shakespeare Crescent & Sheffield Rd, DR2 - Land north of Eckington Road and DR3 - Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow have each seen their scores for Transport increase from 'Minor Beneficial' to 'Major Beneficial. The reasoning behind this amended scoring is contained in the SA's Appendix A 'Site Assessments' but the justification for awarding Major Beneficial would appear to equally apply to our client's site at Land off Hill Top, Dronfield. However, because the reasonable alternatives have not revisited from the 2017 SA, this position is not examined or acknowledged. A key purpose of the SA is not only to assess all reasonable alternatives but to explain the reasons for selecting the preferred option. This is supported by caselaw in Heard v Broadland DC [2012] where the judgement states:
"an outline of reasons for the selection of alternatives for examination is required, and alternatives have to be assessed, whether or not to the same degree as the preferred option, all for the purpose of carrying out, with public participation, a reasoned evaluative process of the environmental impact of plans or proposals. A teleological interpretation of the directive, to my mind, requires an outline of the reasons for the selection of a preferred option, if any, even where a number of alternatives are also still being considered. Indeed, it would normally require a
sophisticated and artificial form of reasoning which explained why alternatives had been selected for examination but not why one of those at the same time had been preferred. (Paragraph 69)" An explanation to why sites have been selected does not appear within the SA and accordingly it is very difficult for a participant to understand or comment on the rationale behind any decisions.


Please see accompanying Freeths LLP Representations Statement
Section 3 - Sustainability Appraisal

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7988

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Tracey Marsden, Nicola Shepherdson & Mark Woodhead

Agent: Caroline McIntyre

Representation:

Representation not received on rep form. Council Officer made interpretation. Full representation attached.

Within both the February 2017 and 2018 Sustainability Appraisal here is no assessment of the approach to focus on the larger settlements and not to provide any site allocations within Level 3 settlements. There are also no discussions regarding the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the conclusions drawn from this process. These issues should be considered within the SA.

Change suggested by respondent:

The SA should assess site allocations in level 3 settlements. The SA should consider issues such as the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the conclusions drawn from this process.

Full text:

The following comments are made specifically with regards to the content of the draft Local Plan.
Spatial Strategy: Within Policy SS2 'Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Development' and Tables 4.2 and 4.3 Ridgeway is defined within Table 4.2 as a Level 3 Settlement. This is one which has limited sustainability and places Ridgeway on a par with other more rural settlements. The Settlement Hierarchy Study (2017) places no weight on the location of Ridgeway on the edge of Sheffield and its proximity to a range of public transport links and facilities a short distance away in locations such as Mosborough, Gleadless, Birley, Frecheville and Hackenthorpe. This is addressed further with regards to the Evidence Base documents.
Policy SS10 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt': The wording of this policy with regards to the exceptions listed from (a) to (f) should reflect the wording of Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") (2012). At present the policy as drafted does not reflect the NPPF and the wording of some parts of the policy is unclear. It is therefore considered that the draft Plan is not consistent with national policy - and is therefore unsound.
Policy SS9 'Development in the Countryside': As drafted it is considered that there is conflict between this Policy and Policy SS10 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt'. For example, under (e) there is reference to both limited infill and the redevelopment of previously developed land, with a clarification that this will be allowed where it would "not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside than the existing development". In the case of limited infill on a site without any development on site at present, the policy tests would be extremely high and potentially unachievable. It is considered that these two elements should be separated out.
Furthermore, there is more scope for development in Level 4 Settlements under Policy SS8 which would allow for development to come forward through a Neighbourhood Plan than there would be for Level 3
Settlements which would be more sustainable locations in terms of access to facilities and public transport.
The wording of Policy SS9 should be amended accordingly to clarify the approach taken when a site falls within both the countryside and Green Belt, to make sure this is feasible in practice when read alongside Policy SS10.
Policy LC3 'Exception Sites for Affordable Housing': the continuation of an Exception Site policy is welcomed. However the reference to an element of market housing only being allowed on sites outside of the Green Belt is disappointing. The financial impetus from an element of market housing in order to deliver an affordable housing scheme on sites within the Green Belt is no different to the requirement on sites outside of the Green Belt.
Furthermore it is considered that the other policies within the NPPF and elsewhere within the draft Local Plan could be used to constrain the extent of any such proposals on the Green Belt as these would need to meet an identified local need and be assessed in terms of the acceptability of any impact on the Green Belt.

SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY STUDY UPDATE (DECEMBER 2017)
As outlined above, our client is concerned that the assessment carried out under this document continues to give no weight to the location of Ridgeway, and in particular High Lane, on the edge of Sheffield and its proximity to a range of public transport links and facilities a short distance away in Mosborough, Gleadless, Birley, Frecheville and Hackenthorpe.
The draft Local Plan notes the heavy reliance on Sheffield for employment and outlines objectives within the Plan to maximise on the relationship with Sheffield and the Sheffield City Region as a whole.
It is therefore considered that greater weight should be afforded to Ridgeway as a sustainable location that could deliver housing which is well located to Sheffield.

HOUSING TOPIC PAPER (JANUARY 2018)
Chapter 3 outlines a summary of the options considered for the approach for new housing growth, and considered in detail within the Sustainability Appraisal. At Paragraph 3.18 it is stated that:
"The SA clearly shows the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 to be the most sustainable option. Whilst this option focuses on the four main towns and strategic sites as a strategy for delivering the 1,743 additional dwellings, many dwellings already completed and committed to are located in level 2 settlements, with some in 3 and 4 settlements. This makes the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 very similar to the 2009 Spatial Option 2. The Council has therefore chosen the option of focussing housing development on the four main towns and strategic sites, with the remainder in the 11 level 2 settlements, as the Preferred Option."

With regards to the Green Belt, Paragraph 5.37 states that the 2017 Green Belt Review, assessed many Green Belt land parcels to measure how well the land contributes to the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt. It identified land parcels which met these Green Belt purposes less robustly. These results have informed the Housing Land Availability Assessment, which included all parcels for assessment against the LAA and Policy Criteria. For the reasons set out in the previous representations it is considered that this process did not consider the potential to break the Green Belt down into smaller parcels of land which would potentially relate better to the existing urban fabric.

It is therefore considered that the overall approach to the Plan is unsound as sufficient weight has not been given to sites which are located on the edge of Sheffield and the assessment of the parcels of land in the Green Belt Review were not carefully considered with regards to the role smaller parcels of land could have played in meeting the housing targets.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7998

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Beescroft

Agent: Caroline McIntyre

Representation:

Within both the February 2017 and 2018 Sustainability Appraisal there is no assessment of the approach to focus on the larger settlements and not to provide any site allocations within Level 3 settlements. There are also no discussions regarding the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the conclusions drawn from this process. These issues should be considered within the SA.

Change suggested by respondent:

The SA should assess site allocations in level 3 settlements. The SA should consider issues such as the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the conclusions drawn from this process.

Full text:

LAND TO THE WEST OF THE MILLSTONES, WADSHELF (BRAM/2301): REPRESENTATIONS TO THE DRAFT NEDDC LOCAL PLAN AND EVIDENCE BASE DOCUMENTS - PUBLICATION DRAFT
On behalf of our clients, Mr and Mrs N Beecroft, please find set out below representations to the Publication Draft North East Derbyshire ("NEDDC") Local Plan and the related Evidence Base documents. This representation relates to land to the west of the Millstone, Wadshelf (Ref BRAM/2301) and should be read alongside submissions made previously in respect of this site at the Call for Sites stage in January 2016 and the draft Local Plan in April 2017.
The Site
The Site is located on the western side of the village of Wadshelf and sits adjacent to the Settlement Development Limits for Wadshelf, as identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map (2005). The Millstone, and White House beyond this, to the east of the Site fall within the Settlement Development Limits for the village.
The Site is bounded to the east by the Millstone and the White House, which is separated from the Site by the drive to the Millstone. To the south is Main Road and beyond this a number of farm and residential dwellings. To the west is the Village Hall and village play area, and beyond this further housing to the junction with Baslow Road. Despite the role of the Village Hall within village life, this does peculiarly fall outside of the Defined Settlement Boundary. To the north is agricultural land which slopes up in gradient away from the Site.
The Site is low grade agricultural grazing land and is currently unused. An existing power line crosses the Site. Given the Site's position and relationship with both the village of Wadshelf and key village facilities we consider that its inclusion within the Green Belt and exclusion from the Settlement Development Limits of Wadshelf - along with the properties to the west of the site - is an anomaly. We consider that the Site is available, suitable and achievable for housing and as part of the review of the settlement boundaries there is a strong case to exclude the Site from the Green Belt. We set out our justification for this below.

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE DRAFT NEDDC LOCAL PLAN
The following comments are made specifically with regards to the content of the draft Local Plan. Spatial Strategy: Within Policy SS2 'Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Development' and Tables 4.2 and 4.3 Wadshelf is defined within Table 4.2 as a Level 3 Settlement.
It is disappointing that despite the draft 2011 - 2031 Local Plan Part 1 Initial Draft (February 2015), which was informed by the Evidence Base, outlining that there was a need for 5 new dwellings in Wadshelf over the plan period, no amendments have been made to the Settlement Development Limit for the village to allow for land to accommodate this need. It is noted within the document that this figure was limited due to the lack of Sites available within the Settlement Development Limit and the Green Belt designation around the village.
Policy SS10 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt': The wording of this policy with regards to the exceptions listed from (a) to (f) should reflect the wording of Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") (2012). At present the policy as drafted does not reflect the NPPF and the wording of some parts of the policy is unclear. It is therefore considered that the draft Plan is not consistent with national policy - and is therefore unsound. Policy SS9 'Development in the Countryside': As drafted it is considered that there is conflict between this
Policy and Policy SS10 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt'. For example, under (e) there is reference to both limited infill and the redevelopment of previously developed land, with a clarification that this will be allowed where it would "not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside than the existing development". Furthermore, there is more scope for development in Level 4 Settlements under Policy SS8 which would allow for development to come forward through a Neighbourhood Plan than there would be for Level 3. Settlements which would be more sustainable locations in terms of access to facilities and public transport.
The wording of Policy SS9 should be amended accordingly to clarify the approach taken when a site falls within both the countryside and Green Belt, to make sure this is feasible in practice when read alongside Policy SS10.
Policy LC3 'Exception Sites for Affordable Housing': the continuation of an Exception Site policy is welcomed. However the reference to an element of market housing only being allowed on sites outside of the Green Belt remains disappointing. The financial impetus from an element of market housing in order to deliver an affordable housing scheme on sites within the Green Belt is no different to the requirement on site outside of the Green Belt. Furthermore it is considered that the other policies within the NPPF and elsewhere within the draft Local Plan could be used to constrain the extent of any such proposals on the Green Belt as these would need to meet an identified local need and be assessed in terms of the acceptability of any impact on the Green Belt.
Policy LC3 should also be clarified as to how proposals for specialist housing would be considered within the Green Belt. It is considered that as an exception Green Belt land is often well located to deliver such accommodation, and again any such proposals would be considered against the other policies within the Plan.
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (2017 & 2018)
Within both the February 2017 and 2018 Sustainability Appraisal there is no assessment of the approach to focus on the larger settlements and not to provide any site allocations within Level 3 settlements. There are also no discussions regarding the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the conclusions drawn from this process. These issues should be considered within the SA.
HOUSING TOPIC PAPER (JANUARY 2018)
Chapter 3 outlines a summary of the options considered for the approach for new housing growth, and considered in detail within the Sustainability Appraisal. At Paragraph 3.18 it is stated that:
"The SA clearly shows the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 to be the most sustainable option. Whilst this option focuses on the four main towns and strategic sites as a strategy for delivering the 1,743 additional dwellings, many dwellings already completed and committed to are located in level 2 settlements, with some in 3 and 4 settlements. This makes the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 very similar to the 2009 Spatial Option 2. The Council has therefore chosen the option of focussing housing development on the four main towns and strategic sites, with the remainder in the 11 level 2 settlements, as the Preferred Option."
With regards to the Green Belt, Paragraph 5.37 states that the 2017 Green Belt Review, assessed many Green Belt land parcels to measure how well the land contributes to the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt. It identified land parcels which met these Green Belt purposes less robustly. These results have informed the Housing Land Availability Assessment, which included all parcels for assessment against the LAA and Policy Criteria. For the reasons set out in the previous representations it is considered that this process did not consider the potential to break the Green Belt down into smaller parcels of land which would potentially relate better to the existing urban fabric.
It is therefore considered that the overall approach to the Plan is unsound as sufficient weight has not been given to the role of smaller parcels of land in the Green Belt Review with regards to the role these could have played in meeting the housing targets.
GREEN BELT REVIEW (FEB 2017)
The comments made previously in respect of the Green Belt Review are maintained.
Within this document our clients' site is included within the parcel of land assessed under WAD/GB/006.
This parcel of land included both their land at land to the West of the Millstones (BRAM/2301) and a significant area of land to the north, north east and north west.
The overall conclusion on Parcel WAD/GB/006 is that this scores 'Red' in an assessment against the Purposes 1 and 3 of the Green Belt by checking unrestricted sprawl and assists in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.
The 'Common Approach to Green Belt Review across the Sheffield City Region' (August 2014) was prepared to set out a cohesive approach across the region to the Green Belt review process. This outlines a staged approach which can be summarised as:
* Stage 1 - Identify general areas within the Green Belt
* Stage 2 - Technical site assessment
* Stage 3 - Re-appraisal of resultant land parcels.
Within the NEDDC Green Belt Review large parcels of land are generally considered, for example Parcel WAD/GB/006 covers an area of 2.4 ha. However there does not appear to be any general consideration of smaller elements within each parcel which may score different in terms of the purposes of the Green Belt and therefore may be suitable for removal without impacting on the overall objectives of the Green Belt in that location. The Review process therefore seems to be at odds with the detail of Stage 2 of the 'Common Approach to the Green Belt Review' document.
Furthermore, there is a lack of consistency in the approach to selecting parcels for assessment. Had the same approach been taken to our clients site (along with land to the west) as that taken for Parcel HOLY/GB/024 within Holymoorside, which covered an area of 0.877ha, the conclusions regarding BRAM/2301 may have been different.
Therefore, in summary it is requested that the Green Belt Review of Site BRAM/2301, forming a Parcel along with land to the west of the site which functionally falls within the village of Wadshelf, be reconsidered on the same grounds as the approach taken to Parcel HOLY/GB/024.
It is considered that the release of this land from the Green Belt would regularise the position within with regards to the extent of the village and the Green Belt boundary. Furthermore the release of any land from the Green Belt forming part of this smaller parcel of land would largely relate to existing dwellings, the Village Hall and playground and with a limited opportunity for new development.
SUMMARY
In summary it is considered that our clients' the site remains available, suitable and achievable and should be released in full or part from the Green Belt to help meet the district's housing needs over the plan period.
It is also considered that a number of policies within the draft Plan are not consistent with the NPPF or have not been given proper consideration as to the practicality of applying these against application proposals within both the Green Belt and countryside. For these reasons it is considered these policies are unsound.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8018

