Distribution of growth

Showing comments and forms 1 to 12 of 12

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1524

Received: 06/03/2015

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation:

Paragraph 5.22 about the distribution of growth, states that 'the level of housing provision to be delivered through this Local Plan will make it necessary to identify greenfield sites within and on the edge of settlements where it can be demonstrated that these area suitable and sustainable locations.' Our client is in
agreement with this statement and supports it. The pending planning application in North East Derbyshire includes an element of greenfield land, which is necessary to ensure the scheme is financially viable. Our client suggests the former Coalite site should be included within the identification of greenfield sites.

Full text:

See enclosed attachments

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2124

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation:

The proposed distribution of housing across the District is considered to be sound and robust. It is based on the definition of a Settlement Hierarchy of Principal Towns, consistent with the NPPF and NPPG. The range of settlements in each tier of the hierarchy appears appropriate and has been informed by extensive up-to-date evidence.
More detailed analysis of the future housing needs of the District has been carried out on the basis of four distinct sub-areas. Analysis of housing provision has been informed by a robust analysis of social, economic and environmental opportunities and constraints in each sub-area.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2263

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: The National Trust

Representation:

LPA should seek legal advice on format of the Local Plan and 5 year supply.

Disappointing that LPA cannot confidently foresee regeneration of Coalite within plan period. can central government be engaged?

Welcome recognition of importance of Hardwick Hall and its setting

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2333

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

We welcome reference in 5.36 to key heritage assets both within and adjacent to the district. The protection of these assets is a strategic matter. We also note reference to Coalite in 5.35. This is a significant site with significant challenges in its development. We hope we are able to engage with you and Bolsover District Council regarding this site, as part of the Duty to Co-Operate, of which English Heritage is also bound.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2363

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Shaw Developments (Sheffield) Ltd

Agent: IBA Planning Limited

Representation:

Following a strategic green belt review, additional housing and affordable housing could be directed towards Dronfield commensurate with its role as a principal town. The recommended growth afforded to Dronfield should be regarded as a minimum rather than a maximum figure.
The Council are clearly not in apposition where they can demonstrate that the Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the plan period (and the plan is therefore unsound).
The alternative would be to work on a single new Local Plan, prepared in the light of the increased housing/employment requirements from the SCR

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2411

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Chesterfield Borough Council

Representation:

Welcome the reference to the need for cooperation on developments close to district/borough boundaries in order to maximise the benefits and minimise the impacts for all.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2438

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation:

Ability to deliver proposed growth strategy: Submission sets out that a disproportionate volume of proposed housing is intended to be delivered in inappropriate and fundamentally unsustainable locations (smaller settlements and in southern sub-area). The assertion that this level of growth could be accommodated without the need for a strategic review of the Green Belt is strongly contested. The southern sub-area is both incapable of delivering the proposed volume of housing, and unsuitable to accommodate it.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2439

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation:

Appropriateness and contradiction of proposed Growth Strategy: it is strongly asserted that intent to deliver such a large proportion of housing in southern sub-area is contrary to fundamental planning principles, as well as many key objectives and elements of the visual set out with the Initial Draft itself. The Vision suggests that primary settlements, such as Killamarsh, are most suitable for delivery of residential growth, but this is not reflected in the proposed strategy for growth and the policies through which this is intended to be implemented.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2440

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation:

It is considered that the development requirements of the district are not based upon the full and objectively assessed needs, due to the inconsistency in application on the 2013 SHMAA and the availability of more up-to-date figures that present a more accurate and objective picture of housing need.
The SHMAA informs the overall requirement at an overarching level. When applied at a lower level it suggests that housing need is different and greater, bringing into question any claim that particular policies for housing growth are based on a full objective assessment of need.

Updated household projections, February 2015, suggest a greater anticipated household growth and reduction in average household size.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2441

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation:

NEDDC cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The prospect of being reasonably able to deliver the proposed requirement is questionable. The district has not delivered this levels of housing in the past (an average of 265 dw/year from 1991-2011) and it is not considered that the policy approach that resulted in this shortcoming has altered sufficiently in order to remediate this trend. This historical failure to deliver must be taken into account when establishing targets for the new plan period.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2456

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Mr G Hancock

Agent: IBA Planning Limited

Representation:

Support with additional observations
The proposed 'Distribution of Growth' is strongly supported in the interests of delivering sustainable forms of development in a sustainable location whilst significantly protecting the integrity of the existing wider Green Belt.
Proposed Policy LP2 'Spatial Strategy' is therefore also supported, as well as policy LP8 ' Local Settlement Gaps'.
Paragraph 5.43 identifies a growth level of 12% higher than minimum. The additional allowance is supported on the basis that delivery issues on sites are a frequent occurrence. However, this support is tempered with question marks over whether it should be an even greater allowance bearing in mind it tolerates the provision of just 37 extra dwellings per year over the plan period.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2476

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England

Representation:

Draft Plan states that required growth will be distributed according to an overarching hierarchy of centres. However, this does not appear to be the case given the disproportionately high level of growth attributed to certain settlements outside GB within West.

Plan states that main towns will be focus for development, but this does not appear to be the case due to GB constraints. (See comment above (5.16)).

Unclear what Plan's statement in para 5.20 means in practice. What evidence is there to suggest that such settlements are currently unsustainable? Given sensitive nature of many rural settlements and their reliance upon private transport, levels of development over and above that required to meet locally arising needs are unlikely to be sustainable.

Full text:

See attached