Relationship with other Local Plans and the Duty to Co-operate

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 41

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6889

Received: 02/04/2018

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Representation:

No evidence of more than token cooperation with Chesterfield Borough in the allocation of housing.

Change suggested by respondent:

Examine housing sites on either side of the border with Chesterfield for their contribution to total housing needs.

Full text:

Whilst the SMHA and other documents show co-operation with neighbouring authorities there is little evidence of more than token co-operation in the preparation of this final plan. When asked for evidence of such co-operation the cabinet member for planning said there had been lots of meetings and they had received letters in response to NEDDC requests for contributions to housing targets. Where is the evidence of real co-operation? For example there are several brownfield sites with planning permission just over the border into Chesterfield which have sustainable locations.Also NEDDC have refused to include a major site in their area next to Hasland in Chesterfield because it serves Chesterfield. This demonstrates a failure to co-operate. To state that Chesterfield was not in a position to respond is not acceptable.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6957

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

There is no credible evidence that Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities has been rigorously undertaken. There is no Statement of Compliance within the evidence base documents as of 11/03/2018, half way through the consultation. Whilst this can be submitted to the Inspector post consultation, the Duty to Cooperate does underpin the NE Plan strategy with regard to the housing allocations and therefore part of the evidence base that neighbouring authorities have been consulted and liaised with within the HMA. This Council has indicated very clearly their position on Duty to Cooperate within the audio tape dated March 5th at the full Council meeting. They suggested that they had not received information on this from other authorities until February 6th 2018, meaning that the Duty to Cooperate evidence was not in place before the Plan was delivered as the Consultation Draft. Neither has it been altered to reflect this position between the end of the consultation and the Publication Version

Change suggested by respondent:

Not sufficient evidence about the Duty to Cooperate. Councillor Michael Gordon stated we have had meetings over this, over a number of years, months. We explained we were producing a Local Plan and could they help us out meeting our housing targets, and they said no. (Audio tape full Council meeting 5th March 2018)

Where is the evidence of this being an iterative process or that infrastructure has been discussed and that the other two districts of Bolsover and Bassetlaw, not mentioned at the meeting, have been consulted?

It is highly likely that there will be a scramble to collect this evidence up to the time of the examination in May and I would ask that the Inspector looks critically to make sure NE has in reality complied with their obligations on Duty to Co-operate.

Full text:

There is no credible evidence that Duty to Cooperate with neighbouring authorities has been rigorously undertaken. There is no Statement of Compliance within the evidence base documents as of 11/03/2018, half way through the consultation. Whilst this can be submitted to the Inspector post consultation, the Duty to Cooperate does underpin the NE Plan strategy with regard to the housing allocations. It is therefore part of the evidence base that neighbouring authorities have been consulted and liaised with within the HMA. This Council has indicated very clearly their position on Duty to Cooperate within the audio tape dated March 5th at the full Council meeting. They suggested that they had not received information on this from other authorities until February 6th 2018, meaning that the Duty to Cooperate evidence was not in place before the Plan was delivered as the Consultation Draft. Neither has it been altered to reflect this position between the end of the consultation and the Publication Version

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7019

Received: 26/03/2018

Respondent: JM Sloane

Representation:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached. Compliance/soundness tests interpreted by Council officer. Policy/paragraph identified by Council officer.

In the 'Duty to Cooperate' document there is no mention about any cooperation with schools to ensure there are sufficient school places in areas with increased housing. Why is this so?

Change suggested by respondent:

Council needs to prove that they have met their duty to cooperate obligations in regards to schools.

Full text:

I support a Greenbelt Release, explained in your Greenbelt Topic Paper. I agree with the statement in the document 4.42 that too much development in the level 2 settlements can cause a detrimental effect on these rural areas. I speak particularly of the major developments in the village of Wingerworth. I support no further development other than those already considered in this area and think that Greenbelt land should be released on the edge of the level 1 settlements.
This would mean shorter journeys from these areas to the major areas of employment, like Sheffield, less traffic congestion (already a problem on the A61), less environmental impact.
I would also support better rail connections to Chesterfield and Sheffield and Derby from areas like Clay Cross and the Avenue site at Wingerworth. This would ease congestion and provide a better method of travelling to work in the long term. A park and ride type facility could be provided at Clay Cross or the Avenue. A similar system operates successfully in some cities, such as Canterbury and Bath.
In the 'Duty to Cooperate' document there is no mention about any cooperation with schools to ensure there are sufficient school places in areas with increased housing. Why is this so?

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7037

Received: 26/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

The Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) is once again a document that has been added retrospectively to the evidence base. It has not 'informed' the Plan.

Para 34. The report concluded that for NE Derbyshire an OAN of 283 was appropriate. So for the OAN to be set at 330 means that the evidence from the GL Hearn report, October 2017 did not inform the Plan. It has been ignored because the Plan was written before it was commissioned. The Consultation Draft in February 2017, which preceded the updated 2017 report, had the OAN set at 330dpa. No changes have been made in the Publication Draft to use the HMA 283 dpa number instead.

Commissioned reports by experts in the field have been ignored by NE Derbyshire.

Change suggested by respondent:

Point 34 of the Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement is totally incorrect. The GL Hearn Report across the HMA in 2017 did not support the 330 dpa figure. It recommended 283.

NE Derbyshire then commissioned another report, 'Considering NED OAN Final Report' dated February 2018 which attempted to justify the 330 dpa already in their Plan retrospectively. No other documents in the evidence base support the 330 dpa figure. NE took the 283 out of context with the HMA and inflated it for economic growth and 10% uplift for affordable housing to 330. Both economic growth and affordable housing were already accommodated within the 283.

The latest document (February 2018) attempts to justify the 330 dpa retrospectively through a 'potential' growth scenario which even the authors - Lichfield's state that 'limited conclusions' can be drawn from it.

Unsound, not justified, no duty to co-operate in evidence. NE ignored its own commissioned report.

Full text:

Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement para 34
The Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) is once again a document that has been added retrospectively to the evidence base. It has not 'informed' the Plan. 44 words

"Point 34.GL Hearn produced the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA OAN update report in 2017, and this has formed the basis of the most up to date
consideration of housing needs across the HMA (for North East Derbyshire
the housing target taken forward in the Publication Draft Plan is 330 dwellings per annum for the period 2014-2034)."

The conclusion of the report was that for NE Derbyshire an OAN of 283 was appropriate. So for the OAN to be set at 330 means that the evidence from the GL Hearn report in October 2017 did not inform the Plan. It has been ignored because the Plan was written before it was commissioned. The Consultation Draft in February 2017, which preceded the updated 2017 report, had the OAN set at 330dpa. No changes have been made in the Publication Draft to use the HMA 283 dpa number instead.

Commissioned reports by experts in the field have been ignored by NE. Here is supporting evidence from the GL Hearn Report of October 2017 which I request be submitted to the Planning inspector in full.

All the evidence from the 110-page report suggests that there is no credible reason to inflate the number any more than 283 which already has uplift for affordable housing and economic growth.

2.3 The report identified that drawing conclusions on how a local economy may perform in the longer-term is inevitably a difficult exercise, given the multitude of potential influences on future economic performance together with economic uncertainties at both a national and local level.

The forecast for employment growth of 0.2% pa across the HMA is relatively modest with all four authorities expected to see below average employment growth.

3.55 The higher employment growth assumptions in the Growth Scenario result in notably higher levels of housing need in each authority. Across the HMA the baseline scenario is 2.2% above the demographic need; and growth scenario a significant 33% above the demographic need.

NE Derbyshire has chosen the growth or regeneration scenario taking it out of context with its neighbouring authorities.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7044

Received: 27/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

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

The Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) is once again a document that has been added retrospectively to the evidence base. It has not 'informed' the Plan.
Point 99 Dronfield's medical facilities are all over capacity. To suggest that reconfiguration and extension is appropriate for the constrained sites with limited patient car parking facilities is irresponsible. It is not credible planning to allocate more houses when your Infrastructure Plan has indicated that Dronfield hasn't the capacity regards medical facilities.
"Point 100. "and the preferred approach of the CCG's is to seek to improve capacity within existing GP practices through re-configuration or extensions."
In other words we will build the houses and see how the CCGs will cope. This is not credible planning.
Point 101. People tend to use their local doctors.

Change suggested by respondent:

There is nothing in the Infrastructure Plan to suggest that anything will be done to provide additional medical facilities to support the housing allocations in Dronfield.
To increase Dronfield's population by more than 5% without a plan about who will fund these proposals and how they can physically happen on their constrained sites is again highly irresponsible. It remains a 'cart before the horse' plan.
This particular issue of infrastructure was tabled at a debate in Parliament by NE Derbyshire MP Lee Rowley. It stressed the importance of having infrastructure in place before houses are built not during or afterwards.
Responsible Councils should recognise that some settlements are up to the limit regards schools, medical facilities, car parking facilities and the road network around and through them and therefore that small scale sustainable growth is the key to maintaining the places that the Plan seeks to promote through its Vision.
Unsound, not justified, not positively prepared. Lacking any substance with regard to Infrastructure Planning. Duty to Cooperate is taken to mean put the responsibility onto someone else.

Full text:

Duty to Co-operate para 99, 100
The Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) is once again a document that has been added retrospectively to the evidence base. It has not 'informed' the Plan.
Point 99 Dronfield's medical facilities are all over capacity. To suggest that reconfiguration and extension is appropriate for the constrained sites with limited patient car parking facilities is irresponsible. It is not credible planning to allocate more houses when your Infrastructure Plan has indicated that Dronfield hasn't the capacity regards medical facilities.
"Point 100. "and the preferred approach of the CCG's is to seek to improve capacity within existing GP practices through re-configuration or extensions."
In other words we will build the houses and see how the CCGs will cope. Again this is not credible planning.
Point 101. Yes people can choose to go to whichever doctor they want, but in the main, in a community like Dronfield, the majority attend a medical practice in town

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7047

Received: 26/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Council Officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

The Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) was added retrospectively to the evidence base and not 'informed' the Plan.
Para 35. How contrived. The site is at Hasland could accommodate 160 houses, but was discounted on the basis of 'site selection methodology' and being near a neighbouring authority. Demonstration of a lack of duty to cooperate.
Para 42. NE has managed to dismiss sites at Bolsover and Bassetlaw as they 'would not relate well to the district.'
Clear evidence of a complete lack of a duty to cooperate - so much easier to allocate houses on the NED Green Belt rather than to fully and rigorously pursue these possible alternatives. They have not even waited for an answer from Bassetlaw, already having dismissed it because it is not well-related.


Change suggested by respondent:

Start again.

Rework the Spatial distribution to include the 160 dwellings at Hasland and examine what Bolsover can offer. Wait and see whether Bassetlaw can help and then come up with the housing allocations. Protect the Green Belt as a priority rather than using it as a mechanism for development.
The real reason behind the lack of allocations in Bolsover and the dismissing of Bassetlaw is nothing to do with the areas not being well-related to NE Derbyshire. It is more to do with the fact that the Duty to Co-operate has come too late in the process for it to benefit the Plan and its Spatial Strategy. To accept land for housing in Bolsover would mean that the whole spatial strategy and Plan would have to be revised.
Please investigate why NE has not allocated land next to a neighbouring authority for housing and not co-operated with Bolsover on housing allocation sites. They are excuses because they had already decided to take the Green Belt (pre 2017) before fully exploring all other reasonable alternatives.
Full written submission to the Planning Inspector.

Full text:

The Duty to Co-operate Compliance Statement which wasn't part of the consultation evidence until 22nd March (4 weeks into the 6 week consultation period) is once again a document that has been added retrospectively to the evidence base. It has not 'informed' the Plan.

"Point 35. 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."

How contrived. The site in question is at Hasland and could accommodate 160 houses, but it has been discounted on the basis of 'site selection methodology' and being near a neighbouring authority. What a poor excuse and a demonstration of a lack of duty to cooperate.

Point 42.
"At the time of writing although no response had been received from Bassetlaw,
it is considered that sites within Bassetlaw District would not relate well to
the district and meeting the housing needs within North East Derbyshire."

So NE has managed to dismiss Bolsover and Bassetlaw for the same reason that they 'would not relate well to the district.' Yet sites next to adjoining authorities are dismissed because they are adjacent to them.

This is clear evidence of a complete lack of a duty to cooperate. It is of course so much easier to allocate houses on the NE Derbyshire Green Belt rather than to fully and rigorously pursue these possible alternatives. They have not even waited for an answer from Bassetlaw, already having dismissed it because it is not well-related. All this is extremely tokenistic and because Duty to Co-operate has been retrospective to the publishing of the Plan. Further evidence about how late the Duty to Co-operate has been in the planning process can be found by listening to the audio tape of the full Council Meeting on March 5th 2018 when Councillor Michael Gordon stated that the meetings with Chesterfield and Sheffield had in fact taken place as late as the 6th February 2018. Hardly surprising then that Bassetlaw hasn't responded yet.

Attachments:

Support

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7071

Received: 26/03/2018

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; Council Officer has made the interpretation.
No objection in principle.
Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance
The Environment Agency can confirm we have been involved throughout the Local Plan process and has no further comments to make

Full text:

Representation not received on representation form; Council Officer has made the interpretation.
No objection in principle.
Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance
The Environment Agency can confirm we have been involved throughout the Local Plan process and has no further comments to make.

Attachments:

Support

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7156

Received: 27/03/2018

Respondent: Chesterfield Borough Council

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form: Council officer has made interpretation

DUTY TO CO-OPERATE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Chesterfield Borough Council and North East Derbyshire have a long history of co-operation, as neighbouring council's, as part of the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA and as members of both Sheffield City Region and D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnerships. The council supports the Statement as being an accurate record of co-operation between the two planning authorities.

The list of joint evidence base documents at Table 2 is a full and complete record, as are the tables of joint working groups set out in tables 3 and 4.

Chesterfield Borough, North East Derbyshire District, Bolsover District and Bassetlaw District are currently preparing a joint Statement of Common Ground, which will provide further evidence in support of the Duty to Co-operate.

Full text:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the draft North East Derbyshire Local Plan and related documents.
Detailed comments and observations are set out below. As well as commenting on the Publication
Draft of the Local Plan, we have also provided comments on the Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance and Green Belt Topic paper. Where appropriate, reference is made to the council's comments on the draft Local Plan published in February 2017. The comments have been prepared by officers and approved by the Council's Executive Member for Planning.
Wherever possible, comments have been related to a specific policy or paragraph of the Local Plan publication draft.
Subject to the detailed comments set out below, overall the council is of the view that the plan has been positively prepared, is justified, effective and consistent with national policy as expressed in the National Planning Policy Framework.
We note that the consultation on the Local Plan ends on 4th April 2018 but that further documents may be published for consultation. The council may make further representations that relate to the Local Plan as a result of these further consultations.

NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE LOCAL PLAN
VISION AND OBJECTIVES
D3 Tourism
SUPPORT the inclusion of Chesterfield Canal as a district wide objective. This project is the subject of on-going co-operation between the districts and councils through the Chesterfield Canal Partnership.
D7 Settlement Identity
SUPPORT objective
D14 Strategic Co-operation
SUPPORT the inclusion of the objective. Mechanisms and pathways for Co-operation on cross boundary issues between Chesterfield Borough and North East Derbyshire District are already well established through the HMA wide Local Plan Liaison Group, Sheffield City Region Planning Policy Officers Group, and Derbyshire Planning Policy Officers group. This co-operation has resulted in a strong shared evidence base across the LPA including the SHMA (currently being updated), Retail Study, Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment, and agreed methodologies for Land Availability Assessment and Green Belt Reviews.
N2 Countryside Recreation
SUPPORT reinstatement of Chesterfield Canal
S2 Regeneration
SUPPORT recognition of the role of Chesterfield as a key employment area

SPATIAL STRATEGY
Paras 4.7 to 4.12 and Policy SS2 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
We note the revised housing target of 330 dwellings per annum and SUPPORT the overall approach to meeting the District's Objectively Assessed Housing Need of 283 dwellings per annum within the district across the plan period, as previously discussed and agreed through the Local Plan Liaison group. The approach of setting a higher target to address affordability issues and support economic growth within the District is a reasonable approach and supported by robust evidence (as set out in para 9.26 of the joint North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw OAN update).
We note that an allowance has been made of 13% on top of the dwellings target. We do feel the plan could be clearer about how this buffer has been calculated, setting out the approach described in the council's Housing Topic Paper.
The council does note that the buffer relies almost entirely on windfalls and the associated topic paper sets out the evidence for this. As a result, any significant increase in lapse rate, or under delivery on numbers on allocated sites, could result in a shortfall of allocated housing supply and may increase pressure on neighbouring districts to allocate further land or to take the shortfall into account when calculating housing supply. Windfall and lapse rates should be closely monitored throughout the plan period.
SS3 The Avenue
The council SUPPORTS the allocation of the Avenue site as a Priority Regeneration Area. The development of this site will need to be the subject of ongoing co-operation on cross boundary impacts, in particular the cumulative impact of additional traffic on the highways network and specifically on the A61 corridor.
SS5 Markham Vale
SUPPORT the policy intention to bring forward development in line with the approved Design Framework.
SS6 Coalite Priority Regeneration Area
The council SUPPORTS the allocation of the Coalite site as a Priority Regeneration Area. The development of this site will need to be the subject of ongoing co-operation on cross boundary impacts, in particular the impact of additional traffic on the highways network and specifically on the capacity of J29a of the M1 and the Chesterfield Road/Rectory Road junction, taking into account the cumulative impacts of this proposal, land south of Markham Vale (policy SS7), the associated development of the Coalite site in Bolsover District, and the Staveley Works and Eastern Villages proposals in the adopted Chesterfield Borough Core Strategy and emerging draft Local Plan.
Whilst recognising the uncertainty in the end form of development created by the revised route of HS2 through the site, we do believe that the policy should nonetheless identify the range of uses that would be considered acceptable on the site and some indication of the potential scale of development.
Settlement Development Limits
Regarding Settlement Limits, the plan states that:

"4.58 This approach complies with the plan-led approach advocated in national policy(NPPF); since the Local Plan identifies sufficient housing provision for the District to meet both a five year supply of housing on adoption of the Plan and the development requirements for the Plan period. Further land outside Settlement Development Limits is therefore not required to meet this need."

The borough council does not have any comment regarding the use of SDLs as a policy tool, but are concerned that there is limited flexibility in delivering the housing requirement (13% buffer reliant on windfalls). In this regard it would be helpful if the Plan would explain why a review of SDLs was not assessed as a reasonable option in the plan preparation.
GREEN BELT
Para 4.69
SUPPORT the methodology used in undertaking a Green Belt review. We can confirm that the council was consulted on the methodology.
SS10 North East Derbyshire Green Belt
NOTE that the Proposals Map key refers to policy SS7 rather than SS10.
We note that that some areas of release are close to the borough boundary (and immediately adjacent in the case of releases south of Eckington) but have no objections in principle to the proposed releases.

HOUSING
LC1 Housing Allocations
SUPPORT the approach to meeting housing need. We note that sufficient allocations have been made to meet the outstanding housing need arising from applying the housing target in SS2 when completions are taken into account.
LC4 Type and Mix of Housing -
SUPPORT the policy approach to require a proportion of accessible and adaptable dwellings to reflect demographic projections within the HMA.
PROVISION FOR GYPSIES AND TRAVELLERS
Para 5.103 to para 5.106
Chesterfield Borough Council wishes to lodge a holding OBJECTION to this section of the Local Plan. This may be withdrawn if robust evidence is published on site identification and assessment.
The council is concerned that the NEDDC Local Plan does not allocate any sites for Gypsies and Travellers to meet the need identified in the Derbyshire Peak District and East Staffordshire Gypsies & Travellers Accommodation Assessment 2014. Whilst there is no objection in principal to the use of a criteria based policy where no suitable sites can be identified, to date no information on site identification and assessment has been published that supports the proposed criteria based policy approach. A request for assistance under the Duty to Cooperate to find sites for Gypsies and Travellers has been made by NEDDC to the borough council on the basis of a lack of suitable sites:
'NEDDC would request under the Duty-to-Cooperate that consideration be given to enabling one to two pitches to contribute towards meeting Travellers needs in North East Derbyshire, given this Council is struggling to identify suitable sites through the Local Plan process and is likely to have to rely upon a criteria based policy. NEDDC is still positively seeking to identify potential sites, however if CBC is in a position to assist this would give more flexibility to provision at the wider level and help meet the identified need in the 'North Derbyshire' Gypsy and Traveller housing market area.' The council considers that any site identification and assessment work undertaken by NEDDC should be published as soon as possible and reasonable time given to allow interested parties to make informed responses on the publication NEDDC Local Plan prior to submission to the SoS.
If the identified pitch requirements (15 pitches) are not met within NEDDC there will be a shortfall across the North Derbyshire GT HMA. This may result in additional pressure for sites within the borough and may lead to an increased risk of unauthorised encampments.
LC8 Provision for Traveller Sites
We acknowledge the difficulties with finding available and suitable sites and consider that the proposal to allow Gypsy and Traveller sites in the countryside (LC8 2) is a positive step to increasing provision in the North Derbyshire GT HMA , but could be strengthened by the inclusion of appropriate wording in policy SS9 to make it clear that Gypsy and Traveller Sites are a category in terms of criteria 1 of policy SS9.
Chesterfield Borough Council OBJECTS to the wording of Criteria 3 of policy LC8 and is concerned that the wording of LC8 (3) may prevent otherwise suitable sites from being delivered in NEDDC which could help to meet the needs identified for the HMA needs, particularly in the absence of any site allocations. Bolsover District Council has stated they cannot meet their own pitch requirements and Chesterfield Borough Council is in the process of assessing sites and cannot confirm whether sufficient sites can be found to meet needs within the borough. Planning applications for traveller sites should be determined on their merits and in accordance with the other criteria set out in policy LC8 and other parts of the plan, and in accordance with the national Planning Policy for Traveller Sites, without having to individually demonstrate a need.
WORKING COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Para 6.17
SUPPORT the approach to allowing some capacity for losses of employment land over the plan period.
RETAIL AND TOWN CENTRES
WC5 Retail Hierarchy and Town Centre Uses
SUPPORT the sequential approach taken to the location of retail development. We note that in some locations, sequential assessments for planning applications for retail development may need to consider sites within Chesterfield Borough but expect this to be resolved through normal Development Control processes.
WC6 Visitor Economy and Tourism
SUPPORT the policy approach and specific reference to Chesterfield Canal.

SUSTAINABLE PLACES
SUPPORT the general approach taken to identifying and planning for key settlements. Agree that the settlements identified are the correct ones for the policy approach set out.
SP2 Clay Cross
We acknowledge the need for ongoing engagement across boundaries and with DCC regarding the impact of new development on the A61 corridor. This is already occurring under the umbrella of the A61 Growth Strategy and Investment Plan being led by Derbyshire County Council.
SP3 Eckington & SP4 Killamarsh
We note that Yorkshire Water have previously raised concerns about the ability of the Staveley Waste Water Treatment Works to accommodate additional growth in the east of Chesterfield Borough without further investment in capacity.
SDC10 decentralised, renewable and low carbon energy generation
We note that no sites have been identified within the district as suitable for windfarm development. SDC11 Flood Risk
SUPPORT the policy approach, in particular as a number of watercourses in NEDDC also run through areas of high flood risk in Chesterfield Borough (including the rivers Hipper and Rother). We note that interventions to reduce flood risk within Chesterfield Borough may involve works within North East Derbyshire; including the Avenue improvement schemes on the Rother and the Tin Mill storage reservoir on the River Hipper. At the time of writing these are identified on Chesterfield Borough's draft Local Plan IDP and within the scope of its CIL Regulation 123 list, which could enable contribution to these and similar schemes from developments within the borough.
We note the role of DCC as lead local flood authority and that proposed work on the Integrated Chesterfield Flood Model may also be beneficial for NEDDC too.
SDC13 Environmental Quality
SUPPORT the policy approach to requiring appropriate assessments. We note that this may involve identifying locations within Chesterfield Borough that will need to be assessed in relation to specific planning applications (particularly in relation to the A61/Derby Road and air quality) and expect this to be resolved through the normal Development Control processes.

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

Para 9.5
SUPPORT the general approach to infrastructure provision set out. We note that there are likely to be specific instances of infrastructure provision where the Duty to Co-operate may apply, particularly in respect of the Staveley Waste Water works and the Tin Mill Flood reservoir. We note that Chesterfield Borough has implemented CIL and there exists the potential that some of this expenditure could support projects within North East Derbyshire to the benefit of both LPAs.
ID6 Green Infrastructure
SUPPORT the policy aim of improving and extending the network. We are committed to working jointly where links can be made across LPA boundaries.
ID8 Chesterfield Canal -
SUPPORT policy. Believe the policy could be further enhanced by adding text to actively seek enhancement/restoration of the canal where new development is proposed/permitted on or adjacent to it.
ID2 provision and safeguarding of transport infrastructure
SUPPORT the policy and in particular the Identification of "The A61 corridor from south of Chesterfield to Clay Cross as a priority area for a combination of sustainable transport measures and highways improvements".
ID1 infrastructure delivery and developer contributions
SUPPORT policy approach and note that this may require cross boundary co-operation on delivery of specific infrastructure proposals and that suitable mechanisms exist through the Derbyshire County Council Infrastructure Plan process and Local Plan Liaison Group to identify these on an ongoing basis.

DUTY TO CO-OPERATE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Chesterfield Borough Council and North East Derbyshire have a long history of co-operation, as neighbouring council's, as part of the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA and as members of both Sheffield City Region and D2N2 Local Enterprise Partnerships. The council supports the Statement as being an accurate record of co-operation between the two planning authorities.
The list of joint evidence base documents at Table 2 is a full and complete record, as are the tables of joint working groups set out in tables 3 and 4.
Chesterfield Borough, North East Derbyshire District, Bolsover District and Bassetlaw District are currently preparing a joint Statement of Common Ground, which will provide further evidence in support of the Duty to Co-operate.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7319

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Sandra Fraser

Representation:

If the LEP Growth Deals have netted £480million approx. for the region how have we(in NEDDC) benefited apart from the A61 growth corridor improvements promise? There seems to be little benefit from this money so far for the areas in the far north of this area eg around Killamarsh.
Surely it would be more appropriate to identify where 2600 jobs are going to be sited then build housing near to the jobs if "Green" ideals are important? It is surely wrong to build over 500 houses around Killamarsh if no jobs are to be created around here?

Change suggested by respondent:

Plan jobs then housing nearby

Full text:

If the LEP Growth Deals have netted £480million approx. for the region how have we(in NEDDC) benefited apart from the A61 growth corridor improvements promise? There seems to be little benefit from this money so far for the areas in the far north of this area eg around Killamarsh.
Surely it would be more appropriate to identify where 2600 jobs are going to be sited then build housing near to the jobs if "Green" ideals are important? It is surely wrong to build over 500 houses around Killamarsh if no jobs are to be created around here?

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7346

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: Mr John Fletcher

Representation:

Whilst the plan states that some co-operation with neighbouring authorities there is little evidence of more than token co-operation in the preparation of this final plan. Where is the evidence of real co-operation?
For example there are several brownfield sites with planning permission just over the border into Chesterfield which have sustainable locations. Also NEDDC have refused to include a major site in their area
next to Hasland in Chesterfield because it serves Chesterfield. This demonstrates a failure to co-operate. To state that Chesterfield was not in a position to respond is not acceptable.

Change suggested by respondent:

There is no evidence of more than token cooperation with Chesterfield Borough in the allocation of housing.

Full text:

Whilst the plan states that some co-operation with neighbouring authorities there is little evidence of more than token co-operation in the preparation of this final plan. Where is the evidence of real co-operation?
For example there are several brownfield sites with planning permission just over the border into Chesterfield which have sustainable locations. Also NEDDC have refused to include a major site in their area
next to Hasland in Chesterfield because it serves Chesterfield. This demonstrates a failure to co-operate. To state that Chesterfield was not in a position to respond is not acceptable.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7622

Received: 26/03/2018

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation.

Respondent objects to the draft Plan because NEDDC would need to show that it has cooperated with neighbouring councils like Chesterfield and Bolsover. There is little evidence of that in the Plan and the Statement of Compliance is not included in the evidence base.

In summary, the committee of the Dronfield Civic Society maintains that the Publication Plan is neither sound nor legally compliant. It is not positively prepared, justified, not consistent with national policy, and has not demonstrated that the Duty to Cooperate has been met.

Change suggested by respondent:

The Council needs to demonstrate that is has consulted with its neighbouring local authorities.

Full text:

Full representation attached

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7697

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mr Martin Speed

Agent: WYG (Harrogate office)

Representation:

Council officers have amended the summary to approximately 100 words. Full representation attached.

It is considered that the Council should provide further evidence to demonstrate that they have complied with the legal requirement of the Duty to Cooperate. This should include robust evidence, in terms of ensuring the soundness of the Local Plan, in order to address whether there is a need to accommodate any unmet housing need from neighbouring authorities, including those within the Sheffield City Region and Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire D2N2 LEPs, within North East Derbyshire.

Change suggested by respondent:

It is considered that the Council's draft Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance dated March 2018 should be worked up to demonstrate that they have complied with the legal requirement of the Duty to Cooperate and, in terms of ensuring the soundness of the Local Plan, refer to robust evidence, as appropriate, in order to address whether there is a need to accommodate any unmet housing need from neighbouring authorities, including those within the Sheffield City Region and Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire D2N2 LEPs, within North East Derbyshire.

Full text:

The Council must co-operate with other prescribed bodies to maximise the effectiveness of plan making under Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011, which introduced Section 33A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), notably at paragraphs 156 and 178 to 181 inclusive, sets out the principles of the Duty to Cooperate, and further guidance is provided in the national Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG). The NPPF paragraph 47 seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and confirms, amongst other things, that local planning authorities should ensure that their Local Plan meets the full objectively assessed needs (OAHN) for market and affordable housing in the housing market area (HMA). NPPF paragraph 182 notes that for Plans to be positively prepared they should meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development.
North East Derbyshire is understood to comprise part of the North Derbyshire / North Nottingham HMA, in conjunction with Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Chesterfield District Councils. The Council's draft Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance dated March 2018 notes that North East Derbyshire have received no requests to accommodate any unmet housing needs from the other Council's within the HMA and no assistance was available from these Councils to assist with meeting North East Derbyshire's housing needs. It is noted that the NPPG advises that plan dates should be coordinated but this is not the case for this HMA, with North East Derbyshire 2014-2034, Chesterfield 2016-2033, Bassetlaw 2019-2034 and no specific details For Bolsover at this stage.
North East Derbyshire District abuts Sheffield City and the draft Plan acknowledges that there are economic and commuting relationships with the Sheffield City Region. At this stage it is not known whether Sheffield will be able to meet its OAHN, or if part of any unmet needs will have to be located elsewhere, such as in North East Derbyshire. It is considered that this relationship between Sheffield City Region and any unmet housing need should be fully considered in relation to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, along with the relevant HMA and OAHN.
Two other neighbouring authorities abut North East Derbyshire District, in addition to the North Derbyshire / North Nottinghamshire HMA authorities, namely Derbyshire Dales which is defined as its own HMA and Amber Valley which forms part of the Derby (HMA) District Councils. There are also two Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) for the Sheffield City Region and the Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire D2N2.
Taking the above matters into account it is considered that the Council should provide further evidence to demonstrate that they have complied with the legal requirement of the Duty to Cooperate. This should include robust evidence, in terms of ensuring the soundness of the Local Plan, in order to address whether there is a need to accommodate any unmet housing need from neighbouring authorities, including those within the Sheffield City Region and Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire D2N2 LEPs, within North East Derbyshire.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7862

Received: 17/04/2018

Respondent: Heather Brown

Representation:

11 April, one week into extended consultation period - visited Dronfield Library to view paper copy of DtC Statement of Compliance. Document not present. Documents present: Publication Draft, Consultation Draft, Policies Maps 1-5, ONE "Guidance Notes" leaflet. No representation forms, no information indicating consultation has been extended, no information about new deadlines, no list of additional documents relating to Plan (so residents are aware that these documents exist should they wish to view). Difficult, if not impossible, for non-internet-users who cannot travel to council offices to view said document to participate in extended consultation.

Change suggested by respondent:

Please provide the paper copy of this document to Dronfield Library immediately. Plus other documents and forms, as detailed above.

Full text:

11 April, one week into extended consultation period - visited Dronfield Library to view paper copy of DtC Statement of Compliance. Document not present. Documents present: Publication Draft, Consultation Draft, Policies Maps 1-5, ONE "Guidance Notes" leaflet. No representation forms, no information indicating consultation has been extended, no information about new deadlines, no list of additional documents relating to Plan (so residents are aware that these documents exist should they wish to view). Difficult, if not impossible, for non-internet-users who cannot travel to council offices to view said document to participate in extended consultation.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7926

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Member of Parliament

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation. Full representation attached.

The NPPF places great importance upon local planning authorities working with neighbouring authorities to identify developable sites across local boundaries. However, NEDDC has not comprehensively demonstrated a duty to cooperate with necessary cross-boundary authorities:

* the evidence base for the Duty to Cooperate was absent for the majority of the consultation period when it should, in fact, inform the plan preparation process, and;
* the Duty to Cooperate Draft Statement of Compliance does not provide enough evidence to demonstrate evidence of cooperation with other local authorities and third parties.

Change suggested by respondent:

NEDDC should work further with cross-boundary authorities before submitting their publication draft Local Plan.

It is important that NEDDC supply evidence that the sewage infrastructure plans for 6,600 dwellings are in place for the District.

Full text:

North East Derbyshire District Council (NEDDC) has invited comments on the latest draft of their local plan. As the Member of Parliament covering the majority of the District, I have received hundreds of representations from local residents concerned about aspects of this plan and, over multiple meetings in both 2017 and 2018, have heard of their concerns, particularly with regards to the proposed house building. Having reviewed the document, I am unconvinced that it, or the underlying assumptions upon which it is constructed, are sound and justified.

I believe that the plan fails the following soundness tests:

* Positively prepared: this plan has neither demonstrated that it is meeting objectively assessed need nor is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
* Justified: the plan does not adopt the most appropriate strategy in regards to house building after consideration of the alternatives, nor is it;
* Consistent with national policy: the plan proposes release of greenbelt land despite there not being exceptional circumstances proven in the District.

To illustrate the above soundness issues, the Planning Inspectorate may wish to review the following parts of the plan:

* The calculations used to determine house-building requirements which are both excessive in their starting point and arguably calculate their composition incorrectly;
* The evaluation of sustainability which appears to simply assume the largest settlements are the most sustainable without having properly evaluated the evidence;
* The justification for the removal of greenbelt land which appears unproven and certainly not exceptional;
* The duty to cooperate which appears to not have been comprehensively demonstrated, and;
* The process followed by the Council on this document which in my view, and the view of many residents, has been flawed and has failed to follow their own guidance.

House building calculations

The calculations made to assess the requirement for house building, and the assessment about how that requirement will be met, appear incorrect, inconsistent and, in places, omit crucial information:

* In terms of demand:
o The requirement to build 6,600 houses is excessive;
o The assumptions which are used to justify that 6,600 number are flawed or unproven;
* In terms of supply:
o The accommodation made for both completed dwellings and plots with existing planning permissions appear to omit information;
o There is insufficient accommodation of windfall sites within the calculations, and; o Plots available on brownfield sites have been inappropriately disregarded.

