Policy WC1: Dronfield Regeneration Area

Showing comments and forms 1 to 7 of 7

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6955

Received: 21/03/2018

Respondent: Unstone Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

The proposed extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate and the new link road onto Chesterfield Road will result in a significant increase in HGV traffic travelling through Unstone Village, the road is already very busy and has speeding issues. The proposal could have a potential detrimental effect on air quality and noise levels, for local people living along the route.

Change suggested by respondent:

The proposal will have detrimental effects.

Full text:

At the Unstone Parish Council meeting on Thursday 15th March 2018, the proposals contained within the Local Plan were discussed. Whilst the Council welcome the reduction in housing planning on the green belt in Dronfield from 860 to 475, the Council voted unanimously to strongly object to the proposals, for the following reasons:

* The proposals constitute an unacceptable loss of green belt land around the neighbouring town of Dronfield. In bringing the Dronfield settlement limit closer to Unstone village, the proposals are contrary to national planning policy on the green belt, which clearly states such land is to be protected in order to prevent the coalescence of neighbouring communities (National Planning Policy Framework NPPF refers). The planned development would in fact create an unbroken conurbation between Dronfield and Unstone, with no discernible greenbelt between the two distinct areas.

* The plan makes no provisions for how our local infrastructure (schools, health facilities, roads etc.) will cope with the scale of development put forward. Many local schools are currently oversubscribed and clearly do not have the capacity to deal with additional demand.

* The proposed extension of the Callywhite Lane Industrial Estate and the new link road onto Chesterfield Road will result in a significant increase in HGV traffic travelling through Unstone Village, the road is already very busy and has speeding issues. The proposal could have a potential detrimental effect on air quality and noise levels, for local people living along the route.
* The plan includes over inflated housing targets, which far exceed providing for the needs of local people within the District.

* Other options such as windfall sites and the inclusion of other key developments, which would eliminate the need for building housing on the greenbelt, have not been given adequate consideration.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6966

Received: 20/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Jane Fox

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

To read that the plan also includes a 15 acre extension of Callywhite Industrial Estate to accommodate the HGVs and commercial traffic gives me grave concerns. It will change the whole nature of living in Dronfield area and change the whole community beyond recognition and destroy the benefits that drew us to live in this area for the long term.

Change suggested by respondent:

concerns about impact of commercial traffic

Full text:

I write to raise my concerns following learning about the plans that the greenbelt/draft local plans that the District Council have to utilise land taken from a greenbelt to build houses in our locality.

Moving to a central Sheffield area to live in 1996, I chose with my husband to move in 2006 to live on the outskirts of the city and have felt the significant joy & benefits of living in Dronfield Woodhouse ever since.

I now am significantly worried about the demands that the local area will have to cope with should your plans particularly with regard to the development near Studley Hollow go ahead.

Having commuted for many years to Sheffield from Dronfield to work, I have over the last three years had to take time away from my employment to deal with stress. This time has give me the indisputable joy of being able to discover more about my local community join several of the U3A groups and realise how much more self-sufficient I can be by staying within the Dronfield locality. I have an established group of friends (gathered over the last 15 years) who live in other local areas who are upset by this matter and they are traumatised by this proposal in very similar ways.

For many years, my husband and I became aware of the impact of ice and snowfall during winter on our journeys away from home where leaving home either to use Longcroft Road/Studley Hollow or Holmesfield Road results insignificant gridlock in the local areas around Studley Hollow and then towards Norton Roundabout or alternatively onto Bradway that backs into Totley Rise. These journeys require us to use small back routes (Mickley Lane for example) to travel and they were not designed to carry the already existing road users before we even start to consider the demands of the new residence in these areas. The increase in traffic I can see would make the area even more impossible during winter and also times of heavy rainfall through out the other parts of the year.

The bottleneck where we leave Stubley Lane B6056 after the Barnes Road junction to continue left on through Stubley Hollow then travel downhill towards the traffic light junction is truly horrendous. Studley Hollow is a dangerous bottleneck especially when schoolchildren are crossing the road in the morning and also when the large lorries come through from the B6057 Sheffield Road junction travelling up hill to take the left turning to deliver to the large bakery on Stubley Lane. These large articulated vehicles demand the whole width of the road to manoeuvre through and up to the junction where they then turn left onto Stubley Lane which is a very narrow carriageway which also includes a bus stop and its associated congestion.

