The North

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1700

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation:

The level of growth planned for the towns appears low and could be construed as being inconsistent with the stated spatial strategy in Policy LP2 which is to 'focus new development in the Principal and Secondary Towns'. The plan as it is currently drafted is unlikely to include scope to assist with delivering any additional housing in the northern part of the District to meet Sheffield's needs, although it is acknowledged that the likely overspill is not yet quantified, nor is the likely geographical focus determined.

Full text:

Para 5.27 acknowledges that in the past NEDDC has taken a planned approach to accommodating some of Sheffield's housing need, but that any comprehensive approach now would need to be considered at the SCR level. As already noted above, there is currently no mechanism for structured spatial planning to take place across the SCR, and so, in our view, NEDDC are progressing their Local Plan without specific consideration of the possible need to meet some of Sheffield's housing requirement. Whilst there is some flexibility built in to the housing supply compared to the target, it is not clear whether this is intended to assist in meeting the housing requirements of other districts or merely to provide choice of sites for developers.

The north part of the district has the closest relationship and connectivity to Sheffield where the City contains significant employment and training opportunities for the wider City Region including NED. Policy LP2 states that "new development will be focused on towns and large settlements as set out in the Settlement Hierarchy in Table 1". Three of the four principal or secondary towns in the district are in the northern area. However, they only account for just over 10% of the total District housing supply figure because they do not have significant opportunities for new development allocations within their existing built up areas and the rural area is designated as Green Belt. Therefore, the plan as it is currently drafted is unlikely to include scope to assist with delivering any additional housing in the northern part of the District to meet Sheffield's needs, although it is acknowledged that the likely overspill from Sheffield (or any additional housing resulting from the growth aspirations of the SCR) is not yet quantified, and neither is there any indication as to the likely geographical focus of any overspill.

The level of growth planned for the towns appears low and could be construed as being inconsistent with the stated spatial strategy in policy LP2 which is to 'focus new housing development in the Principal and Secondary Towns'. A strategic review of the Green Belt would help to either identify sustainable growth options around the Principal or Secondary Towns or help to justify maintaining the current adopted Green Belt boundary.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2467

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England

Representation:

Green Belt constraint in North should not result in unsustainable development within countryside of equal quality or sensitivity elsewhere (particularly Peak District Fringe).
To allow for a more sustainable housing target in West, suggest a target of between 1215-1415 dwellings for North (i.e. 2014 SA option 'NB').To balance GB protection with housing allocations according to settlement hierarchy, suggest that a strategic review of GB boundaries should be carried out by NEDDC. Principles of review, including housing allocations, should be set out in LP Part 1. New defensible GB boundaries should then be determined in LP Part 2, all following consultation.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2477

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England

Representation:

We agree that this area contains sensitive high quality countryside. However, please see the comment made in relation to 5.16 (above). Given the proportion of the population living within the area, adherence to this objective may result in the unmet demand being shifted towards other equally sensitive (and potentially less sustainable) locations outside of the Green Belt.

Full text:

See attached