Need to build 6,600 houses is excessive
Multiple different calculations of housing need have been made for North East Derbyshire in recent years:
* 199 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections)
* 200 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections including ONS 2015 Mid Year Population Estimates)
* 216 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections with additional adjustment for headship return to trend rates)
* 217 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections including ONS 2015 Mid Year Population Estimates with additional adjustment for headship return to trend rates)
* 225 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections with additional modelling around 10-year migration trends)
* 236 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections with additional modelling around 10-year migration trends and an adjustment for unattributable population change)
* 243 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections with additional modelling around 1o-year migration trends and adjustment for headship return to trend rates)
* 254 houses per annum (ONS 2014 sub-national population projections with additional modelling around 1o-year migration trends and adjustments for unattributable population change and headship return to trend rates
* 276 houses per annum (Government's proposed standardised OAN methodology)2 * 332 houses per annum (Growth job-led scenario)

Faced with these ten different models, North East Derbyshire District Council has chosen to base their objectively assessed housing needs on the highest number available (330 houses per annum - a rounding down of the 332 houses per annum proposed by the growth job-led scenario). This scenario is a full 20% higher than the next estimate and 66% higher than the smallest. Given that a scenario has been used which is so far out of the mainstream of estimates, it should be expected

that NEDDC has provided a full and comprehensive justification for doing so. That justification is insufficient. According to NEDDC, the use of this growth job-led scenario is based upon the need to "reflect a realistic and reasonable future economic growth", "to provide support and not constraint for economic growth" and to support the "delivery of more affordable housing ":

* Economic Growth: many of the above scenarios account for economic growth, including growth which would support net increases in employment of up to 1,900 jobs5. The growth job-led scenario adopted instead proposes not just growth but an extreme and excessive amount of growth that is unlikely to be realised - and which, by the SHMA's own admission requires the construction of 33% more houses than would be required by demographic need . More fundamentally, the SHMA itself confirms that "a level of policy intervention and support" would be required to support growth rates of this magnitude; yet, there is little detail on these proposed policies interventions that NEDDC will undertake to ensure this kind of growth would be realistic.

* Provide support: Further, the growth job-led scenario proposes to "provide support and not constraint" for economic growth but, in doing so, significantly overshoots the number of properties that will be required. North East Derbyshire District Council has managed job growth of approximately 0.5% per year since 2004 without the level of house building now proposed. Similarly, the population growth in the local authority area does not correlate exactly to economic growth rates, with just a 2% hike between 2004-2014. NEDDC itself states that "due also to the existing significantly low job densities, an increased growth in jobs would not directly lead to the need to increase planned housing provision". The SHMA also confirms that, despite recent higher economic growth in the District, long-term growth in house prices in North East Derbyshire (which is the best ultimate proxy for actual demand) have been "modest" and that there are "very limited comparative pressures from market signals" in the SHMA area .

In addition, North East Derbyshire has significantly higher proportion of over 65s compared to both the East Midlands as a whole and the United Kingdom in total (approximately 24% of the District's population compared to 18% of the region and 19% of the country) . As a result, it is highly likely that as current populations leave the District and new households are formed over the coming twenty years, that there is significant potential to accommodate population and workforce growth without a large increase in dwelling numbers.

* To support new social housing: Finally, NEDDC have also justified the adoption of the growth job-led scenario to support the construction of new social housing. The assumptions behind this have not been released in sufficient detail to enable meaningful comment.

Based upon the above, NEDDC have not adequately explained or justified their choice of scenario to require the construction of 6,600 homes in the District by 2034. This is arguably similar to the attempt by Burnley Borough Council to utilise a figure at the top of the range projected for them and which was reduced by the Planning Inspectorate in November 2018 .

Given the failure to adequately justify, and given the failure to adopt one of the more mainstream figures offered in the OAN, NEDDC should be required to reduce the target figure for house building in the District. There is no necessity, nor clear requirement to adopt, a demand scenario which is of such a degree larger than many other assessments made by the Council's own consultants - particularly given that the Council are having to exceptionally release greenbelt as a consequence.

The assumptions which are used to justify that 6,600 number are flawed
Along with being at the top of the range of demand assessments for North East Derbyshire, the 6,600 number has a number of flaws in its calculation. These are:

* the economic projections used as a basis for calculating housing need were influenced by information not made public by NEDDC;
* the growth scenario is dependent on policy intervention that is not mapped out in the Plan or supporting documents;
* NEDDC ignores reputable economic projections whilst simultaneously warning against altering them;
* inconsistent and out-of-date information is used to calculate growth projections;
* there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the District can provide the necessary infrastructure to support projected economic growth;
* NEDDC admits that an increased growth in jobs would not necessarily lead to the need to increase housing, and;
* there is no evidence to suggest that market demand for housing in North East Derbyshire would justify the need to build as many as 6,600 houses up to 2034.

Firstly, the jobs growth projections were based on "discussions with NEDDC officers", as per the
Considering North East's Derbyshire's OAN 2018 report, Lichfields' Economic Growth Analysis 2018, and the Employment Land Review 2017.16 No minutes or supplementary information about these meetings have been made public on the NEDDC website regarding these discussions. Without transparent information about the content of these discussions, it is impossible to assess how the growth projections were calculated. At least one interpretation of the 2017 SHMA-OAN Update is suggestive that the influence of officers' opinion, rather factual evidence, may have contributed to this growth assessment.

Housing need must be objectively assessed. Projection-based estimates must be "clearly explained and justified on the basis of established sources of robust evidence". Without public information regarding the discussions and further clarity on the methodology, it is impossible to judge whether the housing need has been objectively assessed and whether the Plan is positively prepared. Established sources of robust evidence have not been clearly explained or proven.

Secondly, and as outlined in the previous section, the growth scenario would be dependent upon policy interventions undertaken by NEDDC to have any chance to realise it. NEDDC have not published further details of what the policy intervention and support would be. The projections are reliant upon further conditions not explained within the Local Plan, and, therefore, can not be reasonably said to be achievable and, therefore, desirable.

Furthermore, GL Hearn's comments within the Economic Growth Analysis 2018 confirm that upon consideration of adopting a regeneration/growth scenario "the Council test the potential to support the higher growth or regeneration scenario figure in bringing together the evidence through the plan-making process". However, there does not appear to have been a test of the potential to support the regeneration scenario in North East Derbyshire within the plan-making process. If this is the case then this is a serious omission in the evidence base to support the adoption of this scenario.

Thirdly, NEDDC ignores other tested and reputable methods of calculating housing need in favour of their own regeneration scenario. By using the regeneration scenario to bolster their housing need numbers, NEDDC are actively contradicting the Government's objectively assessed housing need target of 276 dwellings per year - and doing so with a variance of nearly 20%.

NEDDC chooses to reject the jobs growth projections of Oxford Economics and Experian, and even an average of all forecasts in place of the regeneration/growth scenario. Yet, the local authority admit that Oxford Economics and Experian are highly reputable forecasting houses. Furthermore, they explicitly note that "there are inherent dangers in manually amending these projections".

Fourthly, the data used by GL Hearn and Lichfield with NEDDC to calculate the regeneration scenario's growth projections are often inconsistent and out of date.

- the commuting patterns data is from the 2011 census - almost eight years old;
- the second job data for NED from 2004-2015 is missing patches of dates (2012-2014, 20142015) and is, therefore, unreliable;
- Unemployment data starts from 2004; something which is inconsistent with the employment data, which starts from 1993 (paragraph 3.14), and;
- The unemployment data doesn't differentiate between retired and other forms of unemployment. This is significant in a District with a larger than average population of over 65s.

The dates of the evidence base aren't comparable, specific enough or consistent enough to provide robust evidence to suggest that the jobs growth projection and housing need is accurate.
Furthermore, the methods used by NEDDC to calculate affordable housing need also contain out-ofdate data. For example, the current supply of affordable housing is based on data from 2013-16.
Local authorities, however, are required as part of the Localism Act 2011 to monitor housing supply and create an annual report . NEDDC has published their 2017 authority monitoring report, so more up-to-date data was available. Paragraph 158 of the NPPF places significance upon up-to-date evidence when preparing a Local Plan. NEDDC has arguably not demonstrated this requirement.

Fifth, NEDDC has not demonstrated that the district has the necessary infrastructure to support the further economic jobs growth they predict in their regeneration scenario. The regeneration scenario predicts around 3,000 jobs would be created in North East Derbyshire in the Plan period. However, in the Employment Land Review Update 2017, Lichfields' report shows limitations to further infrastructure that would be required for the creation of new jobs.

There are issues with some of the allocated protected employment sites within the Local Plan. For example, Callywhite Lane in Dronfield, which NEDDC admit that there are "issues over access in particular need to be resolved", concerning the narrow roads and mini-roundabout leading to the lane. The local authority progress on this site has been slow over recent years due to this and planning permission to expand the estate expired. Furthermore, according to the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan (2017), delivery of improvements to the existing Callywhite Lane junction (T10) and new link road (T11) are deemed essential for delivery of the Callywhite Lane allocation, but the delivery mechanism and costs are unknown and the timescale for delivery is long term (10-15 years). There is no guarantee, therefore, that key employment sites like Callywhite Lane will expand and create a significant jobs growth as set out in the regeneration scenario.

In general, there also appears to be little assessment of the infrastructure capacity that has informed the preparation of the Plan. In fact, the Infrastructure and Delivery Plan (December 2017) was published after the Settlement Hierarchy was established earlier in the preparation of the plan so does not inform it. Within the IDP, there is not enough consideration given to the current capacity of key areas in north of the District or the potential impact of growth in these areas. For example, no assessment of Dronfield rail station capacity or commuter projections have been conducted. Despite this, the Sustainability Appraisal lists the station as one of advantages of nearby development: "Prospective residents are anticipated to be able to reach the station quite conveniently via bus." No further consideration has been given to how the prospective residents would travel to the station
(no plan is set out for increasing car parking capacity at the station or assessment of bus timetables).

Likewise, no assessment has been made of the road capacity in Killamarsh, which is suffering from growing congestion problems on Sheffield Road. There is no evidence of cooperation with Derbyshire County Council to address this issue, despite the proposed increase of 471 dwelling allocations in Killamarsh up to 2034.

Sixth, NEDDC themselves in the Local Plan state that "due also to the existing significantly low job densities, an increased growth in jobs would not directly lead to the need to increase planned housing provision". This admission adds further doubt to the methodology behind the regeneration scenario.

Finally, as outlined in the previous section, there is no evidence to suggest that demand for housing in North East Derbyshire would justify the need to build 6,600 houses. NEDDC demonstrate in the 2017 SHMA-OAN Update that house price inflation in North East Derbyshire is below neighbouring authorities, such as Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Chesterfield, and far below regional and national figure. Furthermore, NEDDC show that house prices in the Houses Market Assessment areas are 36% below the national average and 16% below the East Midlands average.

Taken altogether, these apparent issues with the calculation of the 6,600 number cast significant doubt on its accuracy and, therefore, the ability to rely upon it as part of a local plan process. When coupled with the fact that North East Derbyshire District Council is seeking, through this plan, to justify exceptional circumstances to support the release of the greenbelt, it can be concluded that the evidence base is too flawed, or at least unexplained, to demonstrate soundness at this stage.

The accommodation made for both completed dwellings and plots with existing planning permissions appear incorrect
In calculating how the 6,600 number will be covered, North East Derbyshire appear to have failed to take into account a number of critical points:

* Their assessment of houses built since 2014 fails to take into account dwellings completed for 12 full months;
* The figures used regarding planning permissions appear to be missing a number of such permissions, and;
* The Council appears to have used a provision which appears excessive when calculating the number of planning permissions which will lapse and not eventually convert to actual builds.

Assessment of houses built since 2014
NEDDC has calculated that 975 properties have been constructed since 2014 . This number, however, covers only properties constructed between 2014 and 31 March 2017 - meaning almost a full year has passed between the date of the calculation and the opening of the consultation on this plan. Given that NEDDC is attempting to justify exceptional circumstances to build on the greenbelt, it is inappropriate that the latest figures for housebuilding have not been included in this plan and could end in the construction of more houses than required and the loss of greenbelt unnecessarily.