There have been times when I have cycled or worst still walked along the pathway where Stubley Lane joins Studley Road (Latitude 53.3063/Longitude - 1.4863) where the path is only on one side of this very narrow part of the road when I have seriously been traumatised by the volume of traffic (which includes these articulated vehicles) and physically swept along by vehicles already using the road as they pass by.

For this reason the plans illustrating where is proposed (building near the traffic light junction with Sheffield Road) gives me great concern as very little consideration seems to have been given to how our infrastructure will cope and how much danger it will create for the existing community.

To read that the plan also includes a 15 acre extension of Callywhite Industrial Estate to accommodate the HGVs and commercial traffic gives me grave concerns. It will change the whole nature of living in Dronfield area and change the whole community beyond recognition and destroy the benefits that drew us to live in this area for the long term.

I have further concerns how the demands of new occupants of this proposed housing will affect our traffic our school places for the children, doctors appointments and existing arrangements for parking in our Dronfield town centre.

I moved out of the centre of Sheffield to have a more peaceful and calm lifestyle which allowed me to enjoy lives closer to the outskirts and countryside of Dronfield Woodhouse. Our bungalow my husband and I both firmly agree was to be our forever home and a place where we could enjoy looking forward to our retirement without the concerns of town/city living.

I am somehow further concerned that the draft local plan suggests 40% of all the developments will be social housing which could significantly change the nature of the local community.

I hope the enclosed points can be seriously taking into consideration as I woul happy to meet with people concerned with making these decisions (to talk with greater passion than I do in this letter) about how traumatised our lives would be should these alterations go ahead.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7042

Received: 02/04/2018

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The plan conflicts with NPPF guidance on long term protection of employment sites.

Not using brownfield sites such as the Padley and Venables site undermines the exceptional circumstances test for the use of Green Belt Land.

Change suggested by respondent:

Remove Callywhite Lane expansion from the plan.
Allow housing on Padley and Venables site

Full text:

. The plan notes that any further extension is unlikely in the plan period and is uncertain due to flood risk and the impact of the adjacent route of HS2. Callywhite Lane has already one major vacant site - the former Padley and Venables site which has remained unused for over 10 years. Expansion of Callywhte Lane is therefore unrealistic and housing need projections for Dronfield based on any expansion of Callywhite Lane are also unrealistic.
NPPF 22 'Planning policies should avoid the long term protection of sites for employment use where there is no reasonable prospect of a site being used for that purpose. .....applications for alternative uses of land or buildings should be treated on their merits having regard to market signals and the relative need for different land uses to support sustainable local communities'. Supports the case for allowing housing on the Padley and Venables site.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7201

Received: 01/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Stubbs

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Extending callywhite lane by imposing on green belt

Change suggested by respondent:

Brownfield sites on Sheffield Road to be used

Full text:

Extending callywhite lane by imposing on green belt

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7463

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mr Oliver Hewitt

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

It does not seem appropriate to extend Callywhite Lane for employment use when there are so many empty units on this estate currently. Use of this land for housing which would help regenerate the area would seem to make more sense than housing development in greenbelt.

Change suggested by respondent:

Consider using redundant land in this area i.e. former padley and venebles site for housing and removing the housing allocation on greenbelt in Dronfield

Full text:

It does not seem appropriate to extend Callywhite Lane for employment use when there are so many empty units on this estate currently. Use of this land for housing which would help regenerate the area would seem to make more sense than housing development in greenbelt.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7824

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: The Woodland Trust

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:


Representation not received on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation. Policy/paragraph identified by Council officer. Compliance/soundness tests interpreted by Council officer.

Object to the inclusion of WC1 as the development of the site is likely to cause damage and/or loss to areas of ancient woodland adjacent to its boundaries. Objection will be maintained until there is a commitment to either avoiding ancient woodland or providing suitable buffers to development. Secondary woodland should also be retained to ensure that ecological networks are maintained and enhanced.

Change suggested by respondent:

Delete regeneration area WC1 from the plan.

Full text:

North East Derbyshire Local Plan: Publication Draft Consultation

The Woodland Trust appreciates the opportunity to comment on the North East Derbyshire Local Plan: Publication Draft.

As the UK's leading woodland conservation charity, the Trust aims to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future. Through the restoration and improvement of woodland biodiversity and increased awareness and understanding of important woodland, these aims can be achieved. We own over 1,250 sites across the UK, covering around 23,000 hectares (57,000 acres) and we have 500,000 members and supporters.

Ancient woodland is defined as an irreplaceable natural resource that has remained constantly wooded since AD1600. The length at which ancient woodland takes to develop and evolve (centuries, even millennia), coupled with the vital links it creates between plants, animals and soils accentuate its irreplaceable status. The varied and unique habitats ancient woodland sites provide for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost. As such, the Woodland Trust aims to prevent the damage, fragmentation and loss of these finite irreplaceable sites from any form of disruptive development.

The Trust is concerned about a number of site allocations included in the North East Derbyshire Local Plan: Publication Draft as they could lead to the damage and loss of ancient woodland.

Planning policy

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) paragraph 118 states that "planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss."

The draft revised National Planning Policy Framework, published on 5th March 2018, further outlines the Government's commitment to improving protection for ancient woodland through the planning system. It states that "development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable mitigation strategy exists." This wording is a clear recognition from the Government of ancient woodland's importance and better need for protection.

Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees1 states:
"Trees and woodland classed as 'ancient' or 'veteran' are irreplaceable. Ancient woodland takes hundreds of years to establish and is considered important for its wildlife, soils, recreation, cultural value, history and contribution to landscapes."

Impacts on ancient woodland

Approximately one quarter of priority UK BAP species are associated with woodland habitats. Forests, woods, and trees make a significant contribution to biodiversity, and ancient sites are recognised as being of particular value. Due to their longevity, ancient woodlands are more species rich, and are often refuges for specialist woodland species that struggle to colonise new areas.

Development in ancient woodland can lead to long-term changes in species composition, particularly ground flora and sensitive fauna, i.e. nesting birds, mammals and reptiles. Majorly adverse impacts would occur as a result of the removal of large areas of woodland, much of which contains high quality, valuable trees, to make way for the construction of this proposal.

When land use is changed to a more intensive use such as in this situation plant and animal populations are exposed to environmental impacts from outside of the woodland. In particular, the habitats will become more vulnerable to the outside influences, or edge effects, that result from the adjacent land's change of use. These detrimental edge effects can result in changes to the environmental conditions within the woodland and consequently affecting the wood's stable conditions. Detrimental edge effects have been shown to penetrate woodland causing changes in ancient woodland characteristics that extend up to three times the canopy height in from the forest edges.

Creation of new areas of woodland or buffer zones around semi-natural habitats, and more particularly ancient woodland, will help to reduce and ameliorate the impact of damaging edge effects, serving to improve their sustainability. The size of the buffer is dependent on the intensity of land use in the intervening matrix between ancient woods.

1 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ancient-woodland-and-veteran-trees-protection-surveys-licences

Natural England's standing advice for Ancient Woodland and Veteran Trees states:

"Development can affect ancient woodland and veteran trees, and the wildlife they support, when it takes place on the site, or nearby. You can assess the potential impacts using this assessment guide and use this to help you with planning decisions.

Direct impacts of development on ancient woodland or veteran trees include:

damaging or destroying all or part of them (including their soils, ground flora, or fungi)
damaging roots and understorey (all the vegetation under the taller trees)
damaging or compacting soil around the tree roots
polluting the ground around them
changing the water table or drainage of woodland or individual trees
damaging archaeological features or heritage assets

Nearby development can also have an indirect impact on ancient woodland or veteran trees and the species they support. These can include:

breaking up or destroying connections between woodlands and veteran trees
reducing the amount of seminatural habitats next to ancient woodland
increasing the amount of pollution, including dust
increasing disturbance to wildlife from additional traffic and visitors
increasing light pollution
increasing damaging activities like flytipping and the impact of domestic pets
changing the landscape character of the area"

Development must be kept as far as possible from ancient woodland, with a buffer area maintained between the ancient woodland and any development boundary. An appropriate buffer area will depend on the local circumstances and Natural England recommend "leaving an appropriate buffer zone of semi-natural habitat between the development and the ancient woodland (depending on the size of development, a minimum buffer should be at least 15 metres)."

The size of a number of the site allocations suggests that large scale development could potentially take place. The minimum 15m buffer recommendation to all development is not effective in ensuring that ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations is not affected by potential future development. Buffers should be constructed on a case-by-case basis rather than a 'one size fits all' approach.

Conclusion

The Trust is concerned about the potentially adverse impacts that the proposed site allocations will have in relation to areas of ancient woodland within and/or adjacent to site allocations. Ancient woodland should not be included in areas that are allocated for development, whether for residential, leisure or community purposes as this leaves them open to the impacts of development.

The Woodland Trust objects to the inclusion of the below site allocations in the North East Derbyshire Local Plan: Publication Draft as they are likely to cause damage and/or loss to areas of ancient woodland within or adjacent to their boundaries. For this reason we believe the sites in the table below are unsound and should not be taken forward. We will maintain our objection until there is a commitment to either avoiding ancient woodland or providing suitable buffers to development. Secondary woodland should also be retained to ensure that ecological networks are maintained and enhanced.

We hope you find our comments to be of use to you. The Woodland Trust is happy to provide any additional information or support regarding the protection of ancient woodland. If you require any further information regarding points raised within this document, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours sincerely,
Jack Taylor
Campaigner - Ancient Woodland

Site reference number: WC1 (MAP2)
Name of site: Dronfield Regeneration Area
Nearest Town: Dronfield
Development description: Regeneration area
Woodland adjacent or within?: Adjacent
Type of woodland affected (e.g. ASNW, PAWS, secondary) & grid reference: Firth Wood (ASNW) SK436378; Bridgefield Wood (ASNW) SK370780


Site reference number: KL2 (Map3)
Name of site: Housing
Nearest Town: Killamarsh
Development description: Housing allocation
Woodland adjacent or within?: Adjacent
Type of woodland affected (e.g. ASNW, PAWS, secondary) & grid reference: Nor Wood (ASNW) SK470817

Site reference number: WW1 & WW2
Name of site: Housing
Nearest Town: Wingerworth
Development description: Housing allocation
Woodland adjacent or within?: Adjacent
Type of woodland affected (e.g. ASNW, PAWS, secondary) & grid reference: Sutcliffe Woods (ASNW) SK38665

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7870

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Cllr Alex Dale, County, District, Town, Parish Cllr Dronfield

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Representation Summary:

Representation not made on representation form; Council officer has made interpretation.
I strongly question the need for this development given the number of units on the industrial estate which are vacant. It is also widely accepted that only a small proportion of the population of Dronfield work in the town as well, so I do not feel there is a need to expand employment provision. I am also very concerned about any proposals for a flyover from Chesterfield Road onto an extended Callywhite Lane site, which would undoubtedly result in an increase in HGV traffic through the communities of Unstone and Dronfield. Both of which, in my view, already suffer with too much HGV traffic and the issues of air pollution which accompany them.

Change suggested by respondent:

I strongly question the need for this development given the number of units on the industrial estate which are vacant. It is also widely accepted that only a small proportion of the population of Dronfield work in the town as well, so I do not feel there is a need to expand employment provision. I am also very concerned about any proposals for a flyover from Chesterfield Road onto an extended Callywhite Lane site, which would undoubtedly result in an increase in HGV traffic through the communities of Unstone and Dronfield. Both of which, in my view, already suffer with too much HGV traffic and the issues of air pollution which accompany them.

Full text:

I am writing in response to your consultation on the Publication Draft of the North East Derbyshire District Council Local Plan and to express my very strong objections to many aspects of it.

I am writing as a local County Councillor for Dronfield East Division, District and Town Councillor for Coal Aston and Parish Councillor for Unstone. I also reside in the area, in the village of Unstone.
My objections can be summarised as follows (and will each be dealt with in more detail below):
* Unacceptable harm to the green belt and a failure to demonstrate the exceptional circumstances required to remove significant parcels of land from the green belt
* Over inflated housing requirements, concern over the underlying calculations which have been used to justify it and a resultant failure to demonstrate the need for all of the housing allocations which have been proposed
* Lack of evidence to justify the sustainability of what has been proposed and inadequate plans to improve local infrastructure sufficiently in order to make the proposals sustainable (particularly with regard to the Dronfield area)
* Inadequate consultation processes with local people who stand to be most affected by what is proposed
* Specific comments in relation to some of the proposals for the Dronfield area

As noted above, some of the comments I will make are in relation to the Plan as a whole, while others will be specific to the proposals in my own area of Dronfield.

