Killamarsh

Showing comments and forms 1 to 14 of 14

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1590

Received: 24/03/2015

Respondent: Andrew Fletcher

Agent: Mrs Linda Trollope

Representation:

The site is very well related to the settlement boundaries, would not result in settlements coalescing and is in a sustainable location that would provide easy access to a range of local facilities and regular public transport services. It has a low score with regard to Green Belt functionality (the third lowest in the District) and its development would not compromise the strategic objectives of the Green Belt.

Full text:

KIL 2102
It is noted that all Green Belt sites have been excluded from this document. However the consultation document on the Local Plan Part 1 indicates that there is a need to release some Green Belt sites to meet the affordable housing needs in the north of the district and that a Strategic Green Belt Review may be required over the wider Sheffield City Region. In view of this it is requested that the following site should be considered for inclusion in the schedule of sites (identified as a safeguarded site if required).
This site is very well related to the settlement boundaries and is in a sustainable location that would provide easy access to a range of local facilities and regular public transport facilities. The NEDDC Strategic Green Belt Functionality Study published in April 2014 indicated that the area of Green Belt designated as KIL1 (North East Killamarsh) fell into the lower quartile when considering Green Belt functionality excluding the conservation functions of the Green Belt. Indeed the score achieved by this area of the Green Belt was the third lowest in the whole District.
In addition to having a very low functionality score the site is closely associated with residential development along Rotherham Road to the west and that on Woodside Avenue and Norwood Place to the south. The site is therefore well related to the settlement and in a sustainable location. Its release from the Green Belt would not compromise the strategic objectives of the Green Belt.
It is therefore requested that consideration should be given to including this site in the Schedule of Sites.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1592

Received: 24/03/2015

Respondent: David Else

Agent: Mrs Linda Trollope

Representation:

This is a small site within the Green Belt adjacent to the settlement boundary. It contains a hard surfaced area and a range of outbuildings and stored items. It is clearly separate from the open land to the east. An amendment to the Green Belt boundary is requested at the appropriate stage in the Local Plan process. This will have no impact on the open character of the Green Belt in this location.

Full text:

Upperthorpe Villas, Killamarsh
This site is a small site located to the south of Upperthorpe Villas (see attached plan). It has not previously been put forward as a potential residential site in relation to the current Local Plan consultation but there has been lengthy correspondence regarding it in relation to the previous Local Plan and in 2009 I requested confirmation that the earlier representations would be carried forward to the new Local Plan (LDF at that time). I also appreciate that this is a minor amendment to the Green Belt boundary that you may consider to be more appropriate to deal with under Part 2 of the new plan, although if this is the case, the statement in paragraph 5.57 of the consultation on Part 1 of the Plan that it is not intended to undertake a review of Green Belt boundaries must be questioned.
At the time of considering the current Local Plan the Green Belt boundary was amended to exclude an area of hardstanding immediately to south of Upperthorpe Villas but an overgrown area immediately to the east of this, which was the subject of the same representation remained in the Green Belt.
The Green Belt boundary in this location is irregular with the settlement boundary being drawn tightly around existing dwellings and their immediate curtilages. The land that is the subject of this representation is not rural in appearance. It contains a rough surfaced driveway with a range of outbuildings and stored items. It is clearly of a different character to the fields to the east and closely associated with development within the settlement development limit. The settlement development limit immediately to the north of this site extends out further to the east than this site, to encompass the terrace of housing at 4-9 Upperthorpe Villas and a large outbuilding to the side of no 9.
In view of the above the exclusion of this area from the Green Belt would have no impact on the open character of the Green Belt in this location and it would not be contrary to any of the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt.
It is requested that this representation should be taken into account at the appropriate stage in the consideration of the new local Plan.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1626

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

KIL/608 - KIL/902- KIL/1402- KIL/1501- KIL/1601- KIL/1602- KIL/1701 - KIL/601- and KIL/605

We have no objections to these sites

Full text:

KIL/608 - KIL/902- KIL/1402- KIL/1501- KIL/1601- KIL/1602- KIL/1701 - KIL/601- and KIL/605

We have no objections to these sites

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1740

Received: 24/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Malcolm Veale

Representation:

I am very worried about the proposed plans to build 400 houses on the green belt land opposite our house on Green Lane, Killamarsh. This development would completely change the character of this quiet neighbourhood.
Traffic would be greatly increased on all surrounding roads, most of which could not realistically be widened sufficiently to cope with the increase.
Health and education services would have to be provided.