Furthermore, it is worth noting that NEDDC contacted established whether a major site was deliverable by contacting all landowners and/or developers. Sites where contact could not be established were marked as undeliverable. This is a further assumption.

Planning permissions appear to be missing

In the Housing Topic Paper (2018), NEDDC demonstrates that planning permission for dwellings on major sites in level 1 and 2 settlements are included as part of the housing supply up to 17 January 2018. NEDDC is not consistent with the dates used to measure dwellings with planning permission in the housing supply, however. Dwellings with planning permission on minor sites and developable major sites in settlements 3 and 4 were included only up to 31/03/2017. Therefore, all dwellings on these sites that gained planning permission between 31 March 2017 and 17 January 2018 have been excluded from the housing supply.

To be consistent with their measurement periods, NEDDC should include all relevant sites up to 17 January 2018 in their housing supply (or ideally a date even closer to today). Not doing so would risk the soundness of the preparation of the Local Plan, as per para. 158 of the NPPF, which places significance upon up-to-date evidence when preparing a Plan. NEDDC has only released a list of sites with planning permission between 31 March 2017 and 17 January 2018 upon request and within 48 hours of this consultation deadline. The list shows 113 new dwellings with planning permissions in Settlements 3 and 4, which aren't part of the housing land supply within the publication draft Local Plan. These dwellings should be included within the Plan. Without, NEDDC cannot demonstrate a positively prepared plan and there is no evidence to suggest all alternatives to altering the greenbelt were exhausted.

Excessive provision apparently used to reduce the number of permission which are likely to convert to newbuilds

The windfall predictions included within the housing supply assume that a) no further sites will become available, b) gain planning permission and c) complete, before 2021/2022. This assumption with no factual evidence to support. The predictions of annual windfall dwellings up to 2021/2022 appear to rely only on sites with current planning permission that have not yet completed, spread over five years. As previously mentioned, the calculations also disregard any windfall sites that have gained planning permission since 31st March 2017. In reality, there are likely to be windfall applications approved and completed between March 2017 and March 2022 and, as a result, an assumption about this number should be included in the calculations prior to the release of greenbelt.

In addition, NEDDC wrongly disregard any potential windfall sites after 2021/22. Although windfall dwellings are not part of planned allocations, they do provide legitimate dwellings and should be considered as part of future housing projections in line with the rest of the Plan until 2034.

NEDDC has also selected an "average" 5% lapse rate "based on past trends" to apply to minor sites with planning permission. Paragraph 8 of the Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement (2017), however, demonstrates that "The expiry rates on all permissions (major and minor) has been well below 5% since 2014." The Housing Topic Paper also reinforces this, showing a 2.13% average lapse rate since 2012/13. The lapse rate, therefore, is inflated by over half the actual average.

The lack of lapse information for year 2014/15 also brings the whole calculation into doubt. Quite conceivably, the lapse rate for 2014/15 may bring the average down even further. The Local Government Association guidance suggests that lapse rates should be "based not on a standard approach but on historic data which sets out the number of permissions compared with completions on similar sized sites."
Given all of the above apparent issues, NEDDC do not appear able to demonstrate all alternatives for supply have been exhausted prior to proposing the release of the greenbelt. NEDDC should be required to re-assess all of these elements of their supply calculations.

Plots available on brownfield sites have been erroneously disregarded.
There are some strategic brownfield sites in the publication draft Local Plan with planning permission that have not been included in the housing supply by NEDDC:

* the Coalite strategic site has outline planning permission for 660 dwellings. However, because a small part of the site falls in the proposed safeguarded HS2 route, NEDDC has removed all 660 dwellings from the housing supply . This would seem excessive given that HS2 have only safeguarded a small element of the site and it would be reasonable to assume at least some housebuilding could be undertaken on this site
* Only 700 of the potential 1,100 plots on The Avenue strategic site are being brought forward before 2034, and;
* Only 825 of the potential 1,000 plots on the Biwater strategic site are being brought forward before 2034.

In particular, the strategies for bringing forward plots on The Avenue and Biwater appear confused. NEDDC appear to only be assuming around two-thirds of the plots at The Avenue can be utilised before 2034 whilst nearly 85% of those in Biwater may be possible - that is despite The Avenue being closer strategically to Chesterfield which suggests easier ability to market to potential purchasers.

County Durham's Local Plan was initially judged as unsound by the planning inspector in 2014. One of the reasons quoted was the proposal to build on the greenbelt was unnecessary and that supply was not being accounted for elsewhere. The Inspector's report states: "given the plan is reliant on demonstrating exceptional circumstances for the release of Green Belt sites, in this particular situation I consider it is of paramount importance that sources of supply are fully accounted for."

Taking NEDDC's strategy as a whole there is little evidence that there has been genuine thought given to how to maximise the use of brownfield land up to 2034, particularly with the ringfencing of more than 1,200 plots for beyond that period. Little explanation is given within the documents as to why these sites cannot be relied upon to deliver larger number of houses (supported by the appropriate infrastructure) and, without that justification, the plan does not appear to adhere to the core principles within the National Planning Policy Framework that the use of brownfield land is being truly encouraged. Without clearer justification, the exceptional requirement to release the greenbelt cannot be demonstrated.

Other considerations
Only 225 of the 550 dwellings that have planning permission on land west of the Chesterfield Road, Holmewood site are included in the housing supply. Despite this, no justification for excluding the other 325 dwellings has been shown. The Housing Topic Paper explains the reason for querying the site development but no explanation as to why only 225 dwellings were calculated as deliverable. Sustainability

The primary towns and villages of Clay Cross, Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh contain 48% of the population of North East Derbyshire and 50% of the current housing supply. These settlements are also where the majority of the allocated housing sites are proposed. Within the publication draft Local Plan, NEDDC state: "These towns are considered to be the most sustainable locations for new development in terms of the range of services and facilities they provide and support and because they generate the greatest needs for new housing, jobs, services and facilities."

The largest settlements in North East Derbyshire are assumed to be the most sustainable because of their size and the infrastructure that sustains current populations. However, there is no evidence to support the core assertion that settlement size must equate with settlement sustainability. In fact, the local authority has ignored key evidence that suggest the four keys settlement towns may not have the infrastructure in place to support sustainable growth: "There is considered to be limited capacity at various waste water treatment works, including those which serve Grassmoor, Calow, Wingerworth, Clay Cross, Tupton, North Wingfield, Renishaw, Eckington and Killamarsh. There is no additional capacity at the waste water treatment works which serve Dronfield, Holmewood and Temple Normanton."

Bolsover's 2014 draft Local Plan was heavily critiqued by the Planning Inspectorate for a similar issue, which did not outline reasons why other reasonable alternatives were not chosen. Noticeably, the Coalite site (which also features within NEDDC's Local Plan) was specifically mentioned as an alternative site to be considered (and similarly to Bolsover, NEDDC has not included the full potential of the site within the publication draft Plan).

Moreover, it is a legal requirement to set out the reasons for not selecting alternative sites and has been stated in many court cases such as Heard v Broadland District Council & Ors [2012] EWHC 344 (Admin). The Sustainability Appraisal process has to provide "an outline of the reasons for selecting the alternatives".

It may indeed be that level 1 and 2 settlements are the most sustainable in the District. NEDDC has not, however, comprehensively proved sustainability in the proposals. Given the omission of this key justification, the plan cannot be considered sound at this juncture.








Greenbelt

NEDDC's publication draft Local Plan proposes to remove land from the green built in order to designate sites for 1,275 new dwellings. Despite this, NEDDC's own plan says that one of its objectives is "to protect the general area of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it taking account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development across the District".

Paragraph 83 of the NPPF also makes it clear that "Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances". As demonstrated by Gallagher v Solihull BC (2014), the preparation of a local plan is not, in itself, an exceptional circumstance for altering boundaries . Instead, exceptional circumstances include:

* Effective use of suitable brownfield and estate regeneration;
* The potential offered by under-used land;
* Optimising the density of development;
* Exploring whether other authorities can help meet some of the development required .

This current draft of the local plan is deficient in regards to justifying exceptional circumstances on the basis of the following:

* the evidence base for greenbelt alteration was absent for the majority of the consultation period when it should, in fact, inform the plan preparation process;
* NEDDC assess their exceptional circumstances using alternative tests, instead of
Government policies and guidance such as ministerial statements, the NPPF and PPG, and; * alternatives to altering the greenbelt have not been fully explored.

Firstly, justification for the removal of land from the green belt in NEDDC's Local Plan is located within the Green Belt Topic Paper (January 2018). This paper, however, was only released for the public almost five weeks after the Local Plan publication draft was released by NEDDC.

The Inspector's consideration of the County Durham Plan (2014), explains that is was unjustifiable for the planning authority to propose green belt development because the decision to do so was made before evidence of exceptional circumstances was produced.55

The same judgment should be applied to NEDDC, who only released their justification for removing land from the green belt after the publication draft of the Local Plan was released. The evidence base should inform the preparation of the Local Plan, so the delayed release of the Green Belt Topic Paper demonstrates that the Plan has not been positively prepared and contravenes paragraph 182 of the NPPF. Furthermore, suggestions that the 2017 North Derbyshire Greenbelt Review provides the sole evidence to support exceptional circumstances to release green belt land appear questionable. The review is clear that proposals to amend the green belt would need further evidence in conjunction with the Green Belt Review.

Secondly, even after its late publication, the contents of NEDDC's now-published Green Belt Topic Paper are also subject to query. In order to justify their proposals to remove land from the green belt, the local authority have decided to test their proposals against caselaw; Calverton Parish Council V Greater Nottingham Councils [2015] EWHC 10784. This test, however, is not approved by Planning Practice Guidance or the NPPF, and therefore, NEDDC has decided to pick and choose their own examiner to justify proposals for green belt development.

Further, the Government's list of alternatives to green belt development before an exception can be made include suitable brownfield regeneration . As already demonstrated in a previous section of this objection, NEDDC has not fully explored the use of brownfield and strategic sites elsewhere in the District, which contravenes the 2017 statement from the then Department for Communities and Local Government. There is also little evidence the Council have considered under-used land, densification or estate regeneration.

Taken together, the local authority cannot demonstrate that exceptional circumstances are justified and the plan cannot be considered sound.



Duty to cooperate

The NPPF places great importance upon local planning authorities working with neighbouring authorities to identify developable sites across local boundaries. However, NEDDC has not comprehensively demonstrated a duty to cooperate with necessary cross-boundary authorities:

* the evidence base for the Duty to Cooperate was absent for the majority of the consultation period when it should, in fact, inform the plan preparation process, and;
* the Duty to Cooperate Draft Statement of Compliance does not provide enough evidence to demonstrate evidence of cooperation with other local authorities and third parties.

NEDDC, as with the Green Belt Topic Paper, released their Duty to Cooperate Draft Statement of
Compliance almost five weeks after the publication draft of the Local Plan was released. The Statement does not effectively demonstrate that the local authority had made enough effort to prepare their Local Plan with neighbouring authorities. The Planning Practice Guidance clarifies that a Duty to Cooperate should be demonstrated to provide evidence for various parts of the Plan, including (but not limited to) the assumptions of job migration. Despite this, the Duty to Cooperate does not include any reference to migration figures at all.

Furthermore, no discussion with Bassetlaw has occurred regarding the availability of alternative land within their authority area, in order to minimise the need to develop on the green belt. NEDDC should have made greater efforts to cooperate with Bassetlaw. Therefore, proposals to remove land from the green belt is unjustifiable, contravening paragraph 182 of the NPPF. Runnymede's 2014 Local Plan was criticised by the Planning Inspectorate for not making earlier efforts to work with neighbouring authorities. . NEDDC should work further with cross-boundary authorities before submitting their publication draft Local Plan

In addition, the Duty to Cooperate also highlights that Bolsover indicated it had some land "outside of the Green Belt that could be available to help meet identified housing need". This land has been dismissed in part, however, on the basis that "it is not well related to North East Derbyshire" . Given, however, that it is recognised that a large number of North East Derbyshire residents already commute outside of the District for employment purposes, there is no absolute need for the locations to be "well-related". If Bolsover is offering land that would reduce or eliminate the need for greenbelt to be used, then it is incumbent upon both Councils to take that option forward to prevent the release of greenbelt unnecessarily.

Further, limited information was given regarding the level of interaction between NEDDC and neighbouring authorities or external parties in the Duty to Cooperate. For example, details of cooperation with Yorkshire Water and Severn Trent Water are brief. With recent capacity issues in the Wingerworth sewage system, it is important that NEDDC supply evidence that the sewage infrastructure plans for 6,600 dwellings are in place for the District.

There are numerous case examples to demonstrate that local authorities must uphold their Duty to Cooperate or risk the Plan being judged as unsound. Bolsover's 2015 Local Plan (a neighbouring district to NEDDC) was rejected by the Planning Inspectorate for not providing enough evidence of cooperation with other authorities, and therefore, cannot be said to effective, justified, positively prepared or sound. Likewise, St Albans 2017 Local Plan , Mid Sussex's 2013 Local Plan and Castle Point's 2016 Local Plan were all critiqued and judged unsound by the Planning Inspectorate because of the lack of evidence to demonstrate a Duty to Cooperate in line with Planning Practice Guidance. Given the omissions in the NEDDC Duty to Cooperate, it would appear that the current plan is unsound on that basis.


Process

NEDDC's Local Plan proposals are undermined by the preparation process and how the public consultation has been conducted. To be consistent with the NPPF guidelines for preparing a sound Local Plan, NEDDC must demonstrate that their plan is positively prepared. NEDDC have not demonstrated this in the following ways:

* not following own Statement of Community Involvement;
* failing to provide information to demonstrate a comprehensive evidence base, and; * providing some evidence to inform the Plan after the publication, rather than prior to it.

Not following own Statement of Community Involvement and running an unsound consultation Section 19, Paragraph 3 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that "the authority must also comply with their statement of community involvement." Within NEDDC's Statement of Community Involvement, the local authority states: "All comments received by the Council will be recorded, read carefully and taken into account in relation to the preparation of planning policy documents" and, "Public consultation on any major changes to the draft Plan or on the revised draft Plan if necessary". Despite the Council's commitment to take into account the comments of the consultation, the comments on this current consultation of the publication draft plan will be sent directly to the Planning Inspectorate for consideration. NEDDC is ignoring their own public commitments in choosing to pass consultation responses over to the Planning Inspectorate without appropriate and due consideration of those responses.

As already mentioned, NEDDC released two key evidence documents five weeks after the Local Plan publication draft was made public. As a result of the delay, NEDDC has made the decision to extend the consultation period for these two documents until Thursday 3 May. In principle, this extension is welcomed to give residents the time to process the relevant evidence base and cross reference with the Plan. However, on the NEDDC website, it states: "It is important to note that this extended consultation period applies ONLY to the two documents referred to above." . NEDDC has not explained how this can possibly work in practice. I have written to the local authority for clarity but received no response. The two documents are relevant to every part of the Local Plan and form a number of the underlying principles from which the plan is built. It is impossible, in my view, to separate consultations in this way and to allow residents the ability to adequately respond to the proposals as a whole when such key information was missing for a large proportion of the consultation period.

Missing information
As already mentioned, numerous reports state that discussions with NEDDC officers were a factor in calculating the jobs growth projection that resulted in the inflated 6,600 housing need calculation, and no minutes or supplementary information about these meetings have been made public on the NEDDC website regarding these discussions. Without transparent information about the content of these discussions, it is impossible to assess how the growth projections were calculated. The 2017
SHMA-OAN Update largely suggests the influence of the officers' opinion rather factual evidence. Furthermore, the following evidence documents are not referenced in the Local Plan, despite being offered as parts of the key evidence base on the NEDDC website:

* 'Employment-Land-Review-Update---Economic-Growth-Analysis-2018.pdf'; dated 01/01/18
* 'Considering-NED-OAN-Final-Report-February-2018.pdf'; dated 20/02/18
* 'Housing topic paper Jan 2018 final'

Thus, the Planning Inspectorate and other assessors of the Local Plan cannot clearly identify which evidence basis inform which Plan proposals. Without this clear understanding, it is assess the Plan against the tests for soundness set out in the NPPF.

Evidence did not inform Plan preparation
The Housing Topic Paper is dated January 2018 but references Considering NED OAN Final Report, dated February 2018. Likewise, the Green Belt Topic Paper is dated January 2018 but was not published until March 2018. The Government PPG makes it clear that "the evidence needs to inform what is in the plan and shape its development rather than being collected retrospectively." It appears that evidence documents dated 2018 have not all informed the Plan. Rather, they have been provided as an attempt to retrospectively justify the high dwelling target. As a result, the Government's Planning Practice Guidance may have been contravened and the plan should be considered unsound on that basis.

Taken altogether, NEDDC has not positively prepared the Local plan. They have contravened their own Statement of Community Involvement, ran a flawed consultation, submitted evidence after the publication of the Plan, and may not have provided sufficient information to make a sound judgement of the Plan.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7945

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Representation:

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

It is important consideration is given to the ability for neighbouring areas to meet future housing needs in full and that the plan reflects the potential for unmet needs arising from these areas.

It is noted that at present there is no Duty to Cooperate statement included on the Council website. Gladman therefore reserves its position to comment further on any evidence that is published in due course. In particular, Gladman would expect consideration to be given to the ability of Sheffield City Council to meet its needs and for an appropriate review mechanism to be included within the policies of the Plan in the event that any issues of unmet need will need to be accommodated.

Figure 1.1 on page 6 of the Local Plan provides a useful graphic of the District's close geographical relationship with its neighbours, in particular the Sheffield City Region.

Change suggested by respondent:

none

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7949

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.

Sheffield has a clean relationship with the northern towns of NEDDC. DLP have raised concerns that there is no evidence of having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts and no clear evidence of how the impact of the local plan will address the issue of unmet need from Sheffield. The definition of the Housing Market Sub Area is also difficult to understand.

DLP consider that the plan therefore fails the test of soundness, is not effective (lack of effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities) and is not consistent with national policy as its does not enable the delivery of sustainable development as it is inflexible. A flexible plan would have identified a number of potential green belt releases to protected as safeguarded land and only released if and when they are required to meet Sheffield needs.

Change suggested by respondent:

DLP have raised concerns that there is no evidence of NEDD having effectively cooperated to plan for issues with cross-boundary impacts and no clear evidence of how the impact of the local plan will address the issue of un met need from Sheffield. DLP consider that the plan therefore fails the test of soundness and is not consistent with national policy as its does not enable the delivery of sustainable development as it is inflexible. A flexible plan would have identified a number of potential green belt releases to protected as safeguarded land and only released if and when they are required to meet Sheffield needs.

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: 7982

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation:

Compliance/ soundness tests interpreted by Council Officer.

In summary, the Plan preparation has failed the Duty to Co-operate in respect of its cross boundary Plan making co-operation with SCC. SCC have requested assistance from NED in resolving part of their unmet housing need but no information has been presented about the level of unmet need or how NED might propose to address this. The vague statement with respect to Norton is not sufficient to demonstrate compliance and NED need to consider their potential to assist SCC comprehensively and transparently.
Complying with the Duty to Co-operate and delivering cross boundary strategic priorities(ie: sufficient housing) is fundamental to the success of strategic plan making and goes to the heart of its objectives. This Plan fails to achieve this and consequently is fundamentally flawed.

Please see accompanying Freeths LLP Representations Statement. Section 2 - Duty to Co-operate

Change suggested by respondent:

Complying with the Duty to Co-operate and delivering cross boundary strategic priorities (ie: sufficient housing) is fundamental to the success of strategic plan making and goes to the heart of its objectives. This Plan fails to achieve this and consequently is fundamentally flawed.

Full text:

Duty to Co-operate

Please see accompanying Freeths LLP Representations Statement
Section 2 - Duty to Co-operate

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7983

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation.

In order to find the Local Plan sound before submission for examination the Council should prepare further evidence concerning compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes from this collaborative working. The complex relationships arising from over lapping HMAs and the impacts of future proposals for a Combined Authority with itsassociated growth agenda should also be clearly explained. The NPPG states that a key element of examination is ensuring that there is sufficient certainty through formal agreements that an effective strategy will be in place to deal with strategic matters such as unmet housing needs when Local Plans are adopted (NPPG ID 9-017). If further evidence and / or SoCG are prepared the HBF may wish to submit further comments on the Council's legal compliance with the Duty and any implications for the soundness of the Local Plan in Written Hearing Statements and / or orally during Examination Hearing sessions.

Change suggested by respondent:

In order to find the Local Plan sound before submission for examination the Council should prepare further evidence concerning compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes from this collaborative working.

Full text:

Under S110 of the Localism Act 2011 which introduced S33A into the 2004 Act the Council must co-operate with other prescribed bodies to maximise the effectiveness of plan making. The Duty to Co-operate requires the Council to "engage constructively, actively and on an on-going basis". The high level principles associated with the Duty are set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (paras 156, 178 - 181). In addition there are twenty three paragraphs in the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) concerning the Duty. In considering if the Duty has been satisfied it is important to consider the outcomes arising from the process and the influence of these outcomes on the Local Plan. One required outcome is the delivery of full objectively assessed housing needs (OAHN) for market and affordable housing in a housing market area (HMA) as set out in the NPPF (para 47) including the unmet needs of neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with sustainable development (NPPF para 182).

The NPPG defines a HMA as a geographical area reflecting the key functional linkages between places where people live and work. It has been determined that North East Derbyshire is part of the North Derbyshire / North Nottinghamshire HMA together with Bassetlaw, Bolsover and Chesterfield District Councils. As set out in the Draft Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance dated March 2018 from within this defined HMA North East Derbyshire have received no formal requests to accommodate any unmet housing needs and the other HMA authorities confirmed that no assistance was available in response to North East Derbyshire's own request concerning unmet housing needs. As a consequence each HMA authority will meet its own housing needs in full within its respective administrative boundary. It is also understood that a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) will be prepared by the time the Local Plan is submitted for examination. It is noted that the proposed plan periods for the respective Local Plans of the Derbyshire / North Nottinghamshire HMA authorities are not aligned. Currently the proposed plan periods are North East Derbyshire 2014 - 2034, Chesterfield 2016 - 2033, Bassetlaw 2019 - 2034 and not explicitly stated for Bolsover. The NPPG advises that plan dates should be co-ordinated.

However the District also abuts Sheffield City Council. North East Derbyshire Council acknowledges that there are economic relationships and commuting patterns extending into Sheffield City Region. At this time it is not known if Sheffield will meet the city's OAHN in full within its own administrative boundaries or whether unmet needs will have to be accommodated elsewhere. It is understood that the City Council have approached neighbouring authorities about helping to meet the city's housing need. It is reasonable to expect that the Council will need to consider its relationship with the Sheffield City Region and any unmet needs therein. It is important that these wider inter relationships are taken into account in both defining the relevant HMA and the OAHN. This unresolved strategic matter should be jointly addressed sooner rather than later by the Councils. It is noted that references to responses from Sheffield City Council in Table 5 of the Draft Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance dated March 2018 are incorrect which should be corrected before submission of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan for examination.

In addition to the North Derbyshire / North Nottinghamshire HMA authorities and Sheffield City Council, North East Derbyshire has two other neighbouring authorities namely Derbyshire Dales (defined as its own HMA) and Amber Valley (part of the Derby HMA) District Councils. North East Derbyshire also extends up to the Peak District National Park. There are two Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) for the Sheffield City Region and Derbyshire & Nottinghamshire D2N2. There are proposals by D2N2 LEP for a North Midlands Combined Authority which at some future date may prepare a strategic spatial plan.

