North East Derbyshire Green Belt

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1449

Received: 18/02/2015

Respondent: J.S. Reaney

Representation:

The existing Green Belt should be protected.

Full text:

First of all my general comments are as follows:-

Brownfield sites should be used as a priority for development and the existing Green Belt should be protected.

I support the planned developments at the former Avenue site, the former Biwaters site and Matkham Vale.

Developers should be encouraged to include "affordable" housing in their future projects so long as this is compatible with existing residential development.

Now a more localised observation:-

The combined proposed increase in housing in Clay Cross, Tupton and Wingerworth is some 1455 dwellings. This will add significantly to the existing chronic traffic congestion on the A61 between Clay Cross and Chesterfield. One new roundabout is currently under construction at the entrance to the Avenue site and I have read in the local press that two more roundabouts are proposed on the A61 between Chesterfield and Clay Cross-one near Mill lane and Nottingham Drive at Wingerworth and one near Hill Top Farm on the outskirts of Clay Cross. Roundabouts do not solve traffic congestion! In the circumstances, therefore, NEDDC should make immediate representation to the County Council to ensure that the A61-A617 Avenue Link Road should be reclassified as a priority project for the County Council in order to offer some relief to the congestion on the A61. In the event that the County Council fail to respond in a positive manner to NEDDC, then NEDDC should make a direct approach to the Department of Transport.

I trust my observations will receive due consideration.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1702

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Sheffield City Council

Representation:

The SCR Combined Approach to carrying out Green Belt reviews is being used to guide individual authorities' reviews, rather than a single region wide review. We think that a strategic review of Green Belt across the whole SCR is needed now to ensure the most sustainable options for accommodating growth across the city region can be identified.
References to Green Belt 'constraining development' (5.42 and 5.60), may not accord with the thrust of national policy, whereby Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed where necessary, taking into account all relevant local circumstances to ensure objectively-assessed housing needs are met.

Full text:

Para 5.57 refers to a "strategic Green Belt review" "likely to take place across the Sheffield City Region". The recently agreed SCR Combined Approach to carrying out Green Belt reviews is being used to guide individual authorities' reviews, rather than a single region wide review. However, as noted against para 1.13, we think that a strategic review of Green Belt across the whole SCR is needed now. This will help to ensure that all options for accommodating growth across the city region can be considered and the most sustainable options identified.
The references to Green Belt 'constraining development', for example in paragraphs 5.42 and 5.60, do not appear to accord with the thrust of national policy, whereby Green Belt boundaries should be reviewed as part of Local Plan preparation/review where necessary, taking into account all relevant local circumstances to ensure that objectively-assessed housing needs are met.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1723

Received: 24/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Matthew Ellis

Agent: Barton Willmore Planning

Representation:

Object to approach to Green Belt.
The following exceptional circumstances exist to justify a strategic Green Belt review in North East Derbyshire , and in isolation of the wider Sheffield City Region:
 Housing Need - the full objectively assessed housing needs of North East
Derbyshire will only be achieved through the release of Green Belt land
around a number of key towns and settlements. This includes Eckington,
which as a main town in the District should accommodate significant housing
growth over the plan period and beyond, and which cannot be achieved
without alterations to the existing Green Belt boundaries.

Full text:

see attached representation

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1923

Received: 18/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Michael & Jill Lee

Representation:

Objection to building on what is currently green belt land in Dronfield/Coal Aston.
Dronfield is separate to South Yorkshire/Sheffield. Dronfield is highly populated already and was once known as the largest new build area in Europe. PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS WORSE. The local people care for and enjoy what green belt land is left. Once decimated natural land cannot be recovered. People need fresh air and local countryside, within walking distance. We can't see any benefit to local people by this tragic crime.

Full text:

We wish to make an official comment on Derbys DC proposed local plans for building on what is currently green belt land in Dronfield/Coal Aston. If this is not the correct form please furnish us with the appropriate form so that our feelings are considered and taken seriously. We would like confirmation that this form has been read. It is a great concern and sadness to hear that the DDC do not cherish the local area, especially with building on farm and woodland. Dronfield is separate to South Yorkshire and Sheffield in particular. Building closer to Sheffield runs the risk of the area being enveloped into SYorks at a loss to DDC coffers. Dronfield is highly populated already and was once known as the largest new build area in Europe. PLEASE DON'T MAKE THIS WORSE. The local people care for and enjoy what green belt land is left. Once decimated natural land cannot be recovered. People need fresh air and local countryside, within walking distance. DDC should put more pressure on whichever Government is in power - to limit immigration and the size of families via benefit controls. Making it less profitable to have too many children this small island cannot accommodate. Where does the ruination of green belt land stop once houses are built on the first tranche of land? Human beings need sufficient natural spaces for emotional/mental/physical wellbeing. Ghettoes are places that no sane being would wish to live so please stop now! DDC already fails to care for this area from the money already soaked up from Dronfield homeowers with regard to: - potholes on local roads, too numerous to mention - gritting and snow clearing local roads especially the bypass - care of local woodland is limited - poor transport for the area Is the money DCC will receive for destroying the Dronfield/Coal Aston area really meant for syphoning to the Matlock and Peak District areas. We can't see any benefit to local people by this tragic crime.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2194

Received: 17/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Paul Johnson

Representation:

View that Green Belt is 'constraining development' could be viewed as 'doing its job of preventing unnecessary development'.

Perception that this will open floodgates to unnecessary development.

GB Study indicates that GB functionality alone is only one aspect for consideration in identifying land to accommodate affordable housing.

Other areas that should be considered include:
1. value to local community,
2. Rights of way,
3. Available green space,
4. Whether land abuts city/district boundaries.

A duty to co-operate is not a duty to do what everyone asks. If we do not leave a substantial Green Belt buffer we stand a good chance of merging by default with South Yorkshire or one of the other areas.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2306

Received: 30/03/2015

Respondent: Rippon Homes

Agent: RPS (Birmingham office)

Representation:

RPS concur that a Green Belt Review is not necessary as North East Derbyshire can accommodate its growth without the need for Green Belt releases.

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2442

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation:

It is considered that the inclusion of the NED Strategic Green Belt Functionality Study in the Key Evidence Base for several policies has an influence that is harmful to the potential for the documents to be determined as sound. Whilst the document is in part a reasonably effective study of the function of particular areas, it is consider that it is wholly inappropriate to be used as a 'standalone' informer of policy that ultimately determines the scale of growth. Development and growth must be guided by a comprehensive range of material considerations, of which Green Belt functionality is just one. (see supporting submission)

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2483

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England

Representation:

Whilst we agree with the aim of protecting the Green Belt, this constraint should not result in disproportionate and unsustainable impacts upon other areas of equal environmental sensitivity.
We agree with the Green Belt exceptions approach and would note that unmet demand from the Districts three northern towns remains likely to place great pressure on other sensitive parts of the District through other policies outlined in the Plan.

Full text:

See attached