National Planning Policy

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6793

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: Emma Thompson

Representation:

In reference to paragraph 1.19, some of the evidence base intended to inform the plan is dated AFTER this most recent revision of the Local Plan has been released. The plan therefore is not sound, as it is not based on a full set of robust credible evidence.

Change suggested by respondent:

The local plan needs to be revised to take into account ALL the evidence in a full and comprehensive way.

Full text:

In reference to paragraph 1.19, some of the evidence base intended to inform the plan is dated AFTER this most recent revision of the Local Plan has been released. The plan therefore is not sound, as it is not based on a full set of robust credible evidence.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7663

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Anthony Stephen Jackson

Representation:

In this representation there is listed some of the instances where the NEDDC has failed to follow NPPF guidelines for the paragraphs shown above.

The objections are very strong and will be difficult for the NEDDC to defend. So the next step is for the Inspector to resolve the matter at a hearing.

The outcome is uncertain and the result will bring bitterness to some of the losing parties involved. But what if there was an option where there was no losers


Read on...

Change suggested by respondent:

To make the local plan sound and legal the NEDDC need to follow the procedure described

Full text:

In this representation there is listed some of the instances where the NEDDC has failed to follow NPPF guidelines for the paragraphs shown above.

The objections are very strong and will be difficult for the NEDDC to defend. So the next step is for the Inspector to resolve the matter at a hearing.

The outcome is uncertain and the result will bring bitterness to some of the losing parties involved. But what if there was an option where there was no losers

Read on...


1. Refusing to work and co-operate with residents.
This includes refusing to recognise a petition of 4105 signatures rejecting their proposal to build on green belt land.

2. Deliberately withholding documents that should that should have been freely available to residents.

3. Deliberately producing a local plan that is unnecessarily too long. It is filled with planning jargon that guarantees the majority of people who attempted to read it would lose comprehension and interest in it very quickly.

4. To complement 3 above an unwieldly and lengthy representation form has been designed. This is in turn was a tremendous "turn-off" to those residents who keen to get involved, but couldn't fully understand it.

5. The counting and recording of the forms after the 2017 Consultation period was a fiasco.

Representations detailing objections, deliberately or corruptly reclassified as support representations.

6. Housing target figures were calculated in a very dubious manner and then inflated.

7. New job employment forecast figures were calculated that are unrealistic.

8. Failed to follow the guidance given on brownfield sites. At the time the initial draft plan was being produced the council didn't even have a brownfield register.

9. Also in the same timeframe of 8 above, they hadn't identified or assisted in brining singles back into use from the 700 empty ones in the district.

To sum up we have on one side, the NEDDC and Builders and developers who have an undeniable obsession to build on green belt land.

On the other hand we have the Dronfield Town Council, The Dronfield Civic Society, the CPRE and the Dronfield residents opposing them.
The programmed procedure next, will be to on a chessboard like battlefield, carefully monitored by an unbiased (I hope) Inspector. This scenario will culminate in winners and losers.
Now let's have a look at my claim that there is an option whereby there are no losers
This page dispenses with the need for a question 4 because this page will also contain what must be done to make the plan sound and legal.

1. The council is allowed to retain its high, inflated housing target number and the Dronfield residents withdraw all their housing target number objections.
2. The NEDDC rewrite and remove from the local plan all their references for the necessity to build on greenbelt land.

3. The NEDDC, the Town Councils and the residents co-operate and work together amicably, just as the NPPF Guidelines say to:

i) Obtain a comprehensive register of every potential brownfield site that exists in the district
ii) Bring back in to use all or most of the 700 empty houses
iii) Re-examine all brown field sites that have been set aside for industrial use. Where there has been no progress for say 5 years the sites should be considered for housing.

4. The NEDDC build into their local plan NOT how to try and prove there is a necessity to build on green belt.

5. Young people wishing to get on the property ladder should be given some preference for the affordable type of housing.

6. It would then become necessary to encourage the 2600 residents over the age of 65 and living alone in Dronfield to downsize. It would also be necessary for building developers to be compensated for their reduced caused by limiting the number of more expensive properties.

7. To achieve both requirements the £9000 the council receives for each house built could be shared in some agreed proportion as:

i) A cash incentive payment to single residents over the age of 65 willing to downsize.
ii) A grant to building developers for every affordable / sheltered accommodation house they build.
iii) A token payment to the council officers if considered to be warranted.
To some extent the whole process is self-sustaining. Over the next ten years of the local plan some of the over 65s will pass on and be replaced by over 55s. This in turn will free up more family type of housing.
NB. This is not an offer of compromise from Dronfield residents. It is my own personal attempt to resolve a very difficult situation.
I would imagine there are many residents who will criticise me heavily for writing this representation because they are convinced that Dronfield residents have sufficient justification to continue without a compromise.
I too have this belief, in fact more so because I believe our objections are strong enough to be upheld in court if a judicial inquiry becomes necessary.
So why have I tried to identify a compromise?
I want the Inspector to note that it was a Dronfield resident who first offered an olive branch, NOT a North East District Councillor.

I would also like the Inspector to know, if he is not already aware, that thirteen years ago government Inspector was sent to assess the exact same situation and make a ruling whether the same Dronfield green belt land should be preserved. Thankfully she made the correct decision for in hindsight we can now say:
No resulting crisis, large or small occurred.
Houses continued to be built.
Estate Agents remained buoyant and had ample for sale properties on their books boosted by the fact that Dronfield has a large turnover of people moving house.
Then the icing on the cake when Dronfield was voted the ninth best place to live in England.

I don't believe anything significant has changed. Why destroy the status quo and risk Dronfield degenerating to the ninth worst place to live in England.

Yes I live on Shakespeare Crescent overlooking the green belt. Yes I've had 25 years of pleasure watching numerous species of animal life in its natural habitat.
At 78 years old, living alone in a large family house after losing my wife to a nursing home after a stroke, I don't expect to be around much longer to enjoy these green fields. My concern now is that present and future generations of Dronfield residents continue to enjoy them.

Once these field are dug up they are lost forever.