In order to find the Local Plan sound before submission for examination the Council should prepare further evidence concerning compliance with the legal requirements of the Duty to Co-operate and the outcomes from this collaborative working. The complex relationships arising from over lapping HMAs and the impacts of future proposals for a Combined Authority with its associated growth agenda should also be clearly explained. The NPPG states that a key element of examination is ensuring that there is sufficient certainty through formal agreements that an effective strategy will be in place to deal with strategic matters such as unmet housing needs when Local Plans are adopted (NPPG ID 9-017). If further evidence and / or SoCG are prepared the HBF may wish to submit further comments on the Council's legal compliance with the Duty and any implications for the soundness of the Local Plan in Written Hearing Statements and / or orally during Examination Hearing sessions.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7986

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Tracey Marsden, Nicola Shepherdson & Mark Woodhead

Agent: Caroline McIntyre

Representation:

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

It still appears to be unresolved as to whether Sheffield City Council will ask NEDDC if they are formally able to provide any housing capacity as part of the DtC.

Given the location of our clients' site on the northern periphery of the District and immediately adjacent to the boundary with SCC it is still unclear as to:
* extent of discussions with SCC and requirement for additional housing to be delivered by NEDDC;
* whether this could impact upon the spatial strategy as set out at Policies SS1 and SS3.

The issue described in paragraphs 37 and 40 of the DtC Statement does not appear to have been considered in detail within the Green Belt Review work. Whilst the idea of an urban extension in the Norton area is suggested, there potential for this or other options has not been explored.

Change suggested by respondent:

Consider releasing sites from settlements within NEDDC but located on the edge of Sheffield either as potential locations for significant new development or as part of the review of smaller scale changes to Green Belt boundaries.

Full text:

REPRESENTATIONS TO THE DRAFT NEDDC LOCAL PLAN
The following comments are made specifically with regards to the content of the draft Local Plan.
Duty to Cooperate and Further Housing Growth: It still appears to be unresolved as to whether Sheffield City Council will ask NEDDC if they are formally able to provide any housing capacity as part of the Duty to Cooperate.
Given the location of our clients' site on the northern periphery of the District and immediately adjacent to the boundary with SCC it is still unclear as to the:
* the extent of discussions with SCC and the requirement for any additional housing to be delivered by NEDDC; and
* whether this could impact upon the spatial strategy as set out within the Plan at Policies SS1 and SS3.
Furthermore as outlined at Paragraph 4.13 "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 Plan will need to remain flexible in order to respond to any increased housing need and our clients' site is well located to meet any housing growth to serve the needs of SCC should this be an issue which arises as the Plan progresses. At present it is not possible to see how the Plan will be sufficiently flexible to respond to these issues. Relationship and Reliance upon Sheffield: At Paragraph 2.6 the character of the North Sub Area is noted, in particular the reference to the fact that "...The rural area lies entirely in the Green Belt and the towns and other settlements have generally been developed up to their boundaries, meaning that there is few development sites still available within their existing built up areas..." and that "These towns relate closely to the Sheffield conurbation and just under a quarter of people commute out of the District to work in the city."
This is reflected in the Local Plan Vision at Paragraph 3.4 where again the reference is to the objective to share in the economic benefits of the regeneration and sustainable growth of the wider Sheffield City Region.
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 Sheffield 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. 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.

DUTY TO COOPERATE STATEMENT (MARCH 2018)
Paragraph 37 of the Statement makes it clear that "In the light of the request from Sheffield, the council has further engaged with Sheffield about the strategic matter of housing need including the potential for a large urban extension in the Norton area straddling North East Derbyshire's Green Belt. It has however previously been acknowledged by both authorities that there are significant environmental issues with this option and it is unlikely to be pursued. However it is necessary to continue to work closely with Sheffield on this matter to formally agree whether this should be considered any further or should be discounted on the basis of unacceptable environmental impact."

"40. Sheffield have confirmed that there is no additional supply within Sheffield's existing built-up area that could be developed in principle to meet North East Derbyshire's housing target. They have however highlighted the need for further discussion about the potential for a cross-boundary urban extension into North East Derbyshire to meet some of its housing need (albeit this would inevitably involve the release of some Green Belt land)."

This issue does not appear to have been considered in any detail within the Green Belt review work undertaken todate. Whilst the idea of an urban extension in the Norton area is suggested, there potential for this or other options has not been explored. It is still maintained that our clients' site could make a significant contribution in part or full to the housing needs of Sheffield City Council without undermining the role of the Green Belt in this location.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8003

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Andrew and Angela Spencer

Agent: Caroline McIntyre

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation. Full representation attached.

The Draft DtC 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.

Change suggested by respondent:

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.

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: 8041

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Stock

Representation:

Council Officer has made interpretation. Full representation attached.

There are concerns this has not been fully undertaken.

On 22nd March North East Derbyshire Council published for consultation the Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance as background evidence to the Publication Draft Local Plan. The Council has invited comments on the statement by 3rd May.
At this point in time it is our view that there are significant failings in the duty to co-operate, but reserve the right to express more detailed comments in the representations we submit to the Council before 3rd May. For this reason we consider the policy is not justified and therefore unsound.

Change suggested by respondent:

At this point in time it is our view that there are significant failings in the duty to co-operate, but reserve the right to express more detailed comments in the representations we submit to the Council before 3rd May. For this reason we consider the policy is not justified and therefore unsound.

Full text:

Duty to Cooperate
The Duty to Cooperate is a legal requirement established through Section 33(A) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, as amended by Section 110 of the Localism Act. It requires local authorities to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary strategic issues throughout the process of Plan preparation. As demonstrated through the outcome of the 2012 Coventry Core Strategy Examination and the 2013 Mid Sussex Core Strategy Examination, if a Council fails to satisfactorily discharge its Duty to Cooperate, and this cannot be rectified through modifications an Inspector must recommend non-adoption of the Plan.
Whilst we recognise the Duty to Cooperate is a process of ongoing engagement and collaboration, as set out in the PPG it is clear that it is intended to produce effective policies on cross- boundary strategic matters. In this regard North East Derbyshire must be able to demonstrate that it has engaged and worked with neighbouring authorities, alongside their existing joint working arrangements, to satisfactorily address cross boundary strategic issues, and the requirement to meet any unmet housing needs. This is not simply an issue of consultation but a question of effective cooperation.
Further the PPG reflects on the bodies which are subject to the Duty to Cooperate. It contains a list of the prescribed bodies. The PPG then goes on to state that:
"These bodies play a key role in delivering local aspirations, and the cooperation between them and local planning authorities is vital to make Local Plans as effective as possible on strategic cross boundary matters."
On 22nd March North East Derbyshire Council published for consultation the Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance as background evidence to the Publication Draft Local Plan. The Council has invited comments on the statement by 3rd May.
Along with the present submission we will also be submitting representations on the Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance. At this point in time it is our view that there are significant failings in the duty to co-operate, but reserve the right to express more detailed comments in the representations we submit to the Council before 3rd May. For this reason we consider the policy is not justified and therefore unsound.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8113

Received: 30/04/2018

Respondent: Heather Brown

Representation:

Para 35 DtC: "no formal requests however have been made for NED to accommodate any unmet needs from the other HMA authorities. On this basis, potential housing sites [Hasland] within North East Derbyshire but lying on the edges of Chesterfield's build-up area have been discounted ..." Simply because a site (Hasland) "does not relate well to North East Derbyshire", and no tit-for-tat arrangement with neighbouring authorities is in place, should not be grounds for discounting, especially considering site's proximity to Chesterfield and all its amenities. Demonstrates that alternative options to Greenbelt have been dismissed outright, let alone been rigorously explored.

Change suggested by respondent:

Rigorous exploration of ALL potential sites as opposed to building on greenbelt.

Full text:

Para 35 DtC: "no formal requests however have been made for NED to accommodate any unmet needs from the other HMA authorities. On this basis, potential housing sites [Hasland] within North East Derbyshire but lying on the edges of Chesterfield's build-up area have been discounted ..." Simply because a site (Hasland) "does not relate well to North East Derbyshire", and no tit-for-tat arrangement with neighbouring authorities is in place, should not be grounds for discounting, especially considering site's proximity to Chesterfield and all its amenities. Demonstrates that alternative options to Greenbelt have been dismissed outright, let alone been rigorously explored.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8115

Received: 11/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Representation refers to DtC Statement of Compliance Point 6 and 7

Sheffield Football Club occupies a site on Dronfield's northern edge. For a number of years, it has been known that the club wishes to relocate back to its home at Olive Grove in Sheffield.

To accomplish this, the Club would need to sell the land for housing. Indeed plans are ready to be submitted for around 70 houses, pending the release of this land from Green Belt by NEDDC. However in spite of the fact that the Green Belt land has been semi-developed with buildings and stadia associated with the Club, NE Derbyshire District Council has rejected this site in favour of others consisting of prime undeveloped Green Belt.

The site lies in a more sustainable location than those at Coal Aston and Shakespeare Crescent, is better connected to Sheffield, and would cause less congestion within Dronfield. It lies within walkable distance of both medical facilities and a supermarket.

Change suggested by respondent:

To reject this site in favour of those that are less sustainable is unsound planning. There is no evidence to suggest a Duty to Co-operate with a neighbouring authority, as this site would clearly benefit Sheffield authority in terms of housing allocations on what could be considered a cross-boundary site. It is being rejected because it is in Green Belt and because it is a Sports' Facility. It has never been a public sports' facility. This site should be prioritised over and above the other two sites mentioned. The potential for seventy houses should at least be deducted from Dronfield's allocations, together with the Gladys Buxton site (Duty to Co-operate with Derbyshire County Council) with a potential for 120 houses and the Padley and Venables site for 57 houses.
To reject the Sheffield Football Ground site, yet allocate housing on Shakespeare Crescent and at Coal Aston makes the Plan totally hypocritical with dubious motives underpinning the site selection process. Not justified, not positively prepared, not legally compliant.

Full text:

QUOTE FROM PARA 6 AND 7 OF DUTY TO CO-OPERATE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Sheffield Football Club occupies a site on Dronfield's northern edge. For a number of years, it has been known that the club wishes to relocate back to its home at Olive Grove in Sheffield.
To accomplish this, the Club would need to sell the land for housing. Indeed plans are ready to be submitted for around 70 houses, pending the release of this land from Green Belt by NEDDC. However in spite of the fact that the Green Belt land has been semi-developed with buildings and stadia associated with the Club, NE Derbyshire District Council has rejected this site in favour of others consisting of prime undeveloped Green Belt.
The site lies in a more sustainable location than those at Coal Aston and Shakespeare Crescent, is better connected to Sheffield, and would cause less congestion within Dronfield. It lies within walkable distance of both medical facilities and a supermarket.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8116

Received: 13/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

The evidence base for the Duty to Co-operate Statement is mostly out of date referring to documents dated 2013, 2014 and 2015. The document list includes some documents dating back to 2009 and 2010. Apart from two updates to previous documents there is little credible evidence to suggest that the later stages in producing the Publication Draft Plan have been informed by Duty to Co-operate documentary evidence.
It is apparent that this duty has not been carried out recently by evidence provided on the audio tape of the full Council meeting on March 5th where Councillor Michael Gordon indicated that they had had meetings and suggested that dialogue was as late as February 2018 with neighbouring authorities. How therefore has this informed the Plan?
Further evidence is provided by the Statement itself. That NEDDC has yet to hear back from Bassetlaw and that Bolsover has indicated they have land available for housing, but this has been dismissed not because it is 'not well-related to NED' as stated but rather that because this information has come in retrospective to the finished Plan. To allocate housing to Bolsover would mean changing the spatial distribution. It may also mean that 'exceptional circumstances' do not exist to remove land from the Green Belt.
Yet at Point 16 we read that NE Derbyshire "has a long history of engagement with certain other Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire authorities in particular Derbyshire County Council and Bassetlaw Council."