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Andrew and Angela Spencer

Agent: Caroline McIntyre

Representation:

SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (2017 & 2018)
Within both the February 2017 and 2018 Sustainability Appraisal there is no assessment of the approach to focus on the larger settlements and not to provide any site allocations within Level 3 settlements. There are also no discussions regarding the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the conclusions drawn from this process. These issues should be considered within the SA.

Full text:

LAND AT CHERRYTREE FARM, WALTON: REPRESENTATIONS TO THE DRAFT NEDDC LOCAL PLAN AND EVIDENCE BASE DOCUMENTS - PUBLICATION DRAFT (REPRESENTATION 5292)
On behalf of our clients, Mr and Mrs Spencer, please find set out below representations to the Publication Draft of the North East Derbyshire ("NEDDC") Local Plan and the related Evidence Base documents. This representation relates to land at Cherrytree Farm, Walton. Land within my clients' ownership has been considered under Ref Site WAL/GB/013, 014 and part 15 within the Green Belt. This submission should be read alongside submissions made in respect of this site at previous stages. Detailed comments were made in respect of the draft Plan in April 2017 by my clients and the approach taken to site selection. None of these comments have been addressed within the current drafting of the Plan and the comments made at April 2017 therefore still stand in respect of the draft document.
SUMMARY
The site is well located for both the Housing Market Area of NEDDC and Chesterfield, and either all or part of the site is available, suitable and achievable.
It is considered, for the reasons set out in the detailed representations below, that the assessment of the site has not had full regard to the site's close proximity to Chesterfield. The assessment of the site and the role it plays with regards to the purposes of the Green Belt has been based on a substantially larger parcel of land, and has not addressed the potential for the partial release of land within our clients' site. In summary it is considered that the approach taken within the draft Plan to date, by focussing on what have been identified as Level 1 and 2 Settlements, is unsound. The assessment of settlements has not had due regard to the relationship of some settlements with Chesterfield. As a result, the potential role that some small scale Green Belt release could have to meeting the housing targets within these well connected settlements has not been given sufficient consideration.
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE DRAFT NEDDC LOCAL PLAN
As with the previous submission, in broad terms it is considered that the strategy for the location of new housing across the District is unsound. Furthermore it is considered that some of the more detailed policies are unsound.
The following comments are made specifically with regards to the content of the draft Local Plan.
Spatial Strategy: Within Policy SS2 'Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Development' and Tables 4.2 and 4.3 Walton is defined within Table 4.2 as a Level 3 Settlement. This is one which has limited sustainability and places Walton on a par with other more rural settlements. The Settlement Hierarchy Study (2017)
places no weight on the location of Walton on the edge of Chesterfield and its proximity to a range of public transport links and facilities within the town centre. This is addressed further with regards to the Evidence Base documents.
This is supported by Paragraph 4.13 of the draft Local Plan which states that
"The Local Plan aims to provide new jobs along with new housing, ensuring that a range of deliverable and marketable employment land is available both for indigenous firms and for inward investors, but at the same time recognising the relationship of the District with the Sheffield City Region, particularly with Sheffield and Chesterfield. In particular, it acknowledges the 61% of people who commute out of the District to work. About 19% commute to Sheffield, 18% to Chesterfield,
and 3% each to Amber Valley, Bolsover, Derbyshire Dales and Rotherham (2011 Census))."
As noted below, the draft Duty to Cooperate Statement (March 2018) concludes at Paragraph 35 that:
"Throughout the preparation of the Local Plan the Council has engaged in on-going and constructive dialogue with the other HMA authorities of Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Chesterfield to consider the strategic matter of meeting housing needs. No formal requests however have been made for North East Derbyshire to accommodate any unmet needs from the other HMA authorities. On this basis, potential housing sites within North East Derbyshire but lying on the edge of Chesterfield's built up area have been discounted, in line with the site selection methodology."
Paragraph 180 of the NPPF states that "Local planning authorities should take account of different geographic areas, including travel-to-work areas...".
It is considered that for the reasons set out above, and below with regards to the Evidence Base, that the potential to release sites from settlements within NEDDC but located on the edge of Chesterfield have not been given sufficient consideration - either as potential locations for significant new development or as
part of the review of smaller scale changes to Green Belt boundaries. It is therefore considered that the Plan as drafted is unsound.
Policy SS10 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt': The wording of this policy with regards to the exceptions listed from (a) to (f) should reflect the wording of Paragraph 89 of the National Planning Policy Framework ("NPPF") (2012). At present the policy as drafted does not reflect the NPPF and the wording of some parts of the policy is unclear. It is therefore considered that the draft Plan is not consistent with national policy - and is therefore unsound.
Policy SS9 'Development in the Countryside': As drafted it is considered that there is conflict between this Policy and Policy SS10 'North East Derbyshire Green Belt'. For example, under (e) there is reference to both limited infill and the redevelopment of previously developed land, with a clarification that this will be
allowed where it would "not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside than the existing development". In the case of limited infill on a site without any development on site at present, the policy tests would be extremely high and potentially unachievable. Furthermore, there is more scope for development in Level 4 Settlements under Policy SS8 which would
allow for development to come forward through a Neighbourhood Plan than there would be for Level 3 Settlements which would be more sustainable locations in terms of access to facilities and public transport.
The wording of Policy SS9 should be amended accordingly to clarify the approach taken when a site falls within both the countryside and Green Belt, to make sure this is feasible in practice when read alongside Policy SS10.

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE EVIDENCE BASE
SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL (2017)
Within both the February 2017 and 2018 Sustainability Appraisals there is no assessment of the approach to focus on the larger settlements and not to provide any site allocations within Level 3 settlements. There are also no discussions regarding the assessment carried out under the Green Belt Review and the
conclusions drawn from this process. These issues should be considered within the SA.
DRAFT DUTY TO COOPERATE STATEMENT (MARCH 2018)
The Statement concludes at Paragraph 35 that:
"Throughout the preparation of the Local Plan the Council has engaged in on-going and constructive dialogue with the other HMA authorities of Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Chesterfield to consider the strategic matter of meeting housing needs. No formal requests however have been made for North East Derbyshire to accommodate any unmet needs from the other HMA authorities.
On this basis, potential housing sites within North East Derbyshire but lying on the edge of Chesterfield's built up area have been discounted, in line with the site selection methodology."
This approach, along with that outlined in the Housing Topic Paper and Sustainability Appraisal is considered to be unsound.
SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY STUDY UPDATE (DECEMBER 2017)
It is considered that the methodology to the Settlement Hierarchy Study, as outlined at Chapter 3 of the Study, does not give sufficient weight to settlements on the edge of larger towns such as Chesterfield. As a result the proximity of Walton to Chesterfield town centre, and its access to jobs and facilities, is not given
sufficient weight. Paragraph 4.13 of the draft Local Plan states that "The Local Plan aims to provide new jobs along with new housing, ensuring that a range of deliverable and marketable employment land is available both for indigenous firms and for inward investors, but at the same time recognising the relationship of the District with the Sheffield City Region, particularly with Sheffield and Chesterfield. In particular, it acknowledges the 61% of people who commute out of the District to work. About 19% commute to Sheffield, 18% to Chesterfield, and 3% each to Amber Valley, Bolsover, Derbyshire Dales and Rotherham (2011 Census))."
The Study states with regards to Walton that "B.113 Walton is a suburb of Chesterfield. Large parts of the settlement are within the administrative area of Chesterfield Borough Council, but a small area falls within North East Derbyshire. The area mostly includes detached and semi-detached residential properties."
The conclusions of the Study place no weight on the proximity of Walton to Chesterfield and as a result Walton is classified as a Level 3 settlement, which down plays the role land within the settlement could have on meeting the housing need for the District in a sustainable location.
HOUSING TOPIC PAPER (JANUARY 2018)
Chapter 3 outlines a summary of the options considered for the approach for new housing growth, and considered in detail within the Sustainability Appraisal. At Paragraph 3.18 it is stated that:
"The SA clearly shows the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 to be the most sustainable option. Whilst this option focuses on the four main towns and strategic sites as a strategy for delivering the 1,743 additional dwellings, many dwellings already completed and committed to are located in level 2 settlements, with some in 3 and 4 settlements. This makes the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 very similar to the 2009 Spatial Option 2. The Council has therefore chosen the option of focussing housing development on the four main towns and strategic sites, with the remainder in the 11 level 2 settlements, as the Preferred Option."
With regards to the Green Belt, Paragraph 5.37 states that the 2017 Green Belt Review, assessed many Green Belt land parcels to measure how well the land contributes to the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt. It identified land parcels which met these Green Belt purposes less robustly. These results have informed the Housing Land Availability Assessment, which included all parcels for assessment against the LAA and Policy Criteria. For the reasons set out in the previous representations it is considered that this process did not consider the potential to break the Green Belt down into smaller parcels of land which would potentially relate better to the existing urban fabric.
It is therefore considered that the overall approach to the Plan is unsound as sufficient weight has not been given to sites which are located on the edge of larger settlements, in this case Chesterfield, and the assessment of the parcels of land in the Green Belt Review were not carefully considered with regards to the role smaller parcels of land could have played in meeting the housing targets.
SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITS REVIEW (JANUARY 2018)
The conclusions drawn within the respect of boundary changes to the Level 3 Settlements appears to be inconsistent. For example, within Ashover amended ref ASH02 has been made to include dwellings and gardens within the SDL. The same approach has been taken at Grassmoor GHW03, Higham S&H02, Holymoorside HOLY01, Kelstedge ASH06, Lower Pilsley PIL01 and PIL02.
Whilst each site may have different considerations, including inclusion or not within the Green Belt, at Walton existing dwellings within the Green Belt have not been removed from this and weight is instead placed on the role of the road in provided a boundary to the Green Belt. Furthermore, the definition of the SDL does not reflect the entire area within NEDDC which falls within and plays an important part of Walton. There should be a consistent approach to the defined boundaries of each Settlement and the corresponding SDL. This approach at Walton is not consistent with that taken elsewhere including the examples cited above.
GREEN BELT REVIEW (FEB 2017)
The comments made previously in respect of the Green Belt Review are maintained.
HOUSING SITES ASSESSMENT REPORT (FEB 2017)
Our clients' site has not been assessed within this document. However as per the previous submission it is considered that the land within their ownership remains available, suitable and achievable and should have been considered as a whole as a potential housing site or as a smaller parcel of land within this document.
SUMMARY
In summary it is considered that our clients' the site remains available, suitable and achievable and should be released in full or part from the Green Belt to help meet the district's housing needs over the plan period.
We would therefore urge the Council to review the draft Local Plan strategy and Evidence Base documents in the light of the above submission and reconsider the role of Walton within the Settlement hierarchy and the removal of all or part of our clients' site from the Green Belt.
It is also considered that a number of policies within the draft Plan are not consistent with the NPPF or have not been given proper consideration as to the practicality of applying these against application proposals within both the Green Belt and countryside. For these reasons it is considered these policies are unsound.

HOUSING TOPIC PAPER (JANUARY 2018)
Chapter 3 outlines a summary of the options considered for the approach for new housing growth, and considered in detail within the Sustainability Appraisal. At Paragraph 3.18 it is stated that:
"The SA clearly shows the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 to be the most sustainable option. Whilst this option focuses on the four main towns and strategic sites as a strategy for delivering the 1,743 additional dwellings, many dwellings already completed and committed to are located in level 2 settlements, with some in 3 and 4 settlements. This makes the 2017/18 Spatial Option 1 very similar to the 2009 Spatial Option 2. The Council has therefore chosen the option of focussing housing development on the four main towns and strategic sites, with the remainder in the 11 level 2 settlements, as the Preferred Option."
With regards to the Green Belt, Paragraph 5.37 states that the 2017 Green Belt Review, assessed many Green Belt land parcels to measure how well the land contributes to the five purposes of including land in the Green Belt. It identified land parcels which met these Green Belt purposes less robustly. These results have informed the Housing Land Availability Assessment, which included all parcels for assessment against the LAA and Policy Criteria. For the reasons set out in the previous representations it is considered that this process did not consider the potential to break the Green Belt down into smaller parcels of land which would potentially relate better to the existing urban fabric.
It is therefore considered that the overall approach to the Plan is unsound as sufficient weight has not been given to sites which are located on the edge of larger settlements, in this case Chesterfield, and the assessment of the parcels of land in the Green Belt Review were not carefully considered with regards to the role smaller parcels of land could have played in meeting the housing targets.
SETTLEMENT DEVELOPMENT LIMITS REVIEW (JANUARY 2018)
The conclusions drawn within the respect of boundary changes to the Level 3 Settlements appears to be inconsistent. For example, within Ashover amended ref ASH02 has been made to include dwellings and gardens within the SDL. The same approach has been taken at Grassmoor GHW03, Higham S&H02, Holymoorside HOLY01, Kelstedge ASH06, Lower Pilsley PIL01 and PIL02.
Whilst each site may have different considerations, including inclusion or not within the Green Belt, at Walton existing dwellings within the Green Belt have not been removed from this and weight is instead placed on the role of the road in provided a boundary to the Green Belt. Furthermore, the definition of the SDL does not reflect the entire area within NEDDC which falls within and plays an important part of Walton. There should be a consistent approach to the defined boundaries of each Settlement and the corresponding SDL. This approach at Walton is not consistent with that taken elsewhere including the examples cited above.


See supporting documents attached for full rep.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8042

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Stock

Representation:

It does not appraise housing allocations put forward in the Consultation Draft Plan which have since been discarded in the Publication Draft Plan. This is clearly in direct conflict with the PPG (ID11-018) and therefore cannot be considered robust.

Change suggested by respondent:

We commend the land situated to the east of Hague Lane at Renishaw, and shown by the red edged boundary on the aerial photograph set out below, should be removed from the Green Belt and reinstated as housing allocation in the North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan.

Full text:

Sustainability Appraisal
In accordance with Section 19 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, policies set out in Local Plans must be subject to Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Incorporating the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004, SA is a systematic process that should be undertaken at each stage of the Plan's preparation, assessing the effects of the Local Plan's proposals on sustainable development when judged against reasonable alternatives.
Critically, the National Planning Policy Framework at Paragraph 165 sets out that:
"a sustainability appraisal which meets the requirements of the European Directive on strategic environmental assessment should be an integral part of the plan preparation process, and should consider all the likely significant effects on the environment, economic and social factors."
Following this the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) requires that different realistic and deliverable options for policies within the Plan are tested, setting out:
"they must be sufficiently distinct to highlight the different sustainability implications of each so that meaningful comparisons can be made"
The SA is required to set out why those reasonable alternatives were chosen. In terms of housing policies for the Plan this means the need to test:
i. Reasonable alternatives on the quantum of development (i.e. the housing requirement); and,
ii. Reasonable alternatives on the distribution of development (i.e. the spatial strategy and combination of site allocations to be made)
We remind the Council that there have now been a number of instances where the failure to undertake a satisfactory SA has resulted in a local plan failing the test of legal compliance at Examination or being subjected to legal challenge

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8233

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Zafeen Ltd

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation:

Summary and changes to Plan not received on representation form; Council Officer has made interpretation.
The 2018 SA contains a number of changes to the 2017 SA assessments. Whilst in principle there is no objection to reviewing the SA scores, the purpose is to compare the proposed allocation against reasonable alternatives and therefore these must also be reviewed to ensure fair comparison. The adjustments to SA scores has seen amendments for allocated sites but without an explanation to why such a review is not justified for the reasonable alternatives, the SA is fundamentally flawed.
An explanation to why sites have been selected does not appear within the SA and accordingly it is very difficult to understand or comment on the rationale behind any decisions.

Change suggested by respondent:

Provide clarity in the SA to compare the proposed allocations against reasonable alternatives.

Full text:

Re: North East Derbyshire Local Plan - Publication Draft Consultation

I refer to the above consultation and set out below representations in response to the Publication
Draft document on behalf of our client Zafeen Ltd, promoters of land east of Little Morton Street, North Wingfield for residential purposes (see attached site plan outlined red). This letter amplifies the attached response forms concerning our client's OBJECTION to the proposed strategy for housing development within the District relating to policies SS2 (Spatial Strategy and Distribution of Development) and LC1 (Housing Allocations).

Background
In recent years it had been the original intention of the Council to prepare a two part replacement for the saved 2005 North East Derbyshire District Local Plan ("the Saved Plan"); Part 1 incorporating strategic policies and Part 2 incorporating allocations and development management policies. However, in August 2015 the Council moved to the preparation of a single Local Plan as significant problems were highlighted relating to the successful delivery of the proposed strategy. The Council subsequently considered options for an alternative strategic distribution including amendments to the Green Belt boundary.

The emerging North East Derbyshire Local Plan currently at Publication Draft ("the Plan") is intended to cover the administrative area of North East Derbyshire outside of the Peak District National Park for the period of 2014 - 2034, replacing the Saved Plan once adopted. The Plan follows on from an earlier Consultation Draft Local Plan which included draft policies and proposals where, as referenced in the current document, the key issues raised through consultation primarily related to the distribution of housing growth. It is stated in the Plan that changes have been made to the overall strategy accounting for these earlier representations and updates to the evidence base. One of the main changes is stated to be the inclusion of new housing sites where planning permission exists and the deletion of some housing sites elsewhere.

Objection - Spatial Strategy, Distribution of Development and Housing Allocations
Policy SS2 'Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development' states that the Plan will make provision for the delivery of a minimum of 6,600 dwellings (330 dwellings per annum) over the plan period with the majority (over 50%) of new housing development focussed in the 4 main towns of Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh, in addition to the Avenue (Clay Cross) and former Biwater (Wingerworth) Strategic Sites. The remainder of the housing development will thereafter be focussed in the District's other most sustainable settlements, defined as Level 2 settlements in the Settlement Hierarchy which is a 4 tier structure (Level 1: Towns, Level 2: Settlements with a good level of sustainability, Level 3: Settlements with a limited sustainability and Level 4: Very small villages and hamlets with very limited sustainability).

The resulting approach to housing distribution is set out in Policy LC1 'Housing Allocations' which proposes a total of 2934 dwellings on allocated sites in the southern sub-area across the settlements of Clay Cross, Grassmoor, Morton, North Wingfield, Pilsey, Stonebroom, Tupton and Wingerworth. Of these allocations a total of 2505 dwellings are alone proposed across the 3 settlements of Clay Cross (995), Tupton (329) and Wingerworth (1181) positioned directly on the A61 and includes the strategic Biwater and Avenue sites, accounting for some 38% of the District's overall requirement and 85% of the southern sub-area's provision. This significant level of growth alone does not account for planning permissions on unallocated sites, as well as those with pending applications and/or appeals, or allocations at Grassmoor (127), Morton (80) and Stonebroom (65) which will likely filter out onto the A61 also and further intensify the situation.

This intended strategy of housing distribution in the southern sub-area will, as a result, place great strain on the A61 corridor which is already identified to suffer from major traffic congestion issues during busy periods as is acknowledged at paragraph 2.20 of the Plan. Such concerns have been historically raised in response to development along on the A61 corridor both by neighbouring authorities and by Derbyshire County Council ("DCC") as Highway Authority. These concerns remain to date and are clearly evident through consultation responses to current 'live' applications, including those that relate to development of proposed housing allocations. DCC commonly reference their 'concerns about the long term implications arising from development land which is likely to have an impact across the wider highway network', noting that 'a significant level of development is taking place, or being proposed, along the A61 corridor, which already suffers from congestion at certain parts of the day (this also extends into and through the adjoining Borough Council areas)' and the need to establish 'cumulative traffic impacts' of the various proposals. DCC advise that 'large scale highway improvement works to increase capacity of the highway network are relatively limited and would come at a significant cost both financially and environmentally'. Therefore, as a result, there are serious transport and infrastructure concerns about the impact of the intended south sub-area strategy seeking to focus large swathes of housing development along the A61 corridor, as well as the likely traffic implications this will have for surrounding villages. To compound matters further, this issue will be exacerbated by the mixed use developments proposed at the Avenue and Biwater Strategic Sites which also includes retail, commercial, employment and leisure uses.

In the context of deliverability, serious concerns also exist about the strategy of site selection and the proximity of competing sites, particularly those at Wingerworth, Grassmoor and Tupton which cumulatively propose a total of 1637 dwellings within a 1.5km radius. Add to this those proposed at Clay Cross (995) results in a total of 2632 dwellings within 4km of each other and a trajectory suggesting a degree of simultaneous delivery as set out at Appendix 3 of the January 2018 Housing Topic Paper (1013 dwellings are envisaged within the 5 year tranche of 2017-2022). Given the proximity of these competing sites, it is highly unlikely and considered unrealistic that these housing delivery will be at the rates envisaged and required to meet in full the identified housing need as a result.

Not only are concerns raised about the housing trajectory in the Housing Topic Paper's appendices (3 and 6) as a result of the proximity of competing sites detailed above, but also in terms of questionable delivery rates as a result of site status and market trends. For example, the trajectories include sites where planning permission has now expired, sites that are envisaged to deliver housing within the next 12 months yet no Reserved Matters have been submitted, and sites where the rate of delivery is far beyond that experienced elsewhere in the District. This questionable trajectory is further compounded by the fact that, for example, the Avenue Strategic Site at Wingerworth, this being the second largest allocation within the southern sub-area, is heavily contaminated as a result of its former coking works operations. Despite the major remediation programme currently underway, housing is proposed for local needs and intended for occupiers whom will be aware of the site's history and contamination. This often results in a stigma attached to such sites as result, thus impacting on market sales and the rate at which properties are subsequently brought to the market.

For these reasons it is considered that the proposed housing strategy set out in Policies SS2 and LC1 is significantly flawed and will fail to deliver housing at the rates envisaged. This ultimately has consequences for the anticipated supply and the ability of the plan to deliver the level of housing required to satisfy the identified need over the plan period.

Objectively Assessed Housing Need and 5 Year Housing Land Supply
The Plan's target for housing is identified as 330 dwellings per year, this being a significantly reduced figure from that historically adopted in the East Midland Regional Spatial Strategy and fails account for neighbouring Sheffield City Council's ("SCC") unmet need. Whilst it is acknowledged that SCC does not form part of the North East Derbyshire Housing Market Area, the Plan recognises that there is interaction between the regions such that any unmet need should be accounted for in accordance with paragraph 182 of the NPPF which requires plans to be 'positively prepared'. This includes devising a strategy to meet 'unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so', the Council being well aware that SCC has already sought to accommodate some of its need outside of its administrative boundary.

Further, the Plan refers to application of a Regeneration Scenario which is stated to reflect the
Council's Growth Strategy and the wider Local Enterprise Partnerships ambitions. However, it is considered that the proposed housing target should be increased to better integrate the housing strategy with the economic growth strategy. Clarification is also required concerning amendments to the plan period originally proposed from 2011-2033 but now amended to 2014-2034, and whether the unmet needs identified arising between the period of 2011-2014 have been appropriately accounted for.

Of course, any upward amendments to the plan target will impact on the 5 year supply of housing land, this being further compounded by the spatial strategy issues and questionable deliverability rates raised earlier in these representations. The current 5 year housing supply figure offers little contingency or flexibility and counters the requirements of NPPF paragraph 47 to significantly boost the supply of housing. It is acknowledged that subject to compelling evidence, a windfall allowance may be included in the 5 year supply and this is proposed in the Plan as set out at paragraph 6.10 of the Housing Topic Paper. This details that minor unallocated sites (considered by the Council as windfall sites) will provide an element of land supply up to 2021/22 at a completion rate of 84 dwellings per year, followed by a flexibility windfall of 75 dwellings per year for the remaining Plan period. It is, however, considered given the concerns raised that the windfall supply should contribute only in the context of acting as a flexibility allowance throughout the plan period rather than being relied upon to address need, and that additional sites are identified to ensure that this need can be met regardless of windfall sites.

It is submitted, therefore, that further sites are indeed required to provide choice, competition and account for issues such as, for example, elevated lapse rates (it is noted the Plan does not apply a lapse rate to larger sites), stalled sites, delayed delivery or changing market conditions impacting on viability, particularly in relation to the larger sites. The windfall allowance should contribute solely towards flexibility and should not be relied upon to meet the identified need.

Sustainability Appraisal
The Sustainability Appraisal ("SA") accompanying the Plan has been updated with a February 2018 version. Appendix A of SA contains the site assessments and this is restricted to sites that are proposed for allocation.

Paragraph 1.1.5 (page 3) of Appendix A explains that "Some site allocations have been assessed in previous iterations of the SA. The assessments and outcomes for each objective of each site allocation do not necessarily match the assessments and outcomes in previous iterations of the SA. This is because the latest assessments in this report take into account the latest data and evidence and the sites are assessed individually and in greater detail."

The NPPG (paragraph 001 Reference ID: 11-001-20140306) states "A sustainability appraisal is a systematic process that must be carried out during the preparation of a Local Plan. Its role is to promote sustainable development by assessing the extent to which the emerging plan, when judged against reasonable alternatives, will help to achieve relevant environmental, economic and social objectives". A situation therefore arises whereby the 2018 SA contains the sites proposed for allocation but advises the 'reasonable alternatives' were considered through the 2017 SA (Paragraphs 2.5.1- 2.5.6).

The 2018 SA explains that the assessments of the proposed allocations do not necessarily match the assessment in previous iterations of the SA. On closer inspection it is noted that the 2018 version contains a number of changes to the 2017 SA assessments. For example, across the 4 main towns and including the Former Biwater Strategic Site there are 17 proposed allocations and 16 show a number of changes to their individual SA assessment scores in the 2018 version (the exception is KL5 which was not part of the 2017 SA).

Whilst in principle there is no objection to reviewing the SA scores, the purpose is to compare the proposed allocation against reasonable alternatives and therefore these must also be reviewed to ensure fair comparison. The adjustments to the SA scores has seen both favourable and unfavourable amendments for allocated sites but without an explanation to why such a review is not justified for the reasonable alternatives, the SA is fundamentally flawed. It is noted that a small number of allocated sites have had adjustments to site area etc, but this alone is not sufficient to justify a re-appraisal of only proposed allocated sites.