Green Belt
I strongly object to the proposals to remove land from the green built in order to designate sites for 1,275 new dwellings, including 475 in Dronfield, which are contrary to paragraphs 79, 80 and 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
The NPPF makes clear that the essential characteristics of the green belt are its openness and its permanence, both of which will be irrevocably damaged if the above proposals are allowed to proceed.
The NPPF also details the five purposes of the green belt. The land proposed to be removed from the green belt across Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh still serves a number of these purposes.
Furthermore, the NPPF makes clear that green belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, which I do not believe have been demonstrated by NEDDC. The promised 'Green Belt Topic Paper' which the Council say has set out the justification for the green belt proposals has not been released until late in the consultation, which does not give residents the opportunity to fully analyse and scrutinise the report. I understand this paper and the Duty to Cooperate statement are subject to a further extend consultation and I will reserve my comments on these documents to a separate submission.
Alternative options, particularly brownfield sites, have not been given sufficient consideration and appear to have been prematurely dismissed by the Council as "unviable" or "undeliverable". I understand residents have put forward a number of suggested alternatives in Dronfield to the local Town Council as part of its Neighbourhood Plan consultation and these will be put forward to accompany the Town Council's response to this consultation. I would urge NEDDC and the Planning Inspectorate to carefully consider and appraise all other options which are put forward and particularly those which could help to reduce the burden on the green belt.
I concur with the views of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, who have highlighted the fact that housing developments proposed in the North of the District, like Dronfield, are not aligned with the economic strategy, as major employment growth is planned for the South and East of the District.
The vast majority of the population of Dronfield work either in Sheffield, Chesterfield or further afield and by increasing the housing stock and population in the town, the District Council will only be contributing to more outward commuting and all the negative impacts, such as air pollution and congestion, that go with it.

Need
Section 4.7 of the Local Plan indicates that if following the Government's standard methodology, the District's Housing needs would be around 5600 homes rather than the 6,600 that has been put forward. The ensuing paragraphs explain that the Council has chosen to adopt the higher figure to cater for economic growth and to deliver more affordable housing.
This is contrary to comments made by the then Planning Minister during a debate in the House of Commons in 2013, who said that a local authority is required to "demonstrate to the Inspector the reasons it needs to supply those numbers, which cannot be that it is ambitious or that it is going for growth."
According to the NPPF, housing need must be objectively assessed and the evidence to justify the over-inflated housing target NEDDC is pursuing is inadequate. I would urge the Planning Inspectorate to review the District's housing needs analysis and revise down the housing target to a level which is based on needs rather than unrealistic ambitions for growth.
Of this over-inflated target, the Council acknowledges that there are just 1,764 new houses still to deliver. That is because 975 have already been built and a further 3,882 already have planning permission. And yet, when calculating the number of planning permissions, without adequate justification, the Council stopped counting over a year ago in March 2017. Therefore, the figure for what is still left to deliver would undoubtedly be significantly lower if they were to count planning permissions which have been achieved since March 2017.
In addition, the Council has failed to include within the allocation key developments such as the Coalite site, which is set to deliver 660 new houses, simply because a small corner of the site will be clipped by the HS2 route. All of this was discussed when the application was before planning committee and it was not considered to have a significant impact on the delivery of new homes on this important brownfield site.
400 homes on the Avenue and 350 at Holmewood are also not included in the allocations as the Council is choosing to deliver them beyond the Plan period.
And finally, the Plan acknowledges that windfalls could amount to 75 homes per year. Therefore, from March of last year, when the Council stopped counting planning permissions, to the end of the Plan period, 1,250 homes could be delivered through windfalls alone. But the Council has decided not to include these within the main housing allocations.
All of the above examples show that the Council has choices which could eliminate the need for any housing on the green belt in the District, but it is failing to pursue them. I would urge the Planning Inspectorate to scrutinise very carefully whether the Council has adequately considered all alternative options before coming forward with proposals to remove land from the green belt. If it is not deemed to have done so, I would ask that the Inspector requests amendments to the Plan to ensure it is effectively utilising the options at its disposal to alleviate the burden on the green belt.

