Local Settlement Gaps

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6796

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: Emma Thompson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

One of the key purposes of green belt land is:
"Preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another".
The local plan proposes to build at Coal Aston which will merge South Yorkshire with Derbyshire, and Sheffield with Coal Aston, so the plan is not legally compliant as it flouts this rule, without providing any detail of the 'exceptional circumstances' which may permit such development on green belt land.

Change suggested by respondent:

- Remove from the local plan the area of land proposed to be built on at Coal Aston, and instead explore in more detail the brownfield sites and empty properties available.
- Recalculate the housing need taking into account smaller development sites within the town boundaries, and also all successful planning applications that have gone through from March 2017 to the present day.

Full text:

One of the key purposes of green belt land is:
"Preventing neighbouring towns merging into one another".
The local plan proposes to build at Coal Aston which will merge South Yorkshire with Derbyshire, and Sheffield with Coal Aston, so the plan is not legally compliant as it flouts this rule, without providing any detail of the 'exceptional circumstances' which may permit such development on green belt land.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7168

Received: 30/03/2018

Respondent: Alan Tomlinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

NEDDC Strategic Green Belt Functionality Study final report 2014 places the Coal Aston site as joint top in NEDDC area in terms of functionality. why is this study being ignored when alternatives are available.

Change suggested by respondent:

remove the proposal to build on the Coal Aston site

Full text:

NEDDC Strategic Green Belt Functionality Study final report 2014 places the Coal Aston site as joint top in NEDDC area in terms of functionality. why is this study being ignored when alternatives are available.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7356

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: Heather Brown

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Function of Greenbelt is to maintain settlement identity and prevent urban sprawl (NPPF). Development at Shakespeare Cres site, which currently provides the "gap" between Dronfield/Unstone on B6057, will result in the decrease of this already-narrow gap to virtually nil; viewing from the B6057, settlement separation will not be visually-discernable. New housing at Fleur de Lys pub in Unstone and development at Peak Resort not accounted for by Council when measuring settlement gaps between Dronfield/Unstone. Unmet housing need does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" for removing land from Greenbelt. Plan contrary to NPPF.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove this site from the Plan.

Full text:

Function of Greenbelt is to maintain settlement identity and prevent urban sprawl (NPPF). Development at Shakespeare Cres site, which currently provides the "gap" between Dronfield/Unstone on B6057, will result in the decrease of this already-narrow gap to virtually nil; viewing from the B6057, settlement separation will not be visually-discernable. New housing at Fleur de Lys pub in Unstone and development at Peak Resort not accounted for by Council when measuring settlement gaps between Dronfield/Unstone. Unmet housing need does not constitute "exceptional circumstances" for removing land from Greenbelt. Plan contrary to NPPF.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7382

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: D Bullers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

A controversial suggestion would be to create a new larger town by merging some of the smaller communities as was done when Dronfield was expanded in the 1960 and 1970 by building several large housing estates that filled the gap between Dronfiel and Dronfield Woodhouse to the North West and Dronfield and Coal Aston to the North East and also expanded towards Unstone. This involved building new infrastructure and town centre facilities creating what is now the largest town in the district.

A new town/community coudl be created in the south east of the district near the M1 or A61

Change suggested by respondent:

Look at creating a new Town from several smaller close settlements with facilities to suit its status and a employment zone on former opencast land. This could be a sustainable development.

Full text:

A controversial suggestion would be to create a new larger town by merging some of the smaller communities as was done when Dronfield was expanded in the 1960 and 1970 by building several large housing estates that filled the gap between Dronfiel and Dronfield Woodhouse to the North West and Dronfield and Coal Aston to the North East and also expanded towards Unstone. This involved building new infrastructure and town centre facilities creating what is now the largest town in the district.

A new town/community coudl be created in the south east of the district near the M1 or A61

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7553

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Representation refers to paragraph 4.74.

I am objecting to the Local Plan with regard to the proposal to allocate the land below Shakespeare Crescent for housing. The narrow strip of what is currently Green Belt agricultural land has a vital and highly significant role to play in preventing the town of Dronfield merging with the ancient and historic village of Unstone. There is inaccuracy in the Plan with regard to the settlement gap distance calculated. It is not almost a kilometre as has been suggested. It is 428 metres currently and will be reduced to 128 metres if this land is taken out of the Green Belt.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove the Shakespeare Crescent allocation for housing.
It is not sustainable. It was classified as Red in the initial Green Belt Review.
It serves a vital purpose in keeping Dronfield town and Unstone village separate.
Reassess the settlement gap correctly. It is far less than is indicated.
Revise housing target to more realistic levels. Green Belt land need not be lost with an OAN of 270-283 and this settlement gap can therefore be maintained.

Full text:

I am objecting to the Local Plan with regard to the proposal to allocate the land below Shakespeare Crescent for housing. The narrow strip of what is currently Green Belt agricultural land has a vital and highly significant role to play in preventing the town of Dronfield merging with the ancient and historic village of Unstone. There is inaccuracy in the Plan with regard to the settlement gap distance calculated. It is not almost a kilometre as has been suggested. It is 428 metres currently and will be reduced to 128 metres if this land is taken out of the Green Belt.
I live just outside Dronfield in the village of Unstone which dates back to the Domesday Survey. A narrow area of Green Belt separates Unstone village from the town of Dronfield. Both places have high priorities about remaining separate from each other and both have distinctive characteristics. Unstone Hill Farm is the first dwelling after the Green Belt gap between Dronfield and Unstone. Nearby is an SSSI, which is the longest bank of remaining coke ovens in the country, there is a stand of ancient woodland and the Listed Jacobean Unstone Manor on the site of a much older building. All have been overlooked or misrepresented in the Local Plan in terms of the effects of an estate of 235 houses would have upon them. The fields which originally belonged to Unstone Manor, which were in strips cultivated by peasant workers are the fields owned by the developers Redmiles.
The Plan is allocating 235 houses in this settlement gap calculated in the Plan at almost a kilometre to 'Crow Lane' which is not where 'on the ground' Unstone begins. It is therefore inaccurate to measure the gap from Crow Lane. Taking the road sign which marks where Unstone ends and to the northern end of the settlement gap is 620 metres. The farm is actually where Unstone begins and so the gap is currently 428 metres. It will be reduced to 128 metres with the plan proposals and to 46 metres if the recent plans submitted by the developers are approved. One of the five principles of the Green Belt, is that of keeping settlements separate or the prevention of coalescence. In the case of Unstone and Dronfield, this gap should therefore be maintained and the Shakespeare Crescent site removed from the allocations.
The significant visual impact of this development has been noted in the Sustainability Appraisal, together with increased vehicle movements, congestion and pollution along the B6057 which already has in excess of 11,000 vehicle movements a day upon it.

Attachments: