Available Employment Land

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7170

Received: 30/03/2018

Respondent: Alan Tomlinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

on paper land is available on Callywhite lane. In the real world this area is an industrial tip for contaminated foundry sand and other industrial waste with negligible chance of any development interest.The access to the site via Callywhite lane is also a major restraint.

Change suggested by respondent:

Admit this proposal is unlikely and remove from proposals.

Full text:

on paper land is available on Callywhite lane. In the real world this area is an industrial tip for contaminated foundry sand and other industrial waste with negligible chance of any development interest.The access to the site via Callywhite lane is also a major restraint.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7551

Received: 01/04/2018

Respondent: Mr Paul Johnson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The two sites named as being key to Killamarsh's employment and economic catalyst are both totally inadequate. The Plan refers to the Norwood site, with a site at Dronfield, as being the main focus for employment in the north.

The site at Westthorpe Fields only has one plot left (.35 hectares). The Norwood Industrial Estate scored, with Callywhite Lane at Dronfield, the lowest (13) during the during the Aspinall Verdi study of NE Derbyshire Employment sites. The highest scoring employment sites were in the south and the east of the District.

Previous background documents have show that both sites are unpopular with developers and tenants, particularly so in the case of Norwood.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove the main sites within the Green Belt, proposed for Killamarsh, from the plan because of the lack of local employment opportunities that would mean the bulk of the working population living in the proposed development would be forced to travel outside the area, increasing traffic congestion and pollution, impacting upon the health of residents.

Full text:

The two sites named as being key to Killamarsh's employment and economic catalyst are both totally inadequate. The Plan refers to the Norwood site, with a site at Dronfield, as being the main focus for employment in the north.

The site at Westthorpe Fields only has one plot left (.35 hectares). The Norwood Industrial Estate scored, with Callywhite Lane at Dronfield, the lowest (13) during the during the Aspinall Verdi study of NE Derbyshire Employment sites. The highest scoring employment sites were in the south and the east of the District.

Previous background documents have show that both sites are unpopular with developers and tenants, particularly so in the case of Norwood.

Supporting comments.

Certainly in the case of Killamarsh high employment growth targets would not be achievable. Both identified sites within the village are not popular with developers without, in the case of the Westthorpe Business Park, being capable of any significant expansion.

In respect of the larger area of land promoted as a General Employment Area under Policy WC3 (Land to the south of Norwood Industrial Estate) the situation is even worse.

Paragraph 6.28 states, "...satisfactory access cannot easily be achieved for the remainder of the land (the 5.4 acres of protected employment land). The development of the site may also impinge on education and recreational land".

The Plan refers to Dronfield and Killamarsh as being the main focus for employment in the north. Given the facts above this seems a ludicrous assertion, particularly when the Plan shows that 500 net jobs have been lost in the 15 years prior to 2015. With no viable employment sites to build into, or options identified, how is this going to happen?

This means that the significant growth planned for Killamarsh will not lead to increased jobs for local people. Any one of the 'new' residents would have to look for work, or travel to their established job, outside the village, with the majority commuting to outside areas such as Sheffield, Rotherham, Chesterfield, Markham Vale etc. This is the ultimate of unsustainability.

The proposed Sustainable Transport option is doomed to failure because of issues with the topography of the area and the location of proposed sites at the periphery of the current settlement limits (outside them, currently). The fact that the main site is situated as far as possible from the village centre, with a significant hill to descend and climb, militate against the use of a bicycle, or walking, unless the residents are very fit. The bus service is diminishing through lack of current use.

The use of public transport is not an option if the service is irregular. If the public transport option is not appropriate to the needs of the general public then the heavy use of cars and vans will continue, making additional development unsustainable.

Background evidence papers support the view that the majority of new residents will commute to work elsewhere. This includes the independent Sustainability Appraisal.

Attachments: