Habitats Regulation Assessment of the Main Modifications, October 2020

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Supporting Documents to Main Modifications (for comment)

Representation ID: 10041

Received: 13/11/2020

Respondent: Natural England (Lincoln office)

Representation Summary:

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the proposed main modifications for the NE Derbyshire Local Plan. I can confirm that we have no comments to make on the modifications.

We acknowledge that a Habitats Regulations Assessment report has been submitted as a supporting document to the main modifications. I can confirm that Natural England agrees with the conclusion of this report that the Main Modifications would not have an adverse impact on the site integrity of any European site and that the conclusions of the 2018 HRA report are still valid.

Full text:

Thank you for consulting Natural England on the proposed main modifications for the NE Derbyshire Local Plan. I can confirm that we have no comments to make on the modifications.

We acknowledge that a Habitats Regulations Assessment report has been submitted as a supporting document to the main modifications. I can confirm that Natural England agrees with the conclusion of this report that the Main Modifications would not have an adverse impact on the site integrity of any European site and that the conclusions of the 2018 HRA report are still valid.

Comment

Supporting Documents to Main Modifications (for comment)

Representation ID: 10111

Received: 10/12/2020

Respondent: Mrs Lindsay Barron

Representation Summary:

Paragraph No. 5.18

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.

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.

Comment

Supporting Documents to Main Modifications (for comment)

Representation ID: 10516

Received: 20/01/2021

Respondent: Mr Paul Johnson

Representation Summary:

See evidence attached to my comments regarding MM008, MM009 and MM010, please.

Full text:

The site allocation of KL/1 is not sustainable and does not meet the 2012 NPPF requirement to ‘meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.
This site is currently in the Green Belt, with five footpaths crossing it, giving lovely views to the west of Derbyshire. These will all be lost and walking/health opportunities will disappear (social). This site is located at the extreme edge of the settlement, with poor public transport and steep hill challenging walkers or cyclists visiting the centre, which is 2km away.
There are no new jobs currently available, planned, or likely within documented infrastructure projections. Commuting by vehicle will be unavoidable, damaging air quality – already the worst in the District. The financial benefit will accrue to Sheffield (economic).
Environmental damage will be massive, destroying habitats, including those of protected species established trees, ancient hedgerows and a functioning Greenway (environmental).