Dronfield

Showing comments and forms 1 to 17 of 17

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6939

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Goodwin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

PARAGRAPH 7.3 In fact, the train the service is not that frequent, especially not to further afield.
Parking is very limited and the proposed housing sites in Dronfield, at outer reaches of town and up steep gradients, are not within easy walking distance. Thus, car use from these sites to use the train station would be very high. Over spill parking on roads surrounding the station already causes very significant congestion and road safety issues for thousands of children attending schools on School Lane and Green Lane.

Change suggested by respondent:

Reduce the number of houses in the plan and investigate the use of brownfield sites and windfall areas away from Dronfield.

Full text:

PARAGRAPH 7.3 In fact, the train the service is not that frequent, especially not to further afield.
Parking is very limited and the proposed housing sites in Dronfield, at outer reaches of town and up steep gradients, are not within easy walking distance. Thus, car use from these sites to use the train station would be very high. Over spill parking on roads surrounding the station already causes very significant congestion and road safety issues for thousands of children attending schools on School Lane and Green Lane.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6940

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Rep refers to para 7.4
Rising house prices and unmet housing need is an incorrect assessment of Dronfield. House prices remain at levels well below the national average.
Meaningful and sustainable growth is occurring in Dronfield within the settlement development limits. The Plan cannot release parcels of land from the Green Belt before exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated or by pushing through development on Green Belt before considering all other options.
There is no evidence that this Council has made the case for a lower OAN because it is constrained by Green Belt. Such Councils are able to use this quite legitimately to lower housing numbers within their Plans. They are in fact using the constraints to make the case for development on the Green Belt which will be developer-led

Change suggested by respondent:

This information about Dronfield is incorrect. Unmet need and rising house prices are not occurring. Growth is occurring in a sustainable way. What is a 'meaningful' way? I suspect that should say sustainable!

Where in the Plan has this Council revised its OAN numbers down because it is an authority constrained by Green Belt? It is a legitimate reason to do so

Full text:

Rep refers to para 7.4
Rising house prices and unmet housing need is an incorrect assessment of Dronfield. House prices remain at levels well below the national average.
Meaningful and sustainable growth is occurring in Dronfield within the settlement development limits. The Plan cannot release parcels of land from the Green Belt before exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated or by pushing through development on Green Belt before considering all other options.
There is no evidence that this Council has made the case for a lower OAN because it is constrained by Green Belt. Such Councils are able to use this quite legitimately to lower housing numbers within their Plans. They are in fact using the constraints to make the case for development on the Green Belt which will be developer-led

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6941

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Goodwin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op groceries shop at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notable the proposed Shakespeare Site) without a groceries store within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent, successive closure of all but one of Dronfield's Banks.

Change suggested by respondent:

Focus on viable sustainability. Using thorough investigation of brownfield sites and reinstating dwellings that have been left uninhabited. Thus using existing properties to house new residents and not putting undue pressure on resources that have been lost.

Full text:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op groceries shop at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notable the proposed Shakespeare Site) without a groceries store within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent, successive closure of all but one of Dronfield's Banks.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6942

Received: 22/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Goodwin

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

referring to Paragraph 7.10 - Results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Change suggested by respondent:

Encourage the existing residents to walk to the Town Centre with health initiatives.

Full text:

referring to Paragraph 7.10 - Results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 6943

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Rep refs to Sustainability appraisal and para 7.2
There is nothing in the Plan that suggests anything will be done to improve transport and traffic management in Dronfield apart from a mention of two problem junctions areas and a vague mention of traffic lights. The allocations for housing (edge of town) will drive up congestion. The Plan completely overlooks the B6057(main road through the town). The A61 is irrelevant as that is the Dronfield by-pass which has no access onto it from within Dronfield. The railway station is irrelevant if housing sites are too far from it which means use of the car to reach it. This Council has never supported the Town Council or voluntary groups like Dronfield Civic Society and Friends of Dronfield Station in their efforts to look at options to bring through additional car parking at the railway station. This goes against the objectives for Sustainable Travel.

Change suggested by respondent:

Again false information which does not provide any concrete delivery plans. This is unsustainable development in unsustainable areas, exacerbating Dronfield's already congested roads. Incorrect information, unsound, unjustified and contrary to the NPPF for Sustainable travel.

Full text:

Rep refs to Sustainability Appraisal and para 7.2
Whoever wrote this? (See below) It doesn't even make sense. There is nothing in the Plan that suggests anything will be done to improve transport and traffic management in Dronfield. All this version has done is to name two junctions which are problem areas and some vague ramble about adding traffic lights at one of them. The allocations for housing on the outer reaches of town will drive up congestion. The Plan completely overlooks the B6057, which is the main road through the town. The A61 is irrelevant as that is the Dronfield by-pass which has no access onto it from within Dronfield. The railway station is irrelevant if housing sites are too far from it which means use of the car to reach it. This Council has never supported the Town Council or voluntary groups like Dronfield Civic Society and Friends of Dronfield Station in their efforts to look at options to bring through additional car parking at the railway station. This goes against the objectives for Sustainable Travel.

OTHER TEXT AND EXTRACTS ATTACHED IN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7171

Received: 30/03/2018

Respondent: Alan Tomlinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

7.2 In the real world Dronfield railway station is primarily used by commuters to Sheffield and Chesterfield. The service to places further afield is very limited, with residents travelling to Chesterfield or Sheffield for better service time table. The proposed developments in Dronfield are not within reasonable walking distance of the station ( Distance and hills )which would. mean car travel to the station, with the very restricted off road car parking already full by 08.00. the current overspill parking on roads surrounding the station already causes congestion and road safety issues for school children attending the nearby school

Change suggested by respondent:

remove the railway station as an asset. Practically it is not an asset, it is a not what the statement infers and has very limited potential.

Full text:

7.2 In the real world Dronfield railway station is primarily used by commuters to Sheffield and Chesterfield. The service to places further afield is very limited, with residents travelling to Chesterfield or Sheffield for better service time table. The proposed developments in Dronfield are not within reasonable walking distance of the station ( Distance and hills )which would. mean car travel to the station, with the very restricted off road car parking already full by 08.00. the current overspill parking on roads surrounding the station already causes congestion and road safety issues for school children attending the nearby school

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7175

Received: 30/03/2018

Respondent: Alan Tomlinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

7.4 this statement is built on dubious projections, 'most sustainable'? based on questionable projections, high demand for growth ? 'growth only round edges on green belt' incorrect statement!,'least harm to green belt', Coal Aston site is in a nature conservation area adjacent to a SSSI site. '475 houses increasing to 570 houses', this should be reducing 380 houses?

Change suggested by respondent:

This clause should be removed and rewritten using realistic projections and the removal of incorrect statements and least harm to functionality... see Neddc Strategic Green Belt Functionality Study final report 2014. ie whilst this plan was being produced

Full text:

7.4 this statement is built on dubious projections, 'most sustainable'? based on questionable projections, high demand for growth ? 'growth only round edges on green belt' incorrect statement!,'least harm to green belt', Coal Aston site is in a nature conservation area adjacent to a SSSI site. '475 houses increasing to 570 houses', this should be reducing 380 houses?

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7204

Received: 02/04/2018

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

No firm or achievable implementation proposals

Change suggested by respondent:

Indicate a clear plan for achieving the regeneration objectives

Full text:

The regeneration objectives described are admirable but there is no hard evidence as to how they will be achieved. Based on the 2035 Vision for the town there are several areas where this section of the plan is in conflict with other sections, for example housing. The housing targets and green belt proposals take no account of the potential for using small sites in the town for example.
The regeneration plans are also based on old data. For example there are now 4 unused units in the Civic Centre, two banks have closed and a third has reduced to 3 days and the main co-op store has closed.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7266

Received: 30/03/2018

Respondent: Jean King

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Policy / paragraph identified by Council Officer
SP1 Dronfield
What planning has been made for the effects of increasing the population through this house building program on Dronfield's infrastructure such as roads, education and health provision?

Change suggested by respondent:

I support Group statements submitted by Dronfield Greenbelt Residents Group and Dronfield Civic Society.
I don't believe there should be any development on greenbelt land, but any building programme should be integrated with comprehensive development of local infrastructure, including schools and medical facilities. No development should go ahead without such planning.

Full text:

Policy / paragraph identified by Council Officer
SP1 Dronfield
What planning has been made for the effects of increasing the population through this house building program on Dronfield's infrastructure such as roads, education and health provision?

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7367

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: MR JOHN NAYLOR

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Site DR2 is not within walking distance of an infant school, increasing the use of cars to schools that have to be driven to, increasing congestion and pollution, thereby compromising pedestrian safety. This is particularly acute on Falcon Rd, the Avenue and Stonelow Road. These schools are already oversubscribed and, as an ex-governor of Holmesdale Infants, I know the site is not suitable for extension without removing essential outdoor play space.
Henry Fanshawe has huge classes and cannot cope with extra pupils, with absolutely no room to extend the current buildings.

Change suggested by respondent:

The settlement hierarchy should not have been drawn up and stuck to so inflexibly before detailed infrastructure assessments were made. It cannot be used to demonstrate exceptional circumstances for building on Green Belt.
The NPPF necessitates protection of Green Belt, hence all other options to meet housing needs must be explored first, including an uneven spatial distribution of housing across the district and cooperation with neighbouring councils.
Remove greenbelt sites from the plan and focus on alternatives.

Full text:

Site DR2 is not within walking distance of an infant school, increasing the use of cars to schools that have to be driven to, increasing congestion and pollution, thereby compromising pedestrian safety. This is particularly acute on Falcon Rd, the Avenue and Stonelow Road. These schools are already oversubscribed and, as an ex-governor of Holmesdale Infants, I know the site is not suitable for extension without removing essential outdoor play space.
Henry Fanshawe has huge classes and cannot cope with extra pupils, with absolutely no room to extend the current buildings.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7388

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: Anne Dawson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent, successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 Results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Change suggested by respondent:

I support Group statements submitted by Dronfield Greenbelt Residents' Group and Dronfield Civic Society, hence I would like to request these changes:

Remove proposals for releasing land from the Greenbelt for housing development.

Lower housing target to a realistic level nearer that from the Government's proposed standard methodology.

Include alternative housing sources (brownfield sites, windfalls, small sites, site near neighbouring authority, empty houses) as contributions to target.

Increase densities and % affordable housing on non-Greenbelt sites.

Concentrate housing allocations on strategic sites near employment sites.

Full text:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent, successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 Results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7426

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: D Bullers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

7.9 The town centre is dying following a number of recent shopand bank closures. Several charity shops and estate agents do not represent a thriving retail hub. Past planning has contributed to thi stat of affairs as prior to Sainsbury's being build it was said it would hurt existing businesses.

IF Sainsbury's had been integrated to towncentre by better design and site layout people would use the other shops, rather than just the supermarket..

7.12 regeneration framework plan is little more than a makeover, a bolder plan to rebuild centre needed to integrate with Sainsbury's and provide more sheltered housing.

Change suggested by respondent:

Better planing need to redevelop town centre.

Regeneration frameworks needs to be funded by developer contributions and being made a bolder regeneration with new high density housing (flats) and more parking underneath the new facilities.

Full text:

7.9 The town centre is dying following a number of recent shopand bank closures. Several charity shops and estate agents do not represent a thriving retail hub. Past planning has contributed to thi stat of affairs as prior to Sainsbury's being build it was said it would hurt existing businesses.

IF Sainsbury's had been integrated to towncentre by better design and site layout people would use the other shops, rather than just the supermarket..

7.12 regeneration framework plan is little more than a makeover, a bolder plan to rebuild centre needed to integrate with Sainsbury's and provide more sheltered housing.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7576

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Minnie Sharpe

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Change suggested by respondent:

I support Group statements submitted by Dronfield Greenbelt Residents' Group and Dronfield Civic Society, hence I would like to request the following changes:
Remove proposals for releasing land from the Greenbelt for housing development.
Lower housing target to a realistic level nearer that from the Government's proposed standard methodology.
Include alternative housing sources (brownfield sites, windfalls, small sites, site near neighbouring authority, empty houses) as contributions to target.
Increase densities and % affordable housing on non-Greenbelt sites.
Concentrate housing allocations on strategic sites near employment sites.

Full text:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7582

Received: 03/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jean Fletcher

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Change suggested by respondent:

I support Group statements submitted by Dronfield Greenbelt Residents' Group and Dronfield Civic Society, hence I would like to request the following changes:
Remove proposals for releasing land from the Greenbelt for housing development.
Lower housing target to a realistic level nearer that from the Government's proposed standard methodology.
Include alternative housing sources (brownfield sites, windfalls, small sites, site near neighbouring authority, empty houses) as contributions to target.
Increase densities and % affordable housing on non-Greenbelt sites.
Concentrate housing allocations on strategic sites near employment sites.

Full text:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7738

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Dawson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent, successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 Results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Change suggested by respondent:

I support Group statements submitted by Dronfield Greenbelt Residents' Group and Dronfield Civic Society, hence I would like to request these changes:

Remove proposals for releasing land from the Greenbelt for housing development.

Lower housing target to a realistic level nearer that from the Government's proposed standard methodology.

Include alternative housing sources (brownfield sites, windfalls, small sites, site near neighbouring authority, empty houses) as contributions to target.

Increase densities and % affordable housing on non-Greenbelt sites.

Concentrate housing allocations on strategic sites near employment sites.

Full text:

Paragraph 7.9 talks about the vitality and viability of Dronfield Town Centre. It does not mention the recent closure of the Co-op store at the Civic Centre, which leaves South Dronfield (notably the proposed Shakespeare Site) without any shops within moderately easy walking distance. It also does not mention the recent, successive closure of all Dronfield's banks.
Paragraph 7.10 Results of a Dronfield household survey in 2016 revealed that 74.5% of respondents travel to Dronfield Town centre by car. This is evidence that Dronfield's already existing urban sprawl contributes to unsustainable travel patterns.

Attachments:

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7902

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Louise Sharpe

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Representation refers to paragraph 7.9

It mentions vitality and viability of Dronfield town centre.

The civic centre is dying with the closure of the Co-op, HSBC , Royal Bank of Scotland reduced hours, closure of the Nat West, the post office is difficult to get to with the lack of parking. Amenities every town requires.

Change suggested by respondent:

Infrastructure not in place. Local amenities not there for current residents.
Poor quality of shops, when a shop closes it opens as a charity shop. A variety of businesses required.

Need a concrete plan for Dronfield town centre before building more houses.

Full text:

It mentions vitality and viability of Dronfield town centre.

The civic centre is dying with the closure of the Co-op, HSBC , Royal Bank of Scotland reduced hours, closure of the Nat West, the post office is difficult to get to with the lack of parking. Amenities every town requires.

Object

North East Derbyshire Publication Draft Local Plan (Reg 19)

Representation ID: 7905

Received: 04/04/2018

Respondent: Mrs Louise Sharpe

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Reference is made to paragraph 7.2

The train station is not as easy accessible to everyone in Dronfield it requires a car. The car park is full most days more parking would be required, this would spill out onto the outlying roads which are near both a primary, junior school and secondary school causing more congestion and throws up a safety issue for the children, especially the secondary school. More pollution.

Change suggested by respondent:

Infrastructure not there. No appropriate transport links now to take people to the station. More cars to station increases pollution and carbon footprint which government are trying to reduce. Due to station near schools this could impact children health. Increased traffic near Cliffe Park. Pedestrian safety.
Don't build on the greenbelt.

Full text:

The train station is not as easy accessible to everyone in Dronfield it requires a car. The car park is full most days more parking would be required, this would spill out onto the outlying roads which are near both a primary, junior school and secondary school causing more congestion and throws up a safety issue for the children, especially the secondary school. More pollution.