Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1


North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7145

Received: 27/03/2018

Respondent: Chesterfield Borough Council


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

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.

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.

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

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.
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.

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.
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.
Para 6.17
SUPPORT the approach to allowing some capacity for losses of employment land over the plan period.
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.

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.

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.

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.