Full text:

I am very worried about the proposed plans to build 400 houses on the green belt land opposite our house on Green Lane, Killamarsh. This development would completely change the character of this quiet neighbourhood.
Traffic would be greatly increased on all surrounding roads, most of which could not realistically be widened sufficiently to cope with the increase. I think congestion, parking problems, air pollution, noise and road casualties would be amongst the consequences if the development were to be carried out.

My partner and I chose to buy this house in 2013 partly because of the quiet, rural surroundings, lower population density and cleaner air. The development would Change all this, and reduce the market value of the houses around it.

Health and education services would have to be provided, and as the proposed development has no such things included within its boundaries, the local schools, GP surgeries and dentists would be affected by the increased workload.

Hawthorne Estates stand to make a large profit if given permission to proceed with this development.
I am very concerned that they will not fully compensate the local residents for the external costs so caused- that they will grab the money and run.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1753

Received: 24/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Oliver Upton

Representation:

we don't want housing built on the green belt land.
1. Green Belt used for recreation/dog walking.
2. Westthorpe road too narrow and bendy to be a main road Safety coniderations
3. Increased crime rate in the area.
4. Traffic already bad at busy hour.
5. Reduced primary school places.
6. Bring the value of current houses down.
7. Taking the greenery area from Killamarsh.
8. inadequate healthcare capacity etc.
8. Killamarsh isn't big enough to take more houses. There's already no parking spaces in the centre. Plus the centre is only small not like Dronfield and Eckington etc.

Full text:

Hello we have a list of reasons why we don't want housing built on the green belt land.
1. One of the main dog walking areas in Killamarsh.
2. Westthorpe road too narrow and bendy to be a main road people already speed as it is. Will not be safe!
3. Increased crime rate in the area.
4. Traffic already bad at busy hour.
5. Reduced primary school places.
6. Bring the value of current houses down in the area.
7. Taking the greenery area from Killamarsh.
8. Will be impossible to get in at the doctors etc.
8. Killamarsh isn't big enough to take more houses. There's already no parking spaces in the centre. Plus the centre is only small not like Dronfield and Eckington etc.

Thanks,
Oliver Upton.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1761

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Wendy Pearce

Representation:

Objection to Green Belt Review around Killamarsh

Proposals will have a devastating effect on the countryside; crease in population will have a secondary environmental effect in the local area, with increase in car pollution for example.

How has need for affordable housing in our area been established?
People struggle to sell existing houses, to flood the market would impact on economic stability.

Infrastructure is inadequate to support this amount of houses, including roads, schools, and healthcare

The impact on local wild life must be taken into account. Where will children play and walk safely?

Leave the green belt alone please

Full text:

I would like to register my protest over the proposed green belt review in and around the Killamarsh Area.

Not only will this have a devastating effect on the countryside, the increase in population will have a secondary environmental effect in the local area, with increase in car pollution for example.

The review states you have established the need for affordable housing in our area. Based on what? Have you surveyed people and asked who will live there? Have you actual facts people will buy in this area? People struggle to sell existing houses, to flood the market could have a real impact on the economic stability of the area.

If these are social housing, or affordable housing the infrastructure is not there to support this amount of houses.

You would have to widen the roads particularly around Green Lane where traffic cannot flow freely now. New schools and Drs would have to be built. It is difficult enough now to get into the Drs in Killamarsh. There is not the infrastructure to accommodate more housing in the area, and to build this infrastructure would take even more land with long lasting affects on the countryside.

The impact on local wild life must be taken into account. Where will children play and walk safely?

Leave the green belt alone please.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1786

Received: 24/03/2015

Respondent: Derbyshire County Council

Representation:

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.

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: 1799

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Andrew Barbour

Representation:

1. The quality of the land for the build:- land around old Westhorpe Colliery is not be suitable for development. Unstable as a result of former coal mining activity

2. Inadequate infrastructure & facilities; will be compounded by increased future population. Specifically:- roads, Recreation facilities:- The land that is unsuitable for games is in constant use by dog walkers, Doctors:- Brilliant at the moment but are already starting to get booked up,;