Change suggested by respondent:

There is out dated supporting evidence of Duty to Co-operate with other authorities.
Points 41 and 42 are dismissive of Bassetlaw, even though it has not yet responded to requests to accommodate housing and to Bolsover which has land available. This is the evidence that the process has been carried out post Plan.
Because Duty to Co-operate Statement has been added retrospectively, it means that NEDDC has dismissed Bassetlaw with whom they have a long history of engagement regards whether they have land available for housing. They have dismissed Bolsover which has land available for some of NE's housing because that information has come in after the Plan has been published. Yet, Bolsover is recognised as having the highest growth across the SHMA and in fact has a
cross-boundary employment or regeneration site with NE Derbyshire separated by the River Doe Lea.

Unsound, not positively prepared, strategy not justified. Documents and information out of date or retrospective to the Plan.

Full text:

Point 34 NE Derbyshire in pursuing an OAN of 330 has taken it out of the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA. So they have considered the GL Hearn report which recommends 283, and then ignored it and taken forward 330. NE Derbyshire has been taken out of context with its neighbouring authorities. Bolsover has the highest levels of economic growth across the HMA. This does not suggest Duty to Co-operate, it suggests going it alone with an over-inflated housing target.
There is no shortage of housing land within the HMA. No other neighbouring authority has requested that NE take any of their housing. Therefore that also suggests that NE has the OAN set too high.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8117

Received: 13/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Representation:

Point 34 NE Derbyshire in pursuing an OAN of 330 has taken it out of the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA. So they have considered the GL Hearn report which recommends 283, and then ignored it and taken forward 330. NE Derbyshire has been taken out of context with its neighbouring authorities. Bolsover has the highest levels of economic growth across the HMA. This does not suggest Duty to Co-operate, it suggests going it alone with an over-inflated housing target.
There is no shortage of housing land within the HMA. No other neighbouring authority has requested that NE take any of their housing. Therefore that also suggests that NE has the OAN set too high.

Change suggested by respondent:

What is the point of a document produced by a reputable company for the HMA then being ignored?
The Council has ignored their own evidence on the OAN and taken it out of context with its neighbours. No evidence of a duty to co-operate. NE is the only authority that needs another authority to take its housing allocations. Yet when that is offered by Bolsover it is rejected and Bassetlaw has yet to answer the request.
Not positively prepared, unsound, not justified or credible.

Full text:

Point 34 NE Derbyshire in pursuing an OAN of 330 has taken it out of the North Derbyshire and Bassetlaw HMA. So they have considered the GL Hearn report which recommends 283, and then ignored it and taken forward 330. NE Derbyshire has been taken out of context with its neighbouring authorities. Bolsover has the highest levels of economic growth across the HMA. This does not suggest Duty to Co-operate, it suggests going it alone with an over-inflated housing target.
There is no shortage of housing land within the HMA. No other neighbouring authority has requested that NE take any of their housing. Therefore that also suggests that NE has the OAN set too high.

Support

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8118

Received: 16/04/2018

Respondent: Rotherham MBC

Representation:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence base documents (Green Belt Topic Paper, Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance, and Habitats Regulations Assessment - Appropriate Assessment).

Rotherham MBC has no detailed comments to make, except to note that the references and conclusions in the Duty to Co-operate Statement relating to Rotherham are considered to be an accurate representation of the engagement and conclusions reached between the two authorities. The authorities will continue to co-operate as necessary as part of ensuring that the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate are met.

Change suggested by respondent:

N/A

Full text:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the additional evidence base documents (Green Belt Topic Paper, Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance, and Habitats Regulations Assessment - Appropriate Assessment).

Rotherham MBC has no detailed comments to make, except to note that the references and conclusions in the Duty to Co-operate Statement relating to Rotherham are considered to be an accurate representation of the engagement and conclusions reached between the two authorities. The authorities will continue to co-operate as necessary as part of ensuring that the requirements of the Duty to Co-operate are met.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8121

Received: 20/04/2018

Respondent: Mr Norman J White

Representation:

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

4 What plans are there to provide new infrastructure to the area (other than that provided by developers)?
12 You have never tried to get to Chesterfield, otherwise you would not make this comment of 'ease of access'
16 Impact of proposed Gulliver's World and campsite, Delves Lane, Rotherham on local roads?
69 Clay Cross is not an accessible shopping area
70 Transport review is related to A61/links to the M1, need to experience traffic first hand not just on traffic models
85 Yorkshire Water study states sewerage network at capacity- who will provide new sewers?
86/9 No new flood modelling since 2009, prior to recent builds/climate change - why does it still flood?
106 No explanation of how Chesterfield canal will pass through/ around Killamarsh, passing over/ under two main roads and causing major disruption to traffic flow.

Change suggested by respondent:

More information on how the Council will provide new infrastructure/sewerage/ flooding measures to support new housing development, justification for proposed allocations for housing at Killamarsh and more information on the proposed Chesterfield Canal proposals at Killamarsh.

More support for affordable homes/ homes to rent, not just 4/5 bedroom homes.
Consideration of adjacent council areas needs and development proposals.

Full text:

Gobbledygook called Green Belt Topic Paper, and Duty to Co-operate Statement

item 3, of Green Belt, All to be built by national builders whose prime objective is to make a profit. Not all the sites would meet National Planning Policy Framework No advice of the Intro of PPG3 in 2000 with change in government policy of build density of 30-50 homes per hectare
item 4 the 2009 policy states that planers should avoid developments of less than 30 per ha. The two main sites in Killamarsh at this build rate on the stated available land gives 50% more builds, or are all the homes to be 4/5 bedrooms with no affordable or rented homes to be built. I would like to know what the variety of reasons are to better access to transport links, this area is not well served
No mention or account is given of the Persimmons Homes outline approval of 950 homes at Bolsover, or other proposed builds within local adjoining areas.Sheffield would seem to be more interested in urban expansion
App A Yes there is a need for local affordable homes, but the build rate proposed is below national guide lines and would only supply high value homes.The supply of Green Belt land in the council's own words was to be restricted and balanced against the need to provide local affordable housing.
item 9 there is no co-operation between Sheffield and local councils. Chesterfield is dragging its feet.

App C, Site assessment results show poor highway access for the majority of sites although the site owners have stated that studies have been carried out which surprisingly differ to the council assessment.

NEDD Duty to Cooperate
item 4 What are the plans to provide the infrastructure to the area not that provided for by the builders on there sites.
item 12 You have never tried to get to Chesterfield in a morning or evening otherwise you would not make this comment of ease of access.
item 16 Rotherham is an adjoining area that has given planning consent for a camping site for 129 caravan pitches and 34 sites for tents at Delves Lane Wales on the Rother Valley site, along with the theme site to be constructed how are these vehicles and mobile homes to get there without any of them effecting local roads
item 69 Clay Cross is to the south of Chesterfield and as a retail outlet not easily accessible from the North of the area.
item 70 All the transport review would seem to be related to the A61 and links to the M1. Another road that gets chocker blocked morning and night, Through the traffic computer away and get out and see the road structure and traffic flow.
item 85 Where is the additional sewer works to be carried out as the Yorkshire Water study states that the current one is at capacity.
item 86/9 The last flood modelling was carried out in 2009, prior to the proposed build and further changes in the climate, perhaps someone could explain why roads in the area have flooded.
The ground is waterlogged and 15 hectares plus are to be concreted over.
item 106 There is no explanation of how the Chesterfield canal will pass through or round Killamarsh, it has to pass over or under two main roads which would require major disruption to traffic flow.

Attachments:

Support

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8125

Received: 24/04/2018

Respondent: High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

Representation:

Representation not received on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation.

Thank for consulting HS2 Ltd on North East Derbyshire's Green Belt Topic Paper and Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance.

I can confirm that HS2 Ltd have no objection to the content contained in either document.

Change suggested by respondent:

N/A

Full text:

Thank for consulting HS2 Ltd on North East Derbyshire's Green Belt Topic Paper and Duty to Co-operate Statement of Compliance.

I can confirm that HS2 Ltd have no objection to the content contained in either document.

Attachments:

Support

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8132

Received: 01/05/2018

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

As a statutory consultee, we consider that the Council has consulted fully with and, where appropriate, provided sufficient opportunities to engage with Historic England at all stages in the preparation of both the local plan and its accompanying Sustainability Appraisal. We are also satisfied that the Authority has taken proper account of our comments in formulating the documents now under consideration.

We would hope that in light of the ongoing Duty that we will be able to continue to work closely with the Council in the implementation of these policies.

Change suggested by respondent:

N/A

Full text:

PUBLICATION DRAFT LOCAL PLAN 2014-2034: DUTY TO COOPERATE DRAFT STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Thank you for the consultation on the above. As you are aware, Historic England is listed as one of the "prescribed" bodies relating to the Duty to Co-operate on the planning of sustainable development. Prescribed bodies are required to co-operate with local planning authorities constructively, actively, and on an ongoing basis in the preparation of development plans in relation to strategic matters.

In reaching our decision on the Plan in question, we have taken account of the extent to which your Authority and Historic England have engaged in the preparation of the document and your response to any strategic matters which we may have raised.

As a statutory consultee, we consider that the Council has consulted fully with and, where appropriate, provided sufficient opportunities to engage with Historic England at all stages in the preparation of both the local plan and its accompanying Sustainability Appraisal. We are also satisfied that the Authority has taken proper account of our comments in formulating the documents now under consideration.

We would hope that in light of the on-going Duty that we will be able to continue to work closely with the Council in the implementation of these policies.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 8139

Received: 01/05/2018

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Representation:

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

NEDDC has not comprehensively demonstrated that the requirement to cooperate with relevant cross boundary authorities has been met.
The evidence base for the Duty to Cooperate was published five weeks after the publication draft of the Local Plan was published. It should, in fact, have informed the plan preparation process. The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate real cooperation with other local authorities and third parties.

Change suggested by respondent:

We do not believe that the required Duty to Cooperate has been demonstrated by the Statement of Compliance. We object to the Statement and believe that it renders the Plan neither legal nor sound.

Full text:

Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance

Representation from Committee of Dronfield Civic Society

1. Summary of Representation
NEDDC has not comprehensively demonstrated that the requirement to cooperate with relevant cross boundary authorities has been met.
The evidence base for the Duty to Cooperate was published five weeks after the publication draft of the Local Plan was published. It should, in fact, have informed the plan preparation process. The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance does not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate real cooperation with other local authorities and third parties.

2. The requirement to cooperate
The NPPF advises on planning strategically across local boundaries and highlights the importance of joint working to meet development requirements that cannot be wholly met within a single local plan area. NPPG says that local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary consultation on strategic cross boundary matters before they submit their local plans for examination.

3. Evidence Base
The evidence base for the Duty to Cooperate was released five weeks after the publication of the Local Plan and was therefore not available for the majority of the consultation period. The evidence base does not provide sufficient evidence of real cooperation with neighbouring authorities, referencing many officer and member meetings, the minutes of which are not in the public domain, and a series of statements saying that cooperation has been achieved.

4. Housing Need and the Duty to Cooperate
The Statement of Compliance includes, at paragraph 41, the statement that "Bolsover has indicated that it has some land outside of Green Belt that could be available to help meet the identified housing need, but not that all of this land is in sustainable locations and much of it is not well-related to North East Derbyshire. In terms of the sustainable settlements that geographically better related to North East Derbyshire, such as Clowne and Bolsover, they have raised concerns that adding further development to these areas would undermuine the sustainability, deliverability and thus overall soundness of the Local Plan."
Paragraph 42 states that "At the time of writing, although no response had been received from Bassetlaw District, it is considered that sites within Bassetlaw District would not relate well to the District and meeting the housing needs with North East Derbyshire."
We contend that the statements above indicate that real cooperation with Bassetlaw and Bolsover has not taken place, making proposals to remove land to be "well-related" and as Bolsover has offered land which could be used to meet North East Derbyshire's identified housing need, both Councils should pursue that option in order to prevent the unnecessary release of Green Belt land.

5.Conclusion
For all reasons set out above, we do not believe that the required Duty to Cooperate has been demonstrated by the Statement of Compliance. We object to the Statement and believe that it renders the Plan neither legal nor sound.

Attachments: