1. Introduction
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 1462
Received: 12/02/2015
Respondent: Mr John Wardle
Any planning over the last few years since your last local plan should be subject to a full review as you had no agreed point of reference of an agreed local plan.
I would like to point out that any planning over the last few years since your last local plan should be subject to a full review as you had no agreed point of reference of an agreed local plan.
Any new planning should consider more carefully the density of housing which should not be more than the surrounding area.
Much more attention from remote planners in Chesterfield ie not local to the area under consideration of the existing built environment.
Example: in a country hamlet Fallgate/ Milltown some 8 or more houses have been reinstated from Commercial use to domestic dwellings. We have no requirement or waiting list for more. Now we have so called country executive homes crammed together like a mountain of stone and butting up to the roadside, perhaps they could have built half the number and at a cheaper price. What an eyesore! The planners dont have to live with it but we do...!
Any new plan should take into account of the appearance and general style of the surrounding area and the views of local people taken more seriously, Ashover is up in arms at a new planning application, out of character, out of the Village settlement area and with no thought or consideration of the need...20 plus houses are currently for sale.
Local infrastructure, I know from past experience that Highways and Waterboard and Telephones just do not work well together. In my view any planning application that affects school places, local sewers, flooding, highways, landscape and most of all valuable agricultural land. These need a properly joined up approach, An extra 38 houses such as have been built or have planning pending will affect the school the village shops parking and highways. You really can't have one without the other!
Please in any strategic document try and retain the character and local infrastructure and the appearance of the area. People don't like change unless it brings benefits to all not just Spec Builders.
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 1654
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Plexus Consultants Ltd
Agent: Emery Planning
Please find attached our overall representations report.
Please find attached our overall representations report.
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 1707
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees
Agent: Planning and Design Group
Comments on importance of Local Plan as guide to decision making.
The Chatsworth Settlement Trustees ('CST') is a major landowner within the district, managing a diverse portfolio of land and property, encompassing agricultural holdings and associated traditional and modern farm buildings and other infrastructure as well as residential properties and previously developed sites. CST and its forebears has played a significant role in the development of the district and it seeks to maintain its positive role across the district and within its communities.
To allow effective decision making in respect of the management, development and disposal of its assets, clarity within local planning policy is essential. Land managed by CST offers opportunities across a number of sectors (including residential, employment, agricultural, renewable energy) to help meet the development needs of the district.
CST welcomes the preparation of the new Local Plan. The certainty that can be provided by an adopted Local Plan can greatly assist in the effective management of land and property assets.
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 1906
Received: 30/03/2015
Respondent: Leith Planning Ltd
EPC-UK has, for many years, operated as a major hazard site for the manufacture of explosives at Rough Close Works, Carnfield Hill, South Normanton.
Serious concerns that the Plan has not been prepared in line with the requirements of the Framework in relation to hazardous substance sites.
Objection to any form of new development within and adjacent to the hazardous consultation zones associated with Rough Close Works.
Council have continually failed to consider impact of new development on operation at Rough Close Works and potential impact upon future residents resulting from inappropriate development within close proximity to the site
See Attatched
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2062
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Messrs S & K Whittam & Grayson
Agent: IBA Planning Limited
Plan should be prepared as a single new Local Plan rather than in two parts.
Establishment of a 5 year supply is the key driver.
However this has significant implications on the Council's ability to adequately meet its current and likely future objectively assessed housing need in a manner consistent with the settlement hierarchy.
the Plan cannot be regarded as being positively prepared, justified, effective, or compliant with national policy, and is therefore considered unsound.
See attached
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2096
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England
Distribution of development in north of District should be closely related to role of area in Sheffield City Region rather than to other parts of North-East Derbyshire. Given that Eckington, Dronfield and Killamarsh are part of Sheffield's HMA, two settlement hierarchies are effectively required; 1. Sheffield in which Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh are relatively low order settlements; 2. rest of District - considered as hinterland to Chesterfield/Mansfield and, arguably, Matlock and Derby. In this context only Clay Cross would fall within District, effectively transforming role of North East Derbyshire to one of co-operation with neighbouring Authorities, rather than an area in which to plan for growth in any self-contained way.
See attached
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2099
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Mr G Hancock
Agent: IBA Planning Limited
These representations comprise formal support to the Council's approach to the Strategic Policies and Initial Housing Allocations as set out in the current consultation.
See attached
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2100
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Harworth Group
Agent: Urbana Town Planning
Conformity with the NPPF: It is considered by Harworth Estates that the strategy put forward in the Local Plan is still at risk of being found unsound by an independent Inspector, as it is thought that the initial draft will not fulfil the tests of soundness.
See attached
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2111
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Mr Jonathan Lovatt
It is considered by that overall, and particularly in regard to site MOR/802, the strategy put forward in the Local Plan has been prepared in such a way that it takes the necessary steps to provide the volume of growth required in the district. Moreover, it is thought that the four soundness tests are complied with and the crucial requirement to be able to deliver the necessary volume of housing has been fulfilled- as such the document is likely to be considered sound by an independent Inspector.
See attached
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2120
Received: 30/03/2015
Respondent: Rippon Homes
Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)
Preparing the Plan in two parts is not appropriate as it will rely upon housing delivery solely through the strategic allocations identified in Part 1 until further sites have been identified at either Part 1 or Part 2. The Council should ensure that all housing can be delivered within Part 1 of the Local Plan to ensure that immediate housing needs can be met.
RPS are concerned that the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) has not adequately demonstrated that reasonable alternatives to the preferred approach have been considered, for example a single Local Plan including strategic allocations and all other site allocations.
See attached
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2122
Received: 17/03/2015
Respondent: Mr David Oliver
Overall I think that the draft plan represents a good start in the formation of a sound basis for future planning decisions in the District. The relevant policy, framework and source documentation is well referenced and the whole structure of the Plan is easy to follow. The drafting team is to be commended.
See attached
Comment
Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)
Representation ID: 2160
Received: 26/03/2015
Respondent: Bolsover District Council
On a more general note, at the recent PAS workshop it was noted that there was an increasing trend amongst LPA's towards publishing a Duty to Co-operate Statement at each stage of plan preparation to show how co-operation will be ongoing, and how strategic policies will be implemented and monitored. NEDDC may want to consider this approach as work on the Local Plan progresses.
See attachment