Policy LP26: Landscape character

Showing comments and forms 1 to 9 of 9

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1447

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: National Farmers Union

Representation:

We would urge the Council to keep the need for expensive landscape character assessments for minor development to a minimum. Should there be a threshold above which the surveys need to be carried out and below that threshold, they don't need to be done.

Full text:

We would urge the Council to keep the need for expensive landscape character assessments for minor development to a minimum. Should there be a threshold above which the surveys need to be carried out and below that threshold, they don't need to be done.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1846

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Anne Wilkinson

Representation:

Landscape protection:
It is surely reasonable of Ashover Parish residents to expect that existing levels of Special Landscape Area (SLA) protection would be preserved in the new Local Plan, reinforced by policy objectives expressin in the draft, GI Study, and NPPF.

Designatin has changed, with the use of the Landscape Character Assessment and AMES definitions instead of the SLA designation, but the NPPF does not dictate that this should effectively downgrade protection of significant landscapes.

It is alarming to observe that landscape protection is weakened by an apparent increasing of the level of harm allowed before a development is refused

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2139

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation:

To ensure that the policy refers to the wider character, and not just the very local context, i.e. site level, Policy LP26: Landscape Character should be amended to read "Development proposals should have regard to the Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment and the Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity. They should contribute, where appropriate, to the conservation and enhancement, or
restoration and re-creation, of the local landscape taking into account its wider landscape character type."

Full text:

See attached

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2190

Received: 17/03/2015

Respondent: Natural England (Lincoln office)

Representation:

Welcome this policy and note tha tit draws upon the evidence set ou in the Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment.
Also welcome referrence to the National Character Areas at para 9.12

Full text:

See attachments

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2223

Received: 20/03/2015

Respondent: Peak District National Park Authority

Representation:


In the context of the duty to have regard to National Park purposes inclusion of a specific policy reference regarding the need to protect the setting of the National Park is strongly advised. This could either be in the context of the landscape character policy LP26, or even a specific policy to clarify for developers how the statement in paragraph 5.39 ('The high quality countryside towards the Peak District will be protected from development') will be achieved.
(Suggested policy wording provided)

Full text:

See Attachment

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2287

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: The National Trust

Representation:

policy generally supported.
but we consider that minor rewording is required to ensure that the policy is consistent with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2013. Firstly, we recommend that "sensitivity" is removed from first paragraph as landscape characteristics exhibit sensitivity to harm, but sensitivity per se is not susceptible to harm in this context.
Secondly second paragraph should be broadened to ensure that "character" and "sensitivity" are always taken into account, even if the specific studies mentioned are in future superseded.
"where appropriate" are not necessary within

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2345

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

We welcome reference to the AMES study within this policy. It would also be helpful to make reference to the Derbyshire Historic Landscape Characterisation study within the supporting text.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2404

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Chris Proctor - Smith

Representation:

The draft policy is weak and unmanageable. For example what does "have regard to" mean?
And what is significant harm? The policy should at least offer the same level of protection to AMES as the current protection offered to Special Landscape Areas.

Full text:

Initial Draft Local Plan (Part 1) and Schedule of Potential Housing Sites February 2015

I wish to comment on the Initial Draft Local Plan (Part 1) (DLP) and Schedule of Potential Housing Sites February 2015.

I am extremely concerned about the housing growth targets proposed for Ashover Parish and Ashover Village in particular.
The target number of new houses is not sustainable and will have a catastrophic impact on the community.

The DLP recommends growth rates for all the settlements in the parish that are much higher than the overall NEDDC growth rate.
Ashover +40%, Fallgate +21%, Kelstedge +20% & Littlemoor/Alton + 15%.

Having reviewed the Evidence Base documents, there is no evidence that identifies any specific need or demand for the levels of growth identified in the DLP for Ashover or Ashover Parish.

There is a flawed assumption that a 40% increase in the size of Ashover will protect existing services and facilities in the village.
Quite the contrary, Ashover is able to support its existing services and facilities due to the high levels of visitors and tourists it attracts: cyclists, walkers, riders, sports teams, agricultural show, vintage car rallies, caravan and camping clubs, motocross events etc.
Ashover is an award winning village widely acknowledged for its unique character.
Visitors are attracted to Ashover because the village is "unspoilt" and the surrounding countryside is of high landscape value and accessible.

The proposed growth of over 100 houses will destroy this unique character, visitor numbers will fall and valuable agricultural fields around the village would be lost - the fields that feed this country.

Furthermore, the approach to drafting the Local Plan is flawed and there is clear evidence that the Evidence Base is being mis-used to justify housing growth proposals that have no evidential basis.

The Settlement Role & Function Study 2013 states "It should also be noted that the position of the settlement within the hierarchy does not inevitably mean that significant growth should be accommodated
there because other factors will need to be considered, such as environmental constraints."
Yet the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper 2014 states "The Settlement Hierarchy is the basis for determining the appropriate level of new housing for each settlement."

The Settlement Hierarchy does not determine levels of new housing for each settlement it simply indicates a hierarchy of settlements based on a series of criteria.

NEDDC has failed to gather appropriate specific evidence of housing need in Ashover Parish and appears to be trying to make numbers fit.

I attended the consultation event at Ashover on 12th March 2015 and questioned what evidence of need there was to support the proposed housing targets. It was clear that the evidence has not been gathered and when I pressed for answers I was told by 2 of the planning policy representatives "everyone's got to have their share and we've worked out Ashover's share is 40%" and "they have to go somewhere"!

Ashover and Ashover Parish do not represent a sustainable location for such high levels of growth.
* The local road network is inadequate and unsuitable for any significant increase in traffic. Many roads, including all those in to Ashover village have pinch points where the road is only wide enough for one vehicle.
* Public transport is extremely limited and it is not possible to commute to the local employment centres of Chesterfield and Claycross due to the timetables.
* There are insufficient sites within existing settlement boundaries to accommodate the proposed housing target which means the development will have to be on valuable agricultural green field sites
* The majority of the landscape in the Parish is identified as an Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES) where development on greenfield sites will have significant harm on the landscape.

The Schedule of Potential Housing Sites February 2015 identifies a limited number of potential sites and all these lie outside settlement boundaries and in AMES and the entirity of the proposed housing target would have to be on greenfield AMES sites.

The proposed housing targets, because they are reliant on development of greenfield sites, are directly in conflict with the DLP Objectives & Policies:

D8 Environmental Protection: To protect and enhance the District's
locally, nationally, and internationally important landscape and the
wider natural and historic environment and industrial heritage.

D9 Landscape Character: To protect and enhance the character and
quality of local landscapes.

D10 Affordable Housing: To deliver significant amounts of affordable
housing to reflect identified need.

D14 Traffic & Transport: To address the impact that relatively high
levels of traffic, high car dependency and limited public transport
facilities have on the social, economic and environmental state of
certain parts of the District.

W3 To preserve the open nature of the countryside, having regard to
its proximity to the Peak District National Park.

Policy LP1: Sustainable Development
c. Locate development with the aim of reducing the need to travel
g. Protect and enhance the character, quality and settings of towns and
villages and heritage assets of acknowledged importance
h. Protect and enhance the character, quality and diversity of local
landscapes and the wider countryside
i. Protect the productive potential of the District's best quality
agricultural land, and avoid sterilisation of mineral resources

Policy LP26: Landscape Character
Proposals for new development will only be permitted where they
would not cause significant harm to the character, quality,
distinctiveness or sensitivity of the landscape, or to important features
or views, or other perceptual qualities such as tranquillity unless the
benefits of the development clearly outweigh the impacts.

Development proposals should have regard to the Derbyshire
Landscape Character Assessment and the Areas of Multiple
Environmental Sensitivity' and contribute, where appropriate, to the
conservation and enhancement, or restoration and re-creation of the
local landscape.

With regard to this policy I would also make the following comments:

The draft policy is weak and unmanageable.
For example what does "have regard to" mean?
And what is significant harm?

The policy should at least offer the same level of protection to AMES as the current protection offered to Special Landscape Areas.

Please keep me informed by email in relation to this consultation and other planning policy documents.

Comment

Part 1 - Initial Draft (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2490

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Campaign to Protect Rural England

Representation:

We very much support the Local Landscape Character led approach.

Full text:

See attached