Heath

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1622

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

H&H/1601 - H&H/1091 - H&H/1902 - H&H/1904 and H&H/1905

We have no objection to these sites

Full text:

H&H/1601 - H&H/1091 - H&H/1902 - H&H/1904 and H&H/1905

We have no objection to these sites

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1714

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Chatsworth Settlement Trustees

Agent: Planning and Design Group

Representation:

Comments identifying development opportunities at Heath.

Full text:

The draft Local Plan recognises the locational advantages offered by Heath, including in respect of its proximity and accessibility to strategic employment sites. This, along with other factors, has contributed to the Council's decision to allocate an 'above average' growth target for the settlement. The resulting housing requirement however remains a modest 30 dwellings. Taking into account an existing completion and planning permissions, this falls to a residual requirement within the Plan period of only 21 dwellings.

It is clear from the sites considered within the SHLAA that land within and adjacent to the existing developed area has the potential to accommodate a significantly higher level of growth, if required. It is recognised however that full development of all of the identified SHLAA sites would be unlikely to accord with the spatial strategy put forward within the draft Local Plan in its current form. Growth above the draft Local Plan's current housing requirement could however be accommodated at/around Heath without detriment to the essential character or function of the settlement.

Detailed consideration of the settlement boundary (as shown within the adopted Local Plan and expressed in physical terms 'on the ground') and regard to other planning considerations, such as the Heath Conservation Area, should inform the selection of sites to meet development requirements at/around Heath. Land under the control of CST at Heath offers opportunities for sensitive infill development and expansion of the village. Sites of varying capacities are available. CST seeks to engage with the Council and other key stakeholders, including local residents, to inform the consideration, and in due course allocation and development, of such opportunity sites.

The greater the number of sites and the higher the overall quantum of development supported on them, the more likely it is that a variety of dwelling types and tenures could be provided to help meet diverse housing needs.

Should sites located elsewhere within the district be unable to deliver the number of dwellings required by the Local Plan, CST-controlled sites around Heath offer flexibility to increase the delivery of housing within a locality that offer good levels of viability and is likely to remain attractive to the market.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1764

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Mr David Munn

Representation:


Estimated potential yield may be over optimistic, or could change existing village character.

* total yield from the combined sites surpasses significantly the target growth for the period up to year 2031.

* Assuming growth continued unchanged beyond 2031, demand would not reach total potential yield levels within this century.

* Land released in appropriately phased sequences.

* Immediate development proposals should take account of longer term requirements.

* village hall should be continue to be focus of village centre.

* New development should maintain character of Conservation Area.

* Imaginative design should achieve housing which is attractive but affordable.

Full text:

In response to your request for comments you will have received a submission from the Heath Village Development Committee. I fully support the comments made by the Committee but there are some additional observations and comments of detail that I would like to make relating to your Schedule of Sites Consultation Document. In some instances the issues I have identified are already referred to in the NEDDC - Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment.

General
* The Local Plan covers the period 2011 - 2031 during which it is stated that a housing growth of 30 dwellings is the recommended target. The number of dwellings in the village is recorded at some 120 in 2011 and therefore the recommended growth represents an increase of 25% which is equivalent to an annual growth slightly in excess of 1%.

* Five sites have been identified for potential development and these have a total area of approximately 21 hectares and an estimated total potential yield of some 535 dwellings. Allowing for infrastructure works, this appears to equate to a development plot ratio of 30 dwellings/Ha. The existing Settlement Development Area is approximately half the area of the potential sites but has only 120 dwellings. This gives an existing density of approximately 12 dwellings/Ha which is significantly lower than that proposed and suggests the estimated potential yield may be over optimistic. Conversely building to the proposed plot ratio could result in new development substantially different in character to the existing village and therefore have an adverse impact.

* The identification of the potential sites and their possible yields is somewhat misleading in that the total yield from the combined sites surpasses significantly the target growth for the period up to year 2031. Although it is indicated that all of the sites could be built on before the year 2022, clearly there is unlikely to be a demand warranting this and, in fact, only one or a part of one, of the sites is needed to satisfy the demand for 2011-31.