A key purpose of the SA is not only to assess all reasonable alternatives but to explain the reasons for selecting the preferred option. This is supported by caselaw in Heard v Broadland DC [2012] where the judgement states:

"an outline of reasons for the selection of alternatives for examination is required, and alternatives have to be assessed, whether or not to the same degree as the preferred option, all for the purpose of carrying out, with public participation, a reasoned evaluative process of the environmental impact of plans or proposals. A teleological interpretation of the directive, to my mind, requires an outline of the reasons for the selection of a preferred option, if any, even where a number of alternatives are also still being considered. Indeed, it would normally require a sophisticated and artificial form of reasoning which explained why alternatives had been selected for examination but not why one of those at the same time had been preferred. (Paragraph 69)"

An explanation to why sites have been selected does not appear within the SA and accordingly it is very difficult for a participant to understand or comment on the rationale behind any decisions.

Land East of Little Morton Street, North Wingfield
As referenced earlier in these representations, our client is currently promoting the attached site at North Wingfield for residential development, a site formerly assessed and identified as NW/1603 in the February 2017 SA (albeit with a slightly extended boundary to the east at that time). The site measures approximately 11.36ha and forms an undeveloped parcel of land adjoining the settlement's existing built form, with potential for delivery of up to 265 dwellings. The site is in single ownership and our client is currently working closely with a major housebuilder preparing a planning application ready for imminent submission.

The Council's Settlement Hierarchy (December 2017 update) forms part of the Plan's evidence base and identifies North Wingfield as a Level 2 settlement in context of the overall 4 tier hierarchy, these being areas with 'good levels of sustainability' and are locations that will provide for the remainder of planned housing growth beyond the 4 towns and 2 Strategic Sites identified in emerging policy SS2. The Settlement Hierarchy Document details that outside of the 4 towns, in terms of services and facilities, North Wingfield is 'the most well provided for settlement included in the Study' (paragraph 4.10) and that along with Wingerworth 'has the best level of public transport services' (paragraph 4.22). The overall conclusion resulting from the Study was that North Wingfield ranked highest as 'the District's most sustainable settlement' (paragraph 5.2 and 5.3) outside of the 4 towns, providing services, facilities, employment, leisure opportunities and regular public transport links. As the most sustainable Level 2 settlement, it therefore has the ability to accommodate a greater level of development than that currently set out in the Plan which in its current form, conversely proposes the second lowest housing numbers allocated in the southern sub-area's Level 2 settlements and third lowest Plan-wide.

It is therefore submitted that our client's site should be included as a housing allocation in the Plan, providing choice and competition in the market for land and consumers, an approach required in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and advocated in the Housing White Paper (Fixing Our Broken Housing Market February 2017). The site is not constrained by Green Belt, heritage assets or contamination, nor is it identified to be at a heightened risk of flooding (save for a very small area of Zone 2/3 to south-western corner) such that its development is therefore consistent with the sequential approach to development prescribed in the NPPF. The 2017 SA also identifies the site as Grade 4 Agricultural Land, again according with NPPF requirements of protecting land that is considered best and most versatile (which this is not).

Initial transport assessment work details that the impact of residential development at the scale envisaged would not be 'severe' in accordance with the NPPF given that development generated trips can be safely/satisfactorily accommodated on the existing local highway network. Whilst concerns have been raised earlier in these representations relating to the A61 and the impact of cumulative development, our client's site is located away from this corridor serving the east-west strategic needs of the District and the employment opportunities available at Holmewood and off the M1 i.e. Markham Vale and South Normanton, without any meaningful impact on the A61. With a range of transport options available, including cycling and walking which encourage more sustainable patterns of travel and reduced reliance on the private car, development of the site is consistent with the sustainable principles set out in the NPPF.

In terms of ecology, the site is not designated as a statutory or non-statutory site of nature conservation interest and has no significant ecological value. An initial appraisal concludes that there is no significant ecology or protected species interest in existence on site and that subject to appropriate management, there will have be no adverse impact on ecology.

An assessment of the landscape recognises that the site does not have any form of landscape designation for quality, abutting the urban edge of North Wingfield and notably the busy Willimthorpe Road (A6185) which has a strong influence on the surrounding landscape. It is considered that the site is well contained in both landscape and visual terms by landform, vegetation and existing built form, with the ability to absorb the scale of development envisaged without appearing incongruous in view of the site's context. Any effect on the local landscape is considered to be limited and minimal in extent. The assessment concludes that residential development would relate well to Little Morton Road, the existing residential development along it and the edge of North Wingfield. It comments that such scale of residential development would not be out of character or context with the nature of the landscape in which it is proposed and that it can be successfully assimilated into the local landscape without any unacceptable landscape or visual effects.

With the above in mind, development of this site for residential purposes will significantly assist with housing delivery in a sustainable location and by way of logical extension to the built settlement. As the site has no major constraints and is in single ownership with interest from a major house builder, it is available and deliverable within 5 years. It is therefore respectfully requested that this site be included in the emerging Local Plan as a residential site allocation.

Amendments required to the Plan
In context of the above representations, the following amendments are required to the Plan in order for it to be considered sound:

* Increase the OAN to better integrate the housing strategy with the economic growth strategy and clarify/detail whether any unmet needs arising between the amended plan periods has been accounted for;
* Increase/amend housing allocations in the southern sub-area to meet identified need, addressing concerns relating to cumulative impact of development along A61 corridor and associated deliverability issues;
* Account for windfall sites solely in the context of flexibility;
* Increase allocation of land in North Wingfield for housing which is identified as the most sustainable Level 2 settlement;
* Allocation of land east of Little Morton Street, North Wingfield for 265 dwellings as a sustainable location and logical extension to the built settlement; and,
* Provide clarity in the SA to compare the proposed allocations against reasonable alternatives.

Conclusion
In conclusion, it is submitted that the Plan in its current form fails the NPPF tests set out at paragraph 182 insofar that it is not positively prepared, it is not justified, it is not effective and it is not consistent with national policy for the reasons set above. It is considered that amendments are required to increase the housing target and include additional sustainable sites in southern subarea away from the A61 corridor such as North Wingfield. North Wingfield is identified as the most sustainable Level 2 settlement and our client's site would form an appropriate and logical extension to the built form. In turn this will provide choice and competition in the market for consumers and allow for a greater flexibility to ensure the District's identified housing need can be accommodated at the pace and scale required over the plan period.