Sustainability
The Plan fails to sufficiently consider and make arrangements to mitigate the impact of the proposals on local infrastructure. Taking Dronfield as an example, some of the local schools are at capacity and the sites are limited in terms of capacity for expansion. The Dronfield Henry Fanshawe School is a prime example of this.
Health facilities such as GP surgeries in Dronfield are also in very high demand and many residents complain about significant delays in trying to book appointments. The Plan does not explain how this will be improved or at the very least how the new development will be mitigated so that it does not make the problem worse.
In terms of the impact on local highways, paragraph 9.31 of the Plan explains that there "may be a need to consider mitigation measures" at Green Lane, Chesterfield Road, Callywhite Lane junction and at approaches to A61 Bowshaw roundabout. However no further detail is provided, which is of significant concern.
Paragraph 7.9 of the Plan discusses the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre and yet does not appear to acknowledge that a number of shops, banks and other amenities have closed down in recent years.
Many local residents, myself included, feel very strongly that the District Council is planning for new housing without putting in place the necessary infrastructure and as a result, the Plan is unsustainable.

Consultation Processes
Generally speaking, I believe the consultation process has been run poorly, with only very limited attempts to make local residents aware of what is proposed in their area and give them straightforward information to respond constructively to the consultation.
The Local Plan itself and accompanying documentation are extremely long and written in a way which is not easy for many residents to read and understand. This is contrary to NEDDC's own Community Involvement Strategy, which states that the authority would keep the process simple and use plain English.
There are also a number of typos and other errors within the documentation and different figures are provided in different documentation. For example when communicating the closing date for the consultation, which is clearly important for residents to know, the date provided was different across separate documents, with some suggesting it was as early as 2nd April and 3rd April, when in reality it is 4th April. As a specific example, Dronfield Town Council received a letter seeking its views which included an incorrect date for the closure of the consultation.
As previously mentioned, two important documents which should be read in conjunction with the Local Plan were not released until late March when the consultation was almost over. While I understand they will be subject to an extended separate consultation, this only serves to "muddy the waters" for local residents in our communities trying to make sense of the proposals and formulating their views.
Previous objections to the last round of consultation were inaccurately recorded in the Cabinet Report of 14th February 2018 as being "comments" rather than "objections". I would urge the Council to very carefully review the submissions to this consultation so that the same mistakes are not made this time and the Inspectorate are not giving misleading information regarding the nature of the responses the Council has received.

DR1. Land off Shakespeare Crescent & Sheffield Road, Dronfield
In addition to the above points, I am specifically concerned that this site represents an important boundary between the communities of Unstone and Dronfield. Therefore, as a piece of green belt land it serves the vital function of preventing the coalescence of two separate and distinct communities, which is one of the five purposes of the green belt according to the NPPF. The site is currently used as agricultural land and is visually important to the character of the Town, given its location on one of the main arterial routes in and out of Dronfield.

DR2. Land north of Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
Again, this site occupies an important location in terms of the green belt boundary between Coal Aston and Sheffield and I strongly object to its erosion. It is also situated on another main arterial route into Coal Aston and Dronfield and therefore serves an important role in preserving the somewhat rural character of the village and Town. The residents opposite currently enjoy unique views across the Moss Valley conservation area which would be blighted by development in this location. I am also concerned about the impact on the natural environment given it is at such close proximity to the conservation area which is home to a number of different species.

6ha extension of Callywhite Lane Industrial estate
I strongly question the need for this development given the number of units on the industrial estate which are vacant. It is also widely accepted that only a small proportion of the population of Dronfield work in the town as well, so I do not feel there is a need to expand employment provision. I am also very concerned about any proposals for a flyover from Chesterfield Road onto an extended Callywhite Lane site, which would undoubtedly result in an increase in HGV traffic through the communities of Unstone and Dronfield. Both of which, in my view, already suffer with too much HGV traffic and the issues of air pollution which accompany them.

Attachments: