Policy LP6: Coalite Regeneration Area

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1529

Received: 06/03/2015

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation:

Our client agrees that any development proposal must 'form part of a comprehensive masterplan'. They do not agree that proposals must 'enable the full reclamation of the site prior to the development commencing'.

Remediating the whole site in its entirety prior to development commencing is not viable. For the site to be delivered it will be necessary to release the first phases of land for development, to ensure the remediation of the rest of the site can come forward.

The phasing has been designed to ensure that the areas of the site which are the most contaminated will be remediated prior to development commencing, and that, once this remediation has been completed, areas which are less contaminated can be treated whilst development is underway.

Full text:

See enclosed attachments

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1530

Received: 06/03/2015

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation:

Key Evidence, alternative options: It is unclear what jointly agreed approach the Council is referring to. This should be clarified.

Duty to Cooperate: We consider the Council needs to work at Officer and Member level with Bolsover to ensure site redevelopment is delivered both in applications and the Local Plan. This is reflected within Inspector Carnaby's response letter, following Bolsover Local Plan Examination, at paragraph 7.

The planning application process has brought together both Councils to agree strategic issues as part of the planning applications. However, it appears this has not been clearly relayed to the policy preparation.

Full text:

See enclosed attachments

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1531

Received: 06/03/2015

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation:

The alternative options refer to not having the required evidence for a Strategic Allocation. Our client objects to this. The planning application clearly sets out that the site is deliverable within the Plan period.

NPPG paragraph 13 identifies 'the use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas' as a strategic matter. Paragraph 5.35 of the Local Plan identifies significant cross boundary issues. Therefore the site should be considered as a strategic matter.

The Local Plan must be mindful of Bolsover Local Plan Examination conclusions. Inspector Carnaby clearly sets out that the site should be considered as a strategic matter. Reference is made to paragraph 28.

Full text:

See enclosed attachments

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1532

Received: 06/03/2015

Respondent: Bolsover Land Ltd

Agent: iSec Group

Representation:

The NPPF tell us: 'The Plan ... value.'
Our client agrees with this approach but does not consider that this guidance has been met. The Local Plan indicates that the site should be safeguarded. Evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the site is not of high environmental value and should come forward for alternative uses.

The suggestion that the site be safeguarded, rather than allocated, therefore conflicts with the NPPF and is also contrary to the approach set out by Inspector Carnaby, which should be a proactive and focussed approach to strategic planning. The current approach suggests nothing proactive.

Full text:

See enclosed attachments

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1602

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

We support this policy and agree that the complexities of the site require a
piecemeal approach to its development to be avoided.

There are major environmental gains to be achieved from bringing this site forward. Through our previous involvement with the site, we welcome a collaborative approach and it is request that the Environment Agency are included on any future discussions on the site remediation and water quality implications of the River Doe Lea.

Full text:

We support this policy and agree that the complexities of the site require a
piecemeal approach to its development to be avoided.

There are major environmental gains to be achieved from bringing this site forward. Through our previous involvement with the site, we welcome a collaborative approach and it is request that the Environment Agency are included on any future discussions on the site remediation and water quality implications of the River Doe Lea.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1666

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Sport England

Representation:

The development would lead to an increase in demand for sports facilities. A robust and up to date evidence base (assessment of needs for sports facilities - see NPPF paragraph 73) is required to underpin this and other policies concerning the provision of sports facilities to meet additional demand generated by occupiers of new development. Support principle of considering infrastructure delivery (including sports infrastructure) in conjunction with Bolsover District Council.

Full text:

The development would lead to an increase in demand for sports facilities. A robust and up to date evidence base (assessment of needs for sports facilities - see NPPF paragraph 73) is required to underpin this and other policies concerning the provision of sports facilities to meet additional demand generated by occupiers of new development. Support principle of considering infrastructure delivery (including sports infrastructure) in conjunction with Bolsover District Council.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2127

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation:

The former Coalite site is heavily contaminated and requires comprehensive remediation before it could accommodate most of the housing development being proposed. It would appear appropriate, therefore, that the site is safeguarded for future rather than immediate strategic development needs. Under the Duty to Cooperate, NEDDC and Bolsover DDC & DCC in its role as infrastruture provider, need to work collaboratively to ensure the coordinated and comprehensive delivery of this site.mprehensive redevelopment. In light of Duty to Co-operate requiments, the need for collaborative working is appropriately set out as a requirement under Policy LP6, which is fully endorsed and supported.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2155

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: A & D Architecture Ltd.

Representation:

The Policy is Ineffective
Solution
Omit "Any proposal to extend ....previously developed land."
Add: "Any proposals for greenfield development in connection with the regeneration of Coalite will be assessed in accordance with Policies LP 9 and 10. In addition special consideration will be given by the authority to visual impact upon the setting of Bolsover Castle and the preferred route of HS2 being an infra-structure project that at any time during its development is capable of being a material consideration"

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2182

Received: 17/03/2015

Respondent: Natural England (Lincoln office)

Representation:

Policy should include consideration of the Local Wildlife sites that lie within or adjacent to this site

Full text:

See attachments

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2275

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Bolsover District Council

Representation:

Given its size, scale, contamination, it adjoins Bolsover town and straddles the district boundary, the Coalite site is a strategic matter. Working in partnership to restore the site and deliver appropriate schemes is identified as an opportunity in the Growth Strategy. Also, the Strategic Alliance Joint Committee has set up a Coalite Project Control Board to lead development of a Regeneration and Action Plan (minute SA08/15). It is worth remembering that an inspector will want to consider evidence of how joint working has influenced the development of actual planning policies in the Plan, and how these are to be delivered.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2337

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

surprised at brevity of policy. - Significant strategic site and a significant challenges, within setting of Bolsover Castle.

Whilst we support principle of redevelopment and regeneration, this should be carefully considered given the setting issues.
A joint approach and an aligned policy are required; allocation should include housingusing and mixed-use site as a whole, not just those elements within individual LPA boundaries.

Approach in draft plan/policy is unsound. policy must make reference to heritage assets at Bolsover and provide much more information in the supporting text.
Further evidence is also required here. (ref to EH management plan).

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2418

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Chesterfield Borough Council

Representation:

Support inclusion of Coalite as a Strategic site. See comment 5.33 regarding traffic impact.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2545

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Ackroyd & Abbott Homes Ltd.

Agent: JVH Town Planning Consultants

Representation:

Difficulties in bringing very large sites to the market include problems with viability and infrastructure provision. Viability issues underscore the potential failure of a strategy that is over reliant on a small number of large previously developed sites. A broader strategy would enable the delivery of homes in the early years of the plan, and on sites which will deliver affordable homes.
It is not considered that the Coalite Plant is the most appropriate place to safeguard land for future development including new homes. This is a similar type of location to the two previous large previously developed locations which have failed to be delivered and lies in an area where the viability of delivering homes including affordable homes is under question.

Full text:

See attached