* In determining the demand for housing in the District, growth rates of between 1% (high) and 2% (highly unrealistic) have been used in the Local Plan and source documentation. Assuming this growth continued unchanged beyond year 2031, the demand for housing in Heath will not reach potential yield levels for all sites combined within this present century. Indeed, the potential yield for Site H&H/1601 alone would satisfy demand for a further 35 to 85+ years beyond year 2031.

* Although Heath is a highly desirable residential area and high growth rates may not be unreasonable, development has to be in concert with demand and therefore growth of the village to the levels inferred is going to be a very lengthy process. The potential yield of 535 represents a five-fold increase in the size of the village which will have a very significant impact. For this to take place in a sustainable manner, development must be carefully structured and land managed and released in appropriately phased sequences.

Potential Sites H&H/1901, 1902, 1904 and 1905
* The sites to the east of the village all have existing roads/tracks connecting them to Main Street/Main Road. The northernmost sites, 1901 and 1902 are located on steep sloping ground which could make development difficult and the need for significant earthworks would probably mean that a development plot ratio of 30dwellings/Ha would be unachievable.

* The area in which the sites are located currently provides a buffer zone from the major transport links of the M1 motorway and the A617. Both of these pose major environmental impacts and the impending high speed rail link HS2 will compound the problems. These could make the sites unattractive to potential developers.

Potential Site H&H/1601
* This site, to the west of the village, has a flatter topography although the ground steepens to the south. Varying levels across the site could possibly be used to advantage to produce an aesthetic development. The southernmost part of the site, at the lower levels, suffers from flooding after periods of heavy rainfall and would require special drainage measures.

* A sizable portion of the site is currently used to provide a valuable source of winter feed for local farmers' livestock. Loss of this could prove a major difficulty for an already hard-pressed industry.

* The site has limited opportunities for connection to the existing road network and a full development would need at least three links - to the north, the east and the south. The central, eastern link would provide essential interconnection between old and new development and ensure that the village does not become a 'settlement of two halves'. The northern link could be achieved via a junction on Mansfield Road where the existing alignment is good leaving the existing Heath Common access remaining as a secondary link. To the east, finding a gap within the existing development will prove more difficult but a secondary connection to Main Road should be feasible. To the south the situation is quite complex because of the constrained alignment of Main Road and the proximity of the junction at Heath Road (A6175). Visibility along the frontage of the site is severely restricted and to accommodate traffic arising from a fully developed site it will be necessary to orientate the new junction such that priority is given to the north-south movement. This would leave the existing Main Road to the east as a branch off the new road. Such an arrangement is only viable if the new site road (northern arm) connects into the new network to the north.

* The existing area to the north and the south is surrounded by a large number of trees with Preservation Orders on them and these will require careful consideration in the design of the development proposals and its new junctions.

* To the south there is also a high voltage electricity transfer station where the site entrance will be. This serves the village and will need to be relocated.

* Future Development

* The Local Plan identifies an immediate (2011-31) requirement for additional housing but, in doing so, has intimated a possible way forward for long-term future growth. If the village is to grow in a sustainable manner, now is the time to consider how this growth should take place and, where possible, include measures or guidelines in the Local Plan to achieve it. Although it may seem beyond the scope of the current Local Plan any development proposals for the immediate future should take account of longer term
requirements. A conceptual form for the future village should be prepared to avoid ad-hoc development taking place and having an adverse effect.
* For many years Heath has lacked a 'village centre' having evolved from a settlement strung along the road connecting Chesterfield and Mansfield. Recently, however, much work has been done to establish a village identity centred upon the Village Hall. This has been so successful that European funding was awarded to help refurbish the existing buildings and aid in the development of community activities. This excellent work should be extended to provide the nucleus for the provision of facilities which will enhance the lives of existing villagers and encourage the influx of a broad spectrum of new residents. Such provisions should include a village green/children's play area, a convenience store, a nursery/playschool, a clinic and a primary school. Initially provision would be made largely in terms of spatial allowance only but as demand occurs the facilities and associated buildings could be added within the space allocated.
* The identity and historic character of Heath has been maintained largely because it is a Conservation Area. Any enlargement of the Settlement Development Limit should also include a similar enlargement of the Conservation Area as necessary. New housing and other buildings must all maintain the appearance and materials adopted throughout the existing village. Trees play an important part in the village landscape and this must be extended to development within the new sites.

* The existing road through the village adopts a torturous route with several bends of sub-standard alignment. This has helped to restrain the passage of through traffic which can arise if there is congestion on the M1 Motorway and A617 Bypass. The provision of a road network within site H&H/1601 should be designed to facilitate movement in and out of the village but not provide a village 'bypass' encouraging passage of external traffic through it.

* The village contains a number of smaller houses which could be used as models for the new development. Many of these occur near the Village Hall and are owned by Chatsworth Estates. Built at a higher density, perhaps in the 'centre' of the village, they would encourage the influx of younger families, counterbalancing the increasing aging population of the village. Imaginative design of the buildings with innovative use of materials and techniques should be able to achieve housing which is attractive but not costly.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1782

Received: 24/03/2015

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation:

Identified sites are all within the Heath Village Conservation Area and housing allocation may therefore be considered inappropriate because of significant harms to this locally designated heritage asset, and to the setting of listed buildings within the village. The area west of the village appears to have been subject to substantial opencast coal extraction and therefore may retain no archaeological potential. The area east/north of the village is close to the medieval core and should be subject to archaeological field evaluation as part of any planning application.

Full text:

Thank you for consulting on this Initial Draft Local Plan (Part 1), including a schedule of possible housing allocation sites. I offer the following comments in relation to archaeology and the historic environment resource:

Local Plan Part 1 initial draft
Policy LP28: the Protection of the Historic Environment.

Part e reads "Consulting the Historic Environment Record to identify and, where appropriate, seek protection and preservation in situ or recording of non-designated heritage assets in terms of previously unknown important archaeological remains, if they are likely to be adversely affected by development. All recording shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified professional prior to the development commencing and the records made publicly available."

I support the aim of this policy, which is to enable the conservation, management and recording of undesignated archaeological remains, including previously unknown remains identified as part of the planning process. However, the wording of the policy at present is a little confusing, and seem to only refer to previously unknown remains and not known archaeological sites (e.g. those with an HER record). The policy as worded also seems to imply that it is the local planning authority who will be responsible for consulting the HER, rather than the planning applicant (see NPPF para 128); it would also be useful to refer to archaeological desk-based assessment and field evaluation, which applicants may be required to carry out where appropriate to identify and characterise archaeological remains (also NPPF para 128). Finally, the use of the word 'important' introduces an unnecessary degree of uncertainty (because the policy doesn't define what 'important' means and it isn't a term used in historic environment planning policy): it may be more appropriate to refer to 'significance' in line with NPPF chapter 12.

I therefore recommend that the policy wording at LP28e is rewritten in the light of the above comments. A suggested revised wording might be as follows:

"Consulting, and requiring planning applicants where appropriate to consult, the Historic Environment Record, in order to identify undesignated archaeological remains, including known sites and previously unknown remains, and using archaeological desk-based assessment and/or field evaluation as appropriate. The local planning authority will seek to promote the conservation of such heritage assets. Where loss of or harm to undesignated heritage assets is considered to be justified in terms of the benefits of a development, the local planning authority will require archaeological recording to be undertaken by a suitably qualified professional prior to the development commencing and the records made publicly available."

Schedule of sites - general comments
Due to the large number of sites and the preliminary nature of the consultation it is not proposed to give detailed comments on every site. The comments below should be seen as an initial screen to identify known archaeological issues, and also to identify those sites where archaeology can be scoped out at an early stage due (e.g.) to large scale opencast coal extraction. Potential for previously unknown archaeological remains has in general not been assessed. Comments on individual sites are grouped under the settlement headings below, and should be read in combination with the following general comments:

Undesignated archaeological remains (known sites)
These sites have been identified by records on the Derbyshire HER and where previous archaeological fieldwork (geophysics and/or evaluation) has taken place.

Identified archaeology may weigh to a greater or lesser extent against the allocation of a site for housing, depending on the significance of the archaeological remains. The following sites fall into this category: CX/1607 (north-west part close to Egstow Hall); ECK/901 (the western part, corresponding to a medieval/post-medieval mill site); GRA/1608 (1) and (2): medieval settlement and cultivation earthworks; GRA/702: post-medieval ridge and furrow; WW/1609 (eastern end): 17th century forge site.

Some archaeological sites previously identified through the planning process have attracted recommendations for archaeological excavation and recording using planning conditions in line with NPPF para 141. The following sites fall into this category: ASH/2001: possible prehistoric remains; ECK/703: Late Iron Age settlement (evaluation); ScD/2103: later prehistoric or Romano-British activity (geophysics); WW/704: probable prehistoric activity (geophysics). Potential developers for these sites should be aware of the likely time and cost implications of substantial archaeological works.

Built heritage
The following sites are identified in the Derbyshire HER as having a built heritage significance which may act as a constraint on housing allocation or subsequent development: CX/1604: former Clay Cross Community School; DRO/603: Grade II Listed Vale House; NW/1605: former infants' school. Conservation of these assets through re-use/conversion should be explored in the first instance, in line with the policies at NPPF chapter 12.

Setting impacts
The following sites may have setting impacts to designated heritage assets (Conservation Areas and listed buildings), and this may weigh against allocation of the sites (or parts thereof) for housing development. The local planning authority may wish to seek more detailed conservation advice on these sites: CX/1607 (north-western part): setting of Egstow Hall; DRO/602: Dronfield Conservation Area and setting of Vale House; ECK/702, 702, 2016: setting of Renishaw Park and Hall; all Heath sites: Heath Village Conservation Area and listed buildings within the village; S&H/803: setting of Hallfield Gate Conservation Area; TUP/801 and 1604: setting of Ankerbold House.

Potential for previously unknown archaeological remains
Within the constraints of the current consultation it has not proved possible to undertake the detailed site appraisal necessary to advise on the potential for previously unknown remains on these sites, beyond noting below where individual sites are close to known archaeological remains or lie within or adjacent to historic settlement cores. Detailed site appraisal would include study of aerial photography, historic mapping, geology, topography and regional/sub-regional settlement patterns as evidenced by known sites. It is proposed to undertake this level of appraisal when the number of sites has been whittled down.

Previously unknown remains would not weigh against allocation of a site for housing development. In general, however, large greenfield sites with no opencast extraction have a meaningful potential for previously undiscovered archaeological remains, with particular relation to the prehistoric and Romano-British periods. On coal measures geology (most of North-East Derbyshire), most substantial development sites evaluated through geophysics or trial trenching have produced significant archaeological results - a remarkably high hit rate.

Following detailed appraisal it is therefore likely that large greenfield sites with no history of opencasting will require some level of archaeological evaluation (typically geophysical survey validated by trial trenching as appropriate) to be submitted as part of a planning application. Smaller sites closer to historic settlement cores may also need archaeological assessment through the planning process. Many sites not individually discussed under the settlement headings below will therefore be considered to have archaeological potential and will require archaeological work as part of the planning process. In these cases potential developers are advised to seek pre-application guidance in order to promote positive outcomes for historic environment assets.

Schedule of sites - grouped by settlement

Ashover
Identified sites are small in size but close to the historic settlement core. Geophysical survey in the context of a larger housing proposal on the ASH/2001 site has identified probable archaeological remains which would need to be evaluated and recorded as part of any development. The remaining sites would need archaeological assessment because they are close to the historic core, but this could be managed through the planning process and would not preclude allocation.

Brackenfield
BRAC/1401 is in the medieval core of the settlement and would need archaeological assessment as part of the planning process.

Calow
CAL/1602 has undergone significant opencast extraction, so archaeology could be scoped out of the planning process.
CAL/1601 has been considered in the context of previous planning applications and found on balance to have very low archaeological potential.

Clay Cross
CX/1607 has undergone substantial opencast extraction, though the northern extent close to Old Tupton may be undisturbed, and runs close to the Ryknield Street Roman road (HER 4213/99016) and the site of Egstow Hall (HER 14402 and 14403) and Grade II Listed and associated medieval village remains. Development right up to this north-western boundary may be inappropriate due to the setting of the listed building, and the local planning authority may wish to consider setting any allocation boundary further back to conserve the setting of this designated asset.

CX/1608 and 1604 include HER 4211, the course of the former Stretton and Ashover Light Railway. CX/1604 has a surviving embankment for this feature on its eastern boundary.
CX/601 is within a former colliery tip, so archaeology could be scoped out of the planning process.
CX/1901 is a former sewage works, so archaeology could be scoped out.
The following sites have undergone substantial opencast extraction, so archaeology could be scoped out: CX/704, 1605, 1606, 1609, 1701, 1801, 2101 and the eastern part of CX/1506.
CX/1604 includes the locally significant buildings of the former Clay Cross Community School, dating from 1854/5 (HER 4235); these should be retained as part of any redevelopment.
CX/703, 1702, 2105 are adjacent to the course of the Ryknield Street Roman road (HER 4213/99016).

Dronfield
DRO/901 is close to the historic core of Coal Aston and would need archaeological assessment through the planning process.
DRO/602 contains the 17th century Vale House (HER 4778 and Grade II Listed); allocation may not be appropriate if housing development is considered harmful to the setting of the Listed Building (or the Dronfield Conservation Area).
DRO/1603 is a former works site considered to have no remaining archaeological potential.

Eckington
ECK/901 contains HER 4953, the site of a medieval and post-medieval mill. This undesignated heritage asset would weigh against allocation, and would require archaeological desk-based assessment and possibly field evaluation in advance of a planning application for the site.
ECK/703 has a known archaeological site, a Late Iron Age enclosure with ironworking remains. ECK/702 is immediately adjacent and would require some archaeological investigation through the planning process (though I note it is developed for allotment gardens).
ECK/2016 is a very large greenfield site, immediately adjacent to the known Iron Age evidence at ECK/703, and containing HER records for post-medieval collieries and tramways. The western end of the site has however been substantially opencast. The site would need pre-application field evaluation, apart from the opencast area.
These sites south of Eckington may have impacts upon the setting of Renishaw Park, and may therefore be considered inappropriate for allocation, subject to conservation advice.

Grassmoor
GRA/1608(1) and (2) contain HER 7208 and 7210, records of earthwork house platforms, banks and ridge and furrow likely to represent archaeological remains of medieval occupation. This undesignated heritage asset would weigh heavily against allocation, and would require archaeological field evaluation in advance of a planning application for the sites.
GRA/1605: the vast majority of this site has been subject to opencast extraction, although it may encroach on the medieval interest at GRA/1608(2) at its north-western boundary.
GRA/702 contains HER 7209, a record of earthwork ridge and furrow; this undesignated heritage asset would weigh against allocation.
GRA/1604 contains part of HER 7213, a record of probable early mining remains visible as parch marks and cropmarks.
GRA/1601, 1901 and 2102 have been substantially opencast and archaeology could be scoped out of the planning process.

Heath
Identified sites are all within the Heath Village Conservation Area and housing allocation may therefore be considered inappropriate because of significant harms to this locally designated heritage asset, and to the setting of listed buildings within the village. The area west of the village appears to have been subject to substantial opencast coal extraction and therefore may retain no archaeological potential. The area east/north of the village is close to the medieval core and should be subject to archaeological field evaluation as part of any planning application.

Higham
S&H/1801 has been subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology may be scoped out of the planning process.

Holmesfield
HOLM/2013 is partly within the Cartledge Conservation Area and within the setting of Listed Buildings at Cartledge Hall and Cartledge Grange.

Holmewood
NW/702 and 706 have subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology may be scoped out of the planning process.
H&H/1603 has been subject to archaeological evaluation and found to be of very low potential.

Killamarsh
KIL/605 and 1701 adjoin the line of the Chesterfield Canal (HER 3998), and any planning application would require an archaeological/heritage assessment of any direct or setting impacts to the canal and associated archaeology.

Long Duckmanton
ScD/1602 has been subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology may be scoped out of the planning process.
ScD/2103 has been subject to geophysical survey as part of a recent planning application, revealing late prehistoric and/or Romano-British archaeology including field systems, enclosures and probable settlement areas. It has been accepted that this archaeological interest could be addressed through planning conditions requiring extensive archaeological excavation and recording (NPPF para 141); any potential developer should be aware of the potential resource implications of this in terms of time and costs.

Lower Pilsley and Pilsley
PIL/1602 and 1901 are close to the historic settlement core at Upper Pilsley and should therefore be subject to archaeological assessment through the planning process.

Mickley
S&H1901 has been subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology may be scoped out of the planning process.

North Wingfield
NW/1605 includes HER 10811, the Infants' School of 1910, designed by George Henry Widdows (although considered unworthy of listing because of later additions and alterations). This undesignated heritage asset would be a constraint to housing development of the site, and should be considered for re-use/conversion in the first instance.

The following sites have been subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology could be scoped out of the planning process: NW/704, 1701

Shirland
S&H/802 and 1602 have been subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology may be scoped out of the planning process.
S&H/1802 has been considered of very low archaeological potential in the context of a previous pre-planning consultation.
S&H/803 may have harmful setting impacts to Hallfield Gate Conservation Area, and may therefore be considered inappropriate for allocation.

Temple Normanton
TN/1602, 1604, 1605 have been subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology may be scoped out of the planning process
TN/701 is in close proximity to the medieval settlement core and should be subject to archaeological field evaluation as part of any planning application.

Tupton
The following site has been subject to substantial opencast extraction and archaeology may be scoped out of the planning process: TUP/2102
TUP/1604 and TUP/801 are within the immediate setting of the Grade II Listed Ankerbold House (HER 14411) and may therefore be inappropriate for allocation, subject to conservation advice.
TUP/701 contains the course of the Ryknield Street Roman road (HER 14406/99016). The site has also been subject to episodes of opencast coal extraction so should be subject to a desk-based assessment process to establish the extent of opencasting, followed by evaluation of any likely surviving lengths of the Roman road.

Wessington
The identified sites appear to be of low archaeological potential and WES/1601 and 2101 have been identified as such in previous pre-planning and planning consultations.

Wingerworth
WW/702 and 1610(1) and (2) are within the zone of disturbance of the former Avenue Works. Although crossed by the probable line of Ryknield Street previous archaeological observation suggest that the site has experienced massive disturbance and therefore archaeology can be scoped out of the planning process.

WW/1605 has been subject to opencast coal extraction; although the course of Ryknield Street runs through the site no surviving remains were identified during archaeological evaluation.
WW/704: geophysical survey in the context of a recent planning application shows probable prehistoric archaeology within the site. It is accepted that this could be addressed through planning conditions requiring archaeological excavation and recording (NPPF para 141); any potential developer should be aware of the potential resource implications of this in terms of time and costs.
WW/1609 includes part of HER 15310, a 17th century forge site, at its eastern end. It may be appropriate to locate the allocation boundary further back to avoid impacts to the HER site.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2352

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

All of the sites are within the Conservation Area and many could also affect the setting of listed buildings - for example H/1902 is likely to affect the setting of the Church. The proposed safeguarded route for HS2 also runs through some of the options.

Full text:

See attachment