MM/030

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 175

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10020

Received: 10/11/2020

Respondent: Jon Myers

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation:

I wish to object very strongly about this proposed removal of green belt land to build houses on. There are very good reasons that we must maintain our green belts including preventing urban sprawl and to define our countries towns and villages from merging into one another.

Once green belt has been built on, it will be gone forever. Building on green belt will also add to increasing flooding problems.

Brown field land must be built on as a priority over loss of any green belt.

We will lose our views over the fields for good plus theres not enough resources in Dronfield
The schools and doctors are bursting with people you need to stop and think before you ruin dronfield for good.

Full text:

Representation form, received 10/11/2020:
I wish to object very strongly about this proposed removal of green belt land to build houses on. There are very good reasons that we must maintain our green belts including preventing urban sprawl and to define our countries towns and villages from merging into one another.

Once green belt has been built on, it will be gone forever. Building on green belt will also add to increasing flooding problems.

Brown field land must be built on as a priority over loss of any green belt.

We will lose our views over the fields for good plus theres not enough resources in Dronfield
The schools and doctors are bursting with people you need to stop and think before you ruin dronfield for good.

Email, received 10/11/2020:
I strongly object to the building of houses due to the pinching the precious green belt causing urban sprawl and nesting bats have been seen in that top field near the trees.
Im so upset that this has reared its ugly head again while were in lockdown, a very sneeky tactic

Email, received 04/11/2020:
Morning, as i type this im looking over the fields around our house, i often go walking through a few that are on your plans to ruin.
The reason we bought our house 21 years ago on Shakespeare crescent is for the area and the surrounding countryside, not to be blocked in by a big housing estate that we dont need.
160 houses plus 60 more is not what dronfield need as were already a very full area, the schools are all over full.
The doctors surgery at the civic is a nightmare to get an appointment.
And you would be taking away the views around my whole area.
Im about to print out and deliver the full details to each and every person that lives in the area
As most people havent got a clue.
I see you have waited until people's minds are concentrating on covid to sneek the plans in again.
Totally unacceptable and i strongly object

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10047

Received: 22/11/2020

Respondent: Jim Ward

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised the representation.

I am appalled to hear that the inspector is proposing to modify the local plan in this area, as opposed to keeping all this land in the green belt, as has been the case elsewhere in Dronfield.

Dronfield does not have the infrastructure to cope with more housing. Henry Fanshaw School is already at capacity. We struggle to get doctors appointments, and see an NHS dentist.

There is former opencast land in Unstone for the failed "Centre Parks". It would be more fitting to housing on parts of it.

Building these houses on green belt land will not improve the area. Dronfield is an expensive area to live. This land, due to its sloping nature will attract housing association and council housing, as opposed to private development. This is the wrong fit for this area.

The existing road network is already under severe strain.

Concern about flooding and the steep nature of the site.

Full text:

Re: Modification of Local Plan Ref MM/030 Page 70 Shakespeare Crescent

My name is James Ward and I reside on Shelley Drive, Dronfield which is off Shakespeare Crescent.

I am appalled to hear that the inspector is proposing to modify the local plan in this area, as opposed to simply keeping all this land in the green belt, as has been the case elsewhere in Dronfield.

Dronfield simply does not have the infrastructure to cope with more housing. A further 200 plus houses (163 here and 40 in Stubley area) would place further strain on our local area. Dronfield Henry Fanshawe school is already over subscribed and is one of the top schools in the county. It needs to remain that way. Whilst there is talk of extending the nearest junior school on School Lane, Henry Fanshawe is already at capacity. We struggle to get doctors appointments, and most dentist are not taking on NHS patients without a wait.

There is a huge area of former opencast land in Unstone where this failed "Centre Parks" has been talked about since the mid 80's. Surely this would be more fitting to sensible housing on parts of it. It is nearer the A61, the road network is more forgiving with a choice of more schools and infrastructure.

Furthermore, would building all these houses on green belt land improve the area? I firmly believe it wont. This would detriment the town to a large degree. Dronfield is, and has been for some time now, an expensive area to live and many people have stretched themselves to move to Dronfield to enjoy the area and raise their families, in an area with less crime, fewer gangs and drugs etc. This land, due to its sloping nature will attract housing association and council housing, as opposed to private development. This is the wrong fit for this area. Dronfield does need affordable housing that our children and aspire to buy, but to lower the value of the area by attracting rental housing is wrong, and wholly unfair to the people of the town who have worked hard to build a quality life for themselves and their families.

The existing road network is already under severe strain. Callywhite Lane is fit to burst every 30 minutes from 3pm onwards, School Lane and surrounding roads, where the new proposed school extension would be constructed is already a hazard to children, due to inconsiderate "cant walk wont walk" parents. Whether we like this or not, it will only make matters worse and a child will get hurt or even killed. The roads are not built for this many people and to remove land from the green belt will make this worse. Developers care about one thing and that is money. All the public community spiel they spout is garbage. Its simply an act. Once they are underway they ignore planning constraints, and residents give in simply to get the things built and get rid of the builder.

The land off Shakespeare Crescent was going to be built on in the late 70's early 80's. There is even a provision there off Shakespeare Crescent and Burns Drive. It was stopped then for good reason and I fail to see what has changed. The roads are more congested, more dangerous, there are more cars on them, and more strain on local resources. The road at the bottom of this land is already very busy throughout the day, and heaven help us when the bypass has a problem.

This land is also very steep as stated earlier. Is it really fit for housing? There is already a huge flooding issue when it rains heavily. The road further down near the former public house (Fleur De Leys) floods frequently, and Dronfield bottom also suffers. To remove more natural drainage would again make things worse and cause more flooding. I appreciate that the politicians answer is that removing the land from green belt does not guarantee planning for housing. Again, we all know that this is not the case. It is well documented that the planning system is broken in this country, and projects are given the green light despite the fact they have no business being built. We cannot trust this system to protect us and our way of life when politics, and allegedly even money are involved in our UK planning system.

I beg you, please dont let Dronfield down. Develop the town the right way, improve the infrastructure and build the right type of housing, in the right areas for people to buy and improve their own lives through hard work and determination.

Attachments:

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10068

Received: 03/12/2020

Respondent: Ms Mary Reape

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

There are no exceptional circumstances that green belt needs to be used as a recent non green belt site was developed with 4 bedroom housing which is not consistent with the housing needs outlined by Dronfield Local Plan ie housing for elderly and starter homes. A report from Rynkeld also states ‘strong evidence for smaller dwellings (1 or 2 bedrooms) will grow significantly over the Plan period. The local stock of smaller dwellings was well below district and national levels. I am suggesting that alternatives to green belt must be utilised. Overall figures for NE Derbyshire new house building along with the ones in the pipeline would suggest that the gap between the target and reality is not so great that ‘exceptional circumstances’ need to be claimed.

The site at Shakespeare Crescent is in real danger of ‘erosion of existing settlement and identity’ with Unstone
There is a serious issue with access to the proposed site at Stubley Hollow.

Full text:

I don’t think there are exceptional circumstances that green belt needs to be used as a recent non green belt site was developed with luxury 4 double bedroom housing which is not consistent with the housing needs outlined by Dronfield Local Plan ie housing for elderly and starter homes. A NEDCC report from Rynkeld (2011) also states ‘strong evidence for smaller dwellings (1 or 2 bedrooms) will grow significantly over the Plan period. At that time there was only 26% of housing stock having 1-2 bedrooms which was well below the district (35%) and national (40%) levels. I am suggesting that alternatives to green belt are and can be available but they must be utilised.(I appreciate that the study may be seen as old but I don’t think the situation has changed significantly in the local area according to Dronfield Town Council)
Overall figures for NE Derbyshire new house building along with the ones in the pipeline would suggest that the gap between the target and reality is not so great that ‘exceptional circumstances’ need to be claimed.
A couple of perhaps smaller points
i) the site at Chesterfield Rd/Shakespeare Crescent I think is in real danger of the ‘erosion of existing settlement and identity’ with Unstone, the next village
ii) I think there is a serious issue with access to the proposed site at Stubley Hollow.

Attachments:

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10096

Received: 09/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Barron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Referring to diagram DR1 The planned retention of the intention to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not accommodate an up to date evaluation of available land on “windfall sites” and development of “brown field sites” in the local area. There is no cognisance given to current and completed house building in the wider area of NE Derbyshire which the Local Plan covers.

Full text:

Referring to diagram DR1 The planned retention of the intention to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not accommodate an up to date evaluation of available land on “windfall sites” and development of “brown field sites” in the local area. There is no cognisance given to current and completed house building in the wider area of NE Derbyshire which the Local Plan covers.


DRO/2701 Gladys Buxton Community Centre site only shown.
No recognition of sites such as the ground where the former Talbot Arms pub was, Hearts of Oak pub on Northern Common, the potential site of The Three Tuns pub on Chesterfield Road, and small sites such as Cross Lane, Eckington Rd.
On a wider scale across the NE Derbyshire region which the plan encompasses, there is no recognition of the 5 year plan being up to date of housing provision now available in Holmewood and Clay Cross areas.

No account of business casualties from Covid 19 pandemic freeing up empty premises as businesses fail.

Attachments:

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10098

Received: 09/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Barron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Referring to diagram DR1 The retention of the intention to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not make any provision for safe ingress and egress for building traffic and subsequently residential private vehicular traffic for the proposed house build.
There is no clarity or proposals on how the Inspectors observation (Feb 2019 ED65) can be satisfied; “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable”

Full text:

Referring to diagram DR1 The retention of the intention to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not make any provision for safe ingress and egress for building traffic and subsequently residential private vehicular traffic for the proposed house build.
There is no clarity or proposals on how the Inspectors observation (Feb 2019 ED65) can be satisfied; “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable”

ED103 paragraph 3.2.5 table 3.2 The magnitude of anticipated traffic levels is contradictory to the aims of SA9 and will significantly degrade the integrity of the receptors who are already in residence. Sound and levels of exhaust from petrol/diesel will increase, and these will not be decreasing until 2030 providing current Government targets are met. Post 2030, the amount of vehicles in use, be they electric or hydrogen power, will still be in evidence.

There is no clarity or proposals on how the Inspectors observation (Feb 2019 ED65) can be satisfied; “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable”. This is not addressed and planners were at a loss as to provide an answer when asked this very question verbally.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10100

Received: 09/12/2020

Respondent: Mr Robert Barron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Referring to diagram DR1 The retention of the intention to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not make any provision for the recognition that a number of developments which have made a significant contribution to the District’s housing development requirements. Even after the late submission of the Local Plan was made, these developments have manifested themselves on the landscape. Therefore there is no need to build on Green Belt.

Full text:

Referring to diagram DR1 The retention of the intention to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not make any provision for the recognition that a number of developments which have made a significant contribution to the District’s housing development requirements. Even after the late submission of the Local Plan was made, these developments have manifested themselves on the landscape. Therefore there is no need to build on Green Belt.

F. Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020) paragraph 6. Even after the late submission of the Local Plan was made, these developments have manifested themselves on the landscape. Therefore there is no need to build on Green Belt. In MM/065 the Inspector recognised that 660 houses on the Coalite site could come forward. This and the windfall/brown field sites within the Dronfield part of the plan makes a weak case for advancing the “exceptional circumstances” element. Therefore the logic applied to other areas within the Plan, should see the removal of this proposal being retained.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10106

Received: 09/12/2020

Respondent: Louise Parker

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

• I disagree with the proposal to build houses at Chesterfield Road and Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
• I am unconvinced that the “exceptional circumstances” test has been made to remove land from the greenbelt
• Based on the amount of house building that has already happened, approved or planned, there is a material gap between the target and what will actually be built based on the most recently published housing numbers.
• Based on the inspector’s justification for removing the Coal Aston and Eckington sites, I ask to use the same logic to remove the remaining Dronfield sites.
• Due to coronavirus, there is likely to be less demand for further houses
• The historic settlements of Unstone and Dronfield need to continue to have a gap to avoid coalescence
• Access to Stubley Hollow and Chesterfield Road will cause huge problems on the roads. Access should not be granted to the Chesterfield Road site via Burns Drive
• Contrary to the wishes of Dronfield residents

I am concerned about flood risk downstream from DR1.

Full text:

I wish to make my feelings and opinions known as follows –

• I agree that the inspector was right to ask for the removal of the site at Eckington Road, Coal Aston ( proposal to build 200 houses )
• I agree that the inspector was right to ask for the size of the Chesterfield road, Dronfield site to be reduced from 235 to 160 but strongly believe that this should be taken further and the site removed entirely.
• I totally disagree with the proposal to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield road site and the 40 houses proposed to be built at Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
• I am unconvinced that the “exceptional circumstances” test has been made to remove any land in North East Derbyshire from the greenbelt
• Based on the amount of house building that has already happened, been approved or planned, I do not believe there is a material gap between the target and what will actually be built based on the most recently published housing numbers for the North East Derbyshire plan.
• Based on the inspectors justification for removing the Coal Aston and Eckington sites, I strongly ask that the inspector use the same logic to remove the remaining Dronfield sites.
• Due to coronavirus, there is likely to be less demand on North East Derbyshire to 2034 for further houses
• The historic settlements of Unstone and Dronfield need to continue to have a gap to avoid coalescence of the town with the village
• The access to both Stubley Hollow and Chesterfield Road will be a major issue and cause huge problems on the roads. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should any access be granted to the Chesterfield Road site via Burns Drive as this would be an accident waiting to happen due to the blind bend and current parking congestion. Approve this and on your heads be it when a child is, at best, hurt!!
• Development on the greenbelt is contrary to the wishes of 88% of Dronfield residents, very clearly indicating the preservation of the greenbelt is very important to us. The residents views need to be heard

email received 13/01/2021:
In addition to my below concerns sent 9.12.20, I wish to add –
MM030 I am concerned that any development on the DR1 site will increase flood risk downstream. Currently fields which are actively farmed act as land reservoirs and absorb water most of the time. In 2019, their capacity was exceeded and run-off affected highway gullies and river capacity. DR1 is a steeply sloping site. Building 160 houses with associated surfaces like roads, driveways and roofs will mean significant run-off which will need to be managed. To increase flood risk elsewhere is why DR1 should not be allocated and should remain Green Belt.

Attachments:

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10110

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Barron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The Green Belt was brought in to protect the environment. Any development should only enhance an area. The 2 fields proposed for development DR1 have historical dry stone walls as field boundaries. This proposal will be an irrevocable loss to the Green Belt. The Green Belt was identified for the reason to prevent the destruction of natural eco-systems; this proposal does exactly the opposite of the Green Belt’s implementation.

Full text:

The Green Belt was brought in to protect the environment. Any development should only enhance an area. The 2 fields proposed for development DR1 have historical dry stone walls as field boundaries. This proposal will be an irrevocable loss to the Green Belt. The Green Belt was identified for the reason to prevent the destruction of natural eco-systems; this proposal does exactly the opposite of the Green Belt’s implementation.

The Green Belt was brought in to protect the environment. Any development should only enhance an area. The 2 fields proposed for development DR1 have historical dry stone walls as field boundaries and during the year the grassed areas support flora and fauna which also promotes healthy eco-systems involving insects , birdlife and other creatures.. These, and other wild flowers support the cycles of ecology necessary for human healthy life. If you travel half a mile towards Chesterfield there is an eyesore of a brown field side that urgently needs development. This site is a weak eco-system area and is far more appropriate for a change of use such as housing. The 2 fields proposed for development DR1 , have wildlife such as bats, badgers and plant life which will be destroyed for ever. This contradicts the spirit and purpose of the Green Belt.
The resulting environmental damage will elevate the dangers of flooding through loss of absorption of rainfall. There is a history of flooding in the adjacent area where natural land has been built over with hard standing tarmac and similar surface materials are in abundance. 160 houses on this site will detrimentally add to drainage problems.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10112

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Barron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

The Green Belt loss in the shape of DR1 is not driven by any exceptional circumstances appertaining to Dronfield residences.

Full text:

The Green Belt loss in the shape of DR1 is not driven by any exceptional circumstances appertaining to Dronfield residences.

A significant part of the working population work in Sheffield, South Yorkshire. The population of Dronfield rose as a direct consequence of employers in Sheffield engaging staff who chose to live in Dronfield as it had undergone a significant rise in dwelling numbers during, and from, the 1970s’
.Sheffield has also had to produce a plan, but this accommodates green belt reduction in Dronfield if a holistic view is taken. Within the existing Dronfield imprint, there are a number of windfall and brown field sites where small pockets are developing. These new dwellings are not “affordable housing” provision, yet planning permission is given for these and thereby reflects a weak perspective of planning for 2014-2034.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10114

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Barron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

MM/030 & 032

The Green Belt was brought in to protect the environment. Any development should only enhance an area. The 2 fields proposed for development DR1 is contradictory to the wider held views of local residents in Dronfield as evidenced by the Neighbourhood Plan (MM/030 - MM/032)

Full text:

The Green Belt was brought in to protect the environment. Any development should only enhance an area. The 2 fields proposed for development DR1 is contradictory to the wider held views of local residents in Dronfield as evidenced by the Neighbourhood Plan (MM/030 - MM/032)

The local Town Council of Dronfield created a Neighbourhood Plan which was adopted in following a local referendum. 88.8% voted in favour of this Neighbourhood Plan This vote demonstrated through a democratic process that the Planning was sound in its support for the maintenance of the Green Belt. Indeed the Examiner at the time of the publication of this democratic exercise said the issue ”has great significance for the local community”. To remove this bit of the green belt, when so many other sites across the county that the plan accommodates is contrary to the legitimately held democratic process. (Ref Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan Final Decision Statement 5 November 2019)

This Plan is part of the NE Derbyshire Development Plan in accordance with Regs 19 of the Neighbourhood Planning document 2012. The previous leadership administration was late in approaching the required Local Plan and this proposal is a casualty of that approach.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10116

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Barron

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Referring to diagram DR1 The retention of the plan to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not make any provision for safe ingress and egress for building traffic and subsequently residential private vehicular traffic for the proposed house build.
There is no clarity or proposals on how the Inspectors observation (Feb 2019 ED65) can be satisfied; “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable”

Full text:

Referring to diagram DR1 The retention of the plan to build 160 houses at the Chesterfield Road site does not make any provision for safe ingress and egress for building traffic and subsequently residential private vehicular traffic for the proposed house build.
There is no clarity or proposals on how the Inspectors observation (Feb 2019 ED65) can be satisfied; “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable”

The existing Chesterfield Road ( B6057) is a busy road and access arrangements to and from the planned development are unspecified. If an alternative access is to be sought via Burns Drive, the access roads to Burns Drive, i.e, Cemetery Road, Hallowes Rise, Highgate Drive and Shakepeare Crescent already have a heavy usage and the current capacity is under strain.
There is no clarity or proposals on how the Inspector’s observation (Feb 2019 ED65) can be satisfied; “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable”. This is not addressed and planners were at a loss as to provide an answer when asked this very question verbally.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10124

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Modification is not in accordance with the Inspector’s Interim Report paragraph 15

MM/030 still proposes large scale development not smaller scale. It still causes the already identified harm to the Green Belt in terms of urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. The modification still causes a loss of openness and a risk to boundaries in terms of future permanence. MM/030 results in urban sprawl into countryside and the coalescence of Dronfield and Unstone. It leaves a one field gap between development and Unstone Farm– a distance of 130 metres which is the same as the proposal for 235 houses. This modification has misinterpreted what the Inspector said may have been appropriate at DR1. If the allocation wasn’t sound, justified or legally compliant to allow 235 houses, it isn’t sound, justified or legally compliant to allow 160 and should be removed from the Plan as an allocation for development.

Full text:

Modification is not in accordance with the Inspector’s Interim Report paragraph 15

MM/030 still proposes large scale development not smaller scale. It still causes the already identified harm to the Green Belt in terms of urban sprawl and settlement coalescence. The modification still causes a loss of openness and a risk to boundaries in terms of future permanence. MM/030 results in urban sprawl into countryside and the coalescence of Dronfield and Unstone. It leaves a one field gap between development and Unstone Farm– a distance of 130 metres which is the same as the proposal for 235 houses. This modification has misinterpreted what the Inspector said may have been appropriate at DR1. If the allocation wasn’t sound, justified or legally compliant to allow 235 houses, it isn’t sound, justified or legally compliant to allow 160 and should be removed from the Plan as an allocation for development.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10125

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

The modification is not in accordance with the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan

In allowing DR1and DR2 to remain as allocations, the Council failed to take into account the significant number of comments from residents and groups. The consultation on the Publication Draft resulted in more comments objecting to the removal of Green Belt land than any other issue or on any other part of the NEDDC LP.

The adopted Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan should be taken into account. It represents the views of residents and the Town Council to protect the Green Belt from development. The DNP does not support the allocations at DR1 and DR2. Adopted in November 2019, with 89% support at referendum, after the Hearings and the Inspector’s Interim Report, the DNP supports the continued designation of the countryside as Green Belt with a strong presumption against development which would conflict with its openness. The Plan seeks to protect the Green Belt and landscape character of Dronfield. It is a local product with particular meaning and significance to people living and working in the area.

Full text:

The modification is not in accordance with the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan

In allowing DR1and DR2 to remain as allocations, the Council failed to take into account the significant number of comments from residents and groups like Dronfield Civic Society and Dronfield Residents’ Green Belt Group. The consultation on the Publication Draft resulted in more comments objecting to the removal of Green Belt land than any other issue or on any other part of the NEDDC LP.

The adopted Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan should be taken into account. It represents the views of residents and the Town Council to protect the Green Belt from development. The DNP does not support the allocations at DR1 and DR2. Adopted in November 2019, with 89% support at referendum, after the Hearings and the Inspector’s Interim Report, the DNP supports the continued designation of the countryside as Green Belt with a strong presumption against development which would conflict with its openness. The Plan seeks to protect the Green Belt and landscape character of Dronfield. It is a local product with particular meaning and significance to people living and working in the area.

Additional Evidence

Through Policy ENV1 the Plan demonstrates a consistency with national policy and adopted policy to date. Policy ENV2 seeks to establish that development proposals should contribute to the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the character of the valued local landscape.

Inspector Christopher Collison’s Report states that there is considerable opposition from the local community to the allocations in the Local Plan. The opposition to Green Belt release is on the basis that there are alternative suitable and sustainable locations elsewhere in the District. The Inspector stated that if the Neighbourhood Plan policies were silent with respect to such a fundamental issue, this would undermine its relevance.

Derbyshire County Council welcomed that Green Belt was given prominence in the Neighbourhood Plan through Policy ENV1 to support its continued designation.

The Examination process should recognise the existence of the DNP and remove the allocations on Green Belt in Dronfield.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10126

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

This site was assessed as RED in the Green Belt Review.
“The parcels which were considered to be robustly fulfilling at least one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt were ruled out of further consideration.” But in the case of DR1 this did not happen. It is being allocated on the basis of a dubious Green Belt Review where scoring errors were acknowledged by the Council and where at first sweep it should have been ruled out if due process had been followed. The Inspector has not said the Green Belt Review is unsound, yet she is allowing a site which robustly meets Green Belt purposes to remain as an allocation. It is incumbent on the Inspector to suggest (consistently with the deallocated sites) why a smaller scale development is appropriate.

Full text:

This site was assessed as RED in the Green Belt Review.
“The parcels which were considered to be robustly fulfilling at least one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt were ruled out of further consideration.” But in the case of DR1 this did not happen. It is being allocated on the basis of a dubious Green Belt Review where scoring errors were acknowledged by the Council and where at first sweep it should have been ruled out if due process had been followed. The Inspector has not said the Green Belt Review is unsound, yet she is allowing a site which robustly meets Green Belt purposes to remain as an allocation. It is incumbent on the Inspector to suggest (consistently with the deallocated sites) why a smaller scale development is appropriate.



Additional Comments
The Inspector hasn’t called out this inconsistent methodology. In fact there were further ‘errors’ with this site including the error made by the Council about whether development closed the gap.

The Council acknowledged the error in the scoring after Mr David Meechan’s letter in the evidence base. Another error related to the parcel being scored as if it was surrounded by 75% development. The DR1 parcel should have had at least three red scores at the parcel assessment stage, even though it should not have reached that stage. If the Inspector continues to allow DR1 as a small allocation the Green Belt Review is meaningless and the Plan is unsound and open to legal challenge.

The Inspector acknowledged at the Hearings that the removal of the safeguarding the countryside purpose was something she had never come across before and in the Interim Report and at the Hearings suggested that after finding only 15 parcels of land that did not meet Green Belt purposes, the Council should have revisited the spatial strategy and looked elsewhere. She has since modified the spatial strategy, stated that at a site level there are no exceptional circumstances, so it follows that DR1 should now be de-allocated.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10127

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

No exceptional circumstances because non-Green Belt land is now available. The supply position has changed.

The exceptional circumstances being advanced by the previous administration were based on an aspirational housing figure defined by Council Officers which created an artificial shortage of land for houses. It was claimed the land needed could not be found without releasing land from the Green Belt. This is now not the case.

The shortage was used as a justification for the exceptional circumstances required for reviewing Green Belt boundaries and the release of land. There is now demonstrable increased land supply across the District to meet the less prescriptive spatial strategy.

There have been further permissions and completions since the trajectory including large developments that have gone to appeal and been granted. The Council should now make the Inspector aware of these and add them to the supply. Non-Green Belt land has come forward which meets the requirements of the spatial strategy and a further 334 houses at least are now part of the supply.

Full text:

No exceptional circumstances because non-Green Belt land is now available. The supply position has changed.

The exceptional circumstances being advanced by the previous administration were based on an aspirational housing figure defined by Council Officers which created an artificial shortage of land for houses. It was claimed the land needed could not be found without releasing land from the Green Belt. This is now not the case.

The shortage was used as a justification for the exceptional circumstances required for reviewing Green Belt boundaries and the release of land. There is now demonstrable increased land supply across the District to meet the less prescriptive spatial strategy.

There have been further permissions and completions since the trajectory including large developments that have gone to appeal and been granted. The Council should now make the Inspector aware of these and add them to the supply. Non-Green Belt land has come forward which meets the requirements of the spatial strategy and a further 334 houses at least are now part of the supply.

Attachments:

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10129

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

When the Green Belt was designated as well as preventing coalescence of Chesterfield and Sheffield, it was there to preserve the integrity of settlements in between. This includes the village of Unstone which starts at Unstone Farm at Unstone Hill and not at Crow Lane.

In allowing development at DR1, the Inspector is accepting that it will close the settlement gap between the town of Dronfield and the semi-rural village of Unstone, extending development into open countryside, urbanising it, impacting openness and causing urban sprawl. The modification has not addressed the word ‘sufficient’ in the Interim Report in terms of the gap left between Unstone and Dronfield. The Inspector’s decision to allow smaller scale development relies on ‘sufficient’ space being left between the two settlements. The modification means the gap is the same as pre modification i.e. down to one field, a gap of 130 metres. Based on the Inspector’s previous comments she has indicated that one field is not what she regards as ‘sufficient’.

Full text:

When the Green Belt was designated as well as preventing coalescence of Chesterfield and Sheffield, it was there to preserve the integrity of settlements in between. This includes the village of Unstone which starts at Unstone Farm at Unstone Hill and not at Crow Lane.

In allowing development at DR1, the Inspector is accepting that it will close the settlement gap between the town of Dronfield and the semi-rural village of Unstone, extending development into open countryside, urbanising it, impacting openness and causing urban sprawl. The modification has not addressed the word ‘sufficient’ in the Interim Report in terms of the gap left between Unstone and Dronfield. The Inspector’s decision to allow smaller scale development relies on ‘sufficient’ space being left between the two settlements. The modification means the gap is the same as pre modification i.e. down to one field, a gap of 130 metres. Based on the Inspector’s previous comments she has indicated that one field is not what she regards as ‘sufficient’.

Additional Comments

The modification will still close the gap, visually and physically. The Council has failed to recognise this as well as the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside at DR1 and the sense of openness you get immediately after the Dronfield Nursery (Belmayne Building) and Midland House. Development where there is currently none, would permanently affect the character of the landscape and would be visible from vantage points in the wider landscape.

Unstone’s integrity as a semi-rural village associated with farming is radically different to suburban detached estate housing. Allowing any development on DR1 will mean the same outcome. It will have a significant urbanising effect affecting the perception of openness and open countryside both visually and physically. Currently the transition from urban to open is distinct as DR1 is free from urbanising elements. Harm to this piece of Green Belt outweighs the need for housing here.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10130

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

Any allocation at DR1 demonstrates inconsistency by the Inspector when compared to former DR2 and EC1 sites. The reasons the Inspector used to deallocate EC1 and DR2 are equally applicable to DR1.

DR2 deallocated because, “Development of this site would result in a prominent extension of the built up area of Dronfield into open countryside and would have a significant urbanising effect along Eckington Road’ and would cause material harm to Green Belt openness.

Of EC1, “Whilst the existing development on Ash Crescent is visible from longer distances, it extends along an elevated ridge line. In contrast, the proposed site allocation would extend down the hillside” and “The new dwellings, access road and changes to vegetation and landform would be readily visible due to the topography of the site. Development would cause material harm to Green Belt openness and would constitute a significant incursion of the built up area into the open countryside.”

This is exactly the same for DR1.

Full text:

Any allocation at DR1 demonstrates inconsistency by the Inspector when compared to former DR2 and EC1 sites. The reasons the Inspector used to deallocate EC1 and DR2 are equally applicable to DR1

DR2 deallocated because, “Development of this site would result in a prominent extension of the built up area of Dronfield into open countryside and would have a significant urbanising effect along Eckington Road’. This is exactly the same for DR1 – just change that to Chesterfield Road.

The Inspector said DR2 would cause material harm to Green Belt openness. Wouldn’t that be the same along Chesterfield Road at DR1?

Of EC1, “Whilst the existing development on Ash Crescent is visible from longer distances, it extends along an elevated ridge line. In contrast, the proposed site allocation would extend down the hillside”. Isn’t this exactly the same as DR1 where Shakespeare extends along an elevated ridge and development would extend down the steep fields to the road?

A final example for EC1 states “The new dwellings, access road and changes to vegetation and landform would be readily visible due to the topography of the site. Development would cause material harm to Green Belt openness and would constitute a significant incursion of the built up area into the open countryside.” This is exactly the same for DR1. The modification should not be found sound due to inconsistency with the deallocated sites.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10131

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

Modification has not reduced DR1 in accordance with the Interim Report. DR1 should be kept as Green Belt in its entirety. In allowing DR1 to remain, not enough weight has been given to openness and the clear end to Dronfield on both sides of the road, when after the Dronfield Nursery/Belmayne House and Midland House, there is no doubt, that you are immediately in open countryside.

There could not be a stronger, more visible boundary than the end of built development and then a field. Any development would weaken boundaries.The built form of Southfield Mount is a strong boundary. The boundary in the elevated position at Burns is hedged or fenced. This is a strong boundary. The position of the B6057 bounds the fields with a considerable drop to road level. The road is a strong boundary. Therefore any claims about strengthening boundaries if development is allowed are unfounded. If mitigation is required, negative impacts are anticipated.

Full text:

Modification has not reduced DR1 in accordance with the Interim Report. DR1 should be kept as Green Belt in its entirety. In allowing DR1 to remain, not enough weight has been given to openness and the clear end to Dronfield on both sides of the road, when after the Dronfield Nursery/Belmayne House and Midland House, there is no doubt, that you are immediately in open countryside.

There could not be a stronger, more visible boundary than the end of built development and then a field. Any development would weaken boundaries, when it is clear that the developers of this site have been clamouring for more land at every opportunity. The built form of Southfield Mount is a strong boundary. The boundary in the elevated position at Burns is hedged or fenced, below which is a considerable embankment several metres high above the field. This is a strong boundary. The position of the B6057 bounds the fields at the bottom of the slope. There is also a considerable drop to road level identified by the Inspector. The road is already a strong boundary and its position is unlikely to change. Therefore any claims about strengthening boundaries if development is allowed are unfounded. If mitigation is required, negative impacts are anticipated.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10132

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

In the light of the most up to date position with regard to the housing supply, permissions and completions, exceptional circumstances do not exist.

Plenty of non-Green Belt sites are available and coming forward across the District. The supply position has changed since the Green Belt Review when the Council claimed they were unable to find enough non-Green Belt land to meet their aspirational housing target.

There is evidence to suggest that non-Green Belt land is coming forward that fits the spatial strategy including recent sites granted at appeal at Holmewood (250 houses) and Coney Green Clay Cross (84 houses). These should be counted before removing land from the Green Belt as was the case for the Hasland and Wingerworth sites which the Council and developers wanted as ‘flexibility’ but which the Inspector stated had to be counted.

The Markham Vale site remains in the Plan which could deliver some 660 houses. The remaining Green Belt sites are no longer demonstrably necessary.

Full text:

In the light of the most up to date position with regard to the housing supply, permissions and completions, exceptional circumstances do not exist.

Plenty of non-Green Belt sites are available and coming forward across the District. The supply position has changed since the Green Belt Review when the Council claimed they were unable to find enough non-Green Belt land to meet their aspirational housing target.

There is evidence to suggest that non-Green Belt land is coming forward that fits the spatial strategy including recent sites granted at appeal at Holmewood (250 houses) and Coney Green Clay Cross (84 houses). These should be counted before removing land from the Green Belt as was the case for the Hasland and Wingerworth sites which the Council and developers wanted as ‘flexibility’ but which the Inspector stated had to be counted.

The Markham Vale site remains in the Plan which could deliver some 660 houses. The remaining Green Belt sites are no longer demonstrably necessary.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10138

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

MM/030 is a steeply sloping site (125-175m AOD) which if developed will increase flood risk downstream. The Inspector has made reference to the topography and the difference in height of the land and Chesterfield Road B6057.

Flooding downstream will be a likely consequence of this modification as it will remove the ability of the current farmland to absorb excess water. It is suggested that there should be no inclusion of a Green Belt site in the Plan until a full viability assessment has been provided in terms of water management and flood risk downstream. It will be extremely difficult for run-off rates to remain equal to current run-off rates when parts of the site will be covered with impermeable surfaces like roads and drive ways rather than the absorbent fields which are effective most of the time. It is likely that because of the difference in levels between the road and the land, water would run directly onto the B6057 where the speed limit is 40mph.

Full text:

MM/030 is a steeply sloping site (125-175m AOD) which if developed will increase flood risk downstream. The Inspector has made reference to the topography and the difference in height of the land and Chesterfield Road B6057.

Flooding downstream will be a likely consequence of this modification as it will remove the ability of the current farmland to absorb excess water. It is suggested that there should be no inclusion of a Green Belt site in the Plan until a full viability assessment has been provided in terms of water management and flood risk downstream. It will be extremely difficult for run-off rates to remain equal to current run-off rates when parts of the site will be covered with impermeable surfaces like roads and drive ways rather than the absorbent fields which are effective most of the time. It is likely that because of the difference in levels between the road and the land, water would run directly onto the B6057 where the speed limit is 40mph.

Additional Evidence
The most recent SA states that there will be a net loss of ecologically and agriculturally valuable soils where development occurs on previously undeveloped land which is what DR1 is.

The topography will mean viability issues which are likely to reduce the 30% affordable provision in this high value area. If DR1 is allocated for development it will likely require SuDS and an attenuation pond. Today the fields which are actively farmed act as valuable land reservoirs. However during the autumn floods of 2019, their capacity was exceeded. The result was flooding along the B6057 for 19 days with the road needing to be closed for several days. This was not a 1:100 year event. Whilst the site itself would be judged as having no flood risk, consideration must be given to how it would increase flood risk downstream in Unstone.

Both the District Council and the County Council are aware of the issues described above.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10139

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

In the Interim Report the Inspector said “at a site level exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated to justify the alteration of Green Belt boundaries in this location”. If at a site level exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated, then it is unclear what the exceptional circumstances are to justify releasing DR1 from the Green Belt, particularly now that the Policy relating to the spatial strategy has been modified to be less prescriptive.

The reasoning the Inspector gave for allowing a smaller scale development was that being below Burns Drive and adjacent to Southfield Mount, it would relate more closely to the existing built up area, yet that is not, on its own, an exceptional circumstance.

21/04/2015 Calverton: ‘the fact that a particular site happens to be suitable for housing development cannot, without more, constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an alteration of the Green Belt. Suitability simpliciter cannot logically be envisaged as an exceptional circumstance’.

Full text:

In the Interim Report the Inspector said “at a site level exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated to justify the alteration of Green Belt boundaries in this location”. If at a site level exceptional circumstances have not been demonstrated, then it is unclear what the exceptional circumstances are to justify releasing DR1 from the Green Belt, particularly now that the Policy relating to the spatial strategy has been modified to be less prescriptive.

The reasoning the Inspector gave for allowing a smaller scale development was that being below Burns Drive and adjacent to Southfield Mount, it would relate more closely to the existing built up area, yet that is not, on its own, an exceptional circumstance.

21/04/2015 Calverton: ‘the fact that a particular site happens to be suitable for housing development cannot, without more, constitute an exceptional circumstance justifying an alteration of the Green Belt. Suitability simpliciter cannot logically be envisaged as an exceptional circumstance’.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10140

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Even small scale development should not be allowed on a parcel of land that robustly meets Green Belt purposes.

DR1 was assessed as a complete parcel in the Green Belt Review and the whole parcel scored RED. It wasn’t divided up for assessment such that one part of the parcel scored green.

This seems to be what the Inspector is suggesting could happen at DR1 when she says: A smaller scale development on the two field parcels bounded by development on Southfield Mount to the north west, Burns Drive to the south west and Chesterfield Road to the north east would relate more closely to the existing built up area of Dronfield and would enable sufficient space to be retained to maintain the identities of Dronfield and Unstone as separate settlements.

I object because the whole parcel scored red. It is inappropriate for the Inspector to allow development on some of it. It would mean that the Green Belt Review findings were being wrongly interpreted.

Full text:

Even small scale development should not be allowed on a parcel of land that robustly meets Green Belt purposes.

DR1 was assessed as a complete parcel in the Green Belt Review and the whole parcel scored RED. It wasn’t divided up for assessment such that one part of the parcel scored green.

This seems to be what the Inspector is suggesting could happen at DR1 when she says: A smaller scale development on the two field parcels bounded by development on Southfield Mount to the north west, Burns Drive to the south west and Chesterfield Road to the north east would relate more closely to the existing built up area of Dronfield and would enable sufficient space to be retained to maintain the identities of Dronfield and Unstone as separate settlements.

I object because the whole parcel scored red. It is inappropriate for the Inspector to allow development on some of it. It would mean that the Green Belt Review findings were being wrongly interpreted.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10141

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

MM/030 is the Council’s interpretation of what the Inspector said in the Interim Report with the result that the modification more than doubles the amount of land the Inspector said would be appropriate at DR1.

Reference to ED76 and the Council having interpreted ‘small scale’ development as 160 houses on 6.52 hectares instead of 235 houses on 9.87 hectares.

The 160 is purely based on area and a housing density of 24 dph and does not relate to any data on the level of ‘need’ in Dronfield. It is suggested that the Inspector was describing a continuation north east of the Burns Drive boundary, bisecting the second field. This interpretation would have limited the undeveloped gap between Dronfield and Unstone, limited harm to the Green Belt, limited sprawl and left ‘sufficient’ gap to prevent settlement coalescence.

The modification is therefore an incorrect and inappropriate interpretation of what the Inspector said might relate better to what is built. It cannot be found sound and isn’t justified or positively prepared.

Full text:

MM/030 is the Council’s interpretation of what the Inspector said in the Interim Report with the result that the modification more than doubles the amount of land the Inspector said would be appropriate at DR1.

The Council’s response to the findings (ED76) in the Interim Report demonstrates their ‘understanding of the area to be retained’ has a boundary which extends to the south east, well beyond the end of Burns Drive. They then argued this would create an ‘inset area’ and proposed extending the boundary further to include it. Thus the ‘small scale’ development was interpreted as 160 houses on 6.52 hectares instead of 235 houses on 9.87 hectares.

The 160 is purely based on area and a housing density of 24 dph and does not relate to any data on the level of ‘need’ in Dronfield. It is suggested that the Inspector was describing a continuation north east of the Burns Drive boundary, bisecting the second field. This interpretation would have limited the undeveloped gap between Dronfield and Unstone, limited harm to the Green Belt, limited sprawl and left ‘sufficient’ gap to prevent settlement coalescence.

The modification is yet another example of a Council that started this process with the intention to allocate as much Green Belt land owned by developers as possible. They ignored the results of their own Green Belt Review and did not follow their own due process. The modification is therefore an incorrect and inappropriate interpretation of what the Inspector said might relate better to what is built. It cannot be found sound and isn’t justified or positively prepared.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10142

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

The access arrangements which the Inspector requested to assess the deliverability of DR1 have not been provided.

The only evidence provided is a plan layout at the bottom of ED76 which shows one access. An access here would be dangerous and probably inadequate for 160 houses in particular as there is a significant difference in height between the land and the B6057.

If the ‘inset area’ is also to provide an access, then this has not been communicated in a transparent way. It is suggested that if the ‘inset area’ was required for the access from Burns Drive, it would mean existing residential estate roads becoming thoroughfares resulting in negative outcomes like poorer air quality and increased danger from traffic. The access off Chesterfield Road would be in an unsafe location and inadequate for the number of houses. If additional access is to be provided through Burns Drive, then that also makes DR1 undeliverable for the reasons outlined.

Full text:

The access arrangements which the Inspector requested to assess the deliverability of DR1 have not been provided.

The only evidence provided is a plan layout at the bottom of ED76 which shows one access just beyond the Belmayne building where the speed limit changes from 30mph to 40mph as you leave the built-up area of Dronfield and enter open countryside. An access here would be dangerous and probably inadequate for 160 houses in particular as there is a significant difference in height between the land and the B6057.

If the ‘inset area’ is also to provide an access, then this has not been communicated in a transparent way. It is suggested that if the ‘inset area’ was required for the access from Burns Drive, it would mean existing residential estate roads becoming thoroughfares resulting in negative outcomes like poorer air quality and increased danger from traffic as well as a less safe environment for children. The access off Chesterfield Road would be in an unsafe location and inadequate for the number of houses. If additional access is to be provided through Burns Drive, then that also makes DR1 undeliverable for the reasons outlined.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10143

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

‘There are no exceptional circumstances at a site level’
There would be harm to a piece of virgin countryside i.e. without any built form upon it in terms of extending development (sprawl) into open countryside and in terms of settlement coalescence
There is still extension into open countryside
There is still erosion of the undeveloped gap. The modification would leave 1 field, a distance of 130 metres which is the same as proposals for 235 houses
The detrimental visual impact on the landscape is the same for 160 houses as for 235
The openness is equally worsened
The coalescence of Dronfield with Unstone remains
The remaining farmland is still at risk
Due process was not followed as DR1 scored red in the Green Belt Review
Boundaries will be weakened by the modification and the opposite side of the road will be at future risk
The Council did not note the modifications made to the Spatial Strategy by the Inspector in continuing to allocate it

Full text:

The modification is unsound because:

‘There are no exceptional circumstances at a site level’
There would be harm to a piece of virgin countryside i.e. without any built form upon it in terms of extending development (sprawl) into open countryside and in terms of settlement coalescence
There is still extension into open countryside
There is still erosion of the undeveloped gap. The Council’s modification would leave 1 field, a distance of 130 metres which is the same as proposals for 235 houses
The detrimental visual impact on the landscape is the same for 160 houses as for 235
The openness is equally worsened
The coalescence of Dronfield with Unstone remains
The remaining farmland is still at risk
Due process was not followed as DR1 scored red in the Green Belt Review
Boundaries will be weakened by the modification and the opposite side of the road will be at future risk as indicated in the Redmile ‘masterplan’ down as far as Half Acre Lane
The Council did not note the modifications made to the Spatial Strategy by the Inspector in continuing to allocate it

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10147

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Object to the modification. Inspector has been inconsistent in respect of the Green Belt Review as applied to the Green Belt sites in Dronfield

I object to the retention of DR1 even for small scale development as the site scored RED in the Green Belt Review, particularly when the Inspector de allocated the former DR2 site that scored AMBER. The Inspector has not found the Green Belt Review to be unsound, so she should now explain why the Review is being over-ridden and she has concluded it is appropriate to allow development on DR1 when at a site level there are no exceptional circumstances.

Full text:

MM/030 Object to the modification. Inspector has been inconsistent in respect of the Green Belt Review as applied to the Green Belt sites in Dronfield

I object to the retention of DR1 even for small scale development as the site scored RED in the Green Belt Review, particularly when the Inspector de allocated the former DR2 site that scored AMBER. The Inspector has not found the Green Belt Review to be unsound, so she should now explain why the Review is being over-ridden and she has concluded it is appropriate to allow development on DR1 when at a site level there are no exceptional circumstances.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10148

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

Rather than setting a realistic OAN in the 270s as a minimum to be exceeded, an aspirational target was set. The aspirational target left no room should the economy not grow at the rate of 0.4%. The Inspector has to judge whether in the light of Covid and Brexit it is necessary to suggest a reduction of the 330 OAN for soundness. Economically it is likely that the predicted growth rates will not be realised in North East Derbyshire over the next five years. Recent figures from the OBR show the economy shrinking by 11.3%, the worst in 300 years. The LEP SCR is at midpoint 2015-2025 and has not realised anything like the 70,000 new jobs which many developers were relying on to increase housing development in the north of the district. To take a decision to remove any land from the Green Belt in the current economic climate would be premature and reckless.

Full text:

The previous Council allocated as much Green Belt land owned by developers as they could by setting a high OAN and ignoring the Green Belt Review outcomes.

Rather than setting a realistic OAN in the 270s as a minimum to be exceeded, Council Officers set an aspirational target which they endeavoured to hit through Green Belt allocation. The aspirational target left no room should the economy not grow at the rate of 0.4%. The Inspector has to judge whether in the light of Covid and Brexit it is necessary to suggest a reduction of the 330 OAN for soundness. Economically it is likely that the predicted growth rates will not be realised in North East Derbyshire over the next five years. Recent figures from the OBR show the economy shrinking by 11.3%, the worst in 300 years. The LEP SCR is at midpoint 2015-2025 and has not realised anything like the 70,000 new jobs which many developers were relying on to increase housing development in the north of the district. To take a decision to remove any land from the Green Belt in the current economic climate would be premature and reckless.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10149

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

MM/030 weakens existing boundaries and will put more land at risk of allocation in future. Permanence will not be an outcome if this modification is allowed.

This modification will create future vulnerability for land on the opposite side of the B6057. Essentially this is what is happening now when the Inspector has said that a small scale development which relates to what is already built would be appropriate. Proposing development because there is built development at Burns Drive and Southfield will ultimately mean a similar discussion at the next iteration or review of the Plan to allow another development on the lay-by field – to ‘round off the settlement limit’ once again and so this goes on. This is not planned development for Dronfield. It is growth by default.

Full text:

MM/030 weakens existing boundaries and will put more land at risk of allocation in future. Permanence will not be an outcome if this modification is allowed.

This modification will create future vulnerability for land on the opposite side of the B6057. Essentially this is what is happening now when the Inspector has said that a small scale development which relates to what is already built would be appropriate. Proposing development because there is built development at Burns Drive and Southfield will ultimately mean a similar discussion at the next iteration or review of the Plan to allow another development on the lay-by field – to ‘round off the settlement limit’ once again and so this goes on. This is not planned development for Dronfield. It is growth by default.

The same developers built Shakespeare extending the town along the elevated ridge line. It has never truly fitted into the landscape from distant vistas from Hundall and Apperknowle. Developers of this site put forward the lay-by field as a site for affordable housing at an earlier stage. Allowing this modification will strengthen the desires of developers to gain more land in future on the opposite side of the B6057 down to Half Acre Lane at the top of Unstone Hill. It will therefore weaken the permanence of the Green Belt in this location.

OS Map and Satelite Map has been included in the attached Representation Form.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10151

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

I do not support this modification in respect of the wording changes to TPOs. I feel that the wording is not strong enough to prevent developers clearing trees with TPOs. To change ‘would need to be retained’ to ‘should be retained’ means this becomes ‘optional’.

The plan layout on ED76 shows loss of hedgerow and trees. The comments from the DLP report in the 2017 statement refer to the possible loss of some specimens to secure appropriate land levels for building on the site and providing access. There are now quite mature trees at the access points at Southfield and Burns Drive. If the modification is allowed then there will need to be a reassessment of all the trees at this site as there are now many more mature specimens which cannot simply be replaced.

Full text:

MM/030 I do not support this modification in respect of the wording changes to TPOs. I feel that the wording is not strong enough to prevent developers clearing trees with TPOs. To change ‘would need to be retained’ to ‘should be retained’ means this becomes ‘optional’.

The developers of DR1 have already made it clear that trees with TPOs that get in the way of access or site layout will be ‘lost’. The plan layout on ED76 shows the loss of hedgerow and trees. The comments from the DLP report in the 2017 statement state: “the retention of these specimens may be difficult based on the need to secure appropriate land levels for building on the site and providing access.” “Where possible the opportunity to retain these specimens will be taken, however the engineering works to bring access into the site may result in the loss of some specimens”. There are now quite mature trees at the access points at Southfield and Burns Drive. If the modification is allowed then there will need to be a reassessment of all the trees at this site as there are now many more mature specimens which cannot simply be replaced.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Representation ID: 10152

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jane Singleton

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

The modification is unsound because it proposes a much larger area than in Para 15 of the Interim Report.
The area described by the Inspector in the Interim Report is approximately 3.1 hectares. The Council’s interpretation is an additional 2.2 hectares. This would extend development much further into the open countryside, resulting in the coalescence of Dronfield with Unstone. The Inspector would not have suggested anything that weakened boundaries, yet the Council argued that it resulted in an ‘inset area’ which they then suggested should be included as well. The inset area, a further 1.3 hectares, would allow the developer access from Burns Drive, through an existing, well-established residential area. The modification results in an additional 3.5 hectares, more than double the land area the Inspector said would be appropriate. The housing calculation is based on low density development at 24dph and not on exceptional circumstances relating to housing need in Dronfield.

Full text:

The modification is unsound because it proposes a much larger area than in Para 15 of the Interim Report.
The area described by the Inspector in the Interim Report is approximately 3.1 hectares. The Council’s interpretation is an additional 2.2 hectares. This would extend development much further into the open countryside, resulting in the coalescence of Dronfield with Unstone. The Inspector would not have suggested anything that weakened boundaries, yet the Council argued that it resulted in an ‘inset area’ which they then suggested should be included as well. The inset area, a further 1.3 hectares, would allow the developer access from Burns Drive, through an existing, well-established residential area. The modification results in an additional 3.5 hectares, more than double the land area the Inspector said would be appropriate. The housing calculation is demonstrably based on low density development at 24dph and not on exceptional circumstances relating to housing need in Dronfield.

Four plans are included in the attached Representation Form.

This is yet another example of a developer–led Plan which sought to remove as much Green Belt land as possible owned by developers. The modification has revealed the unsound process of land allocation by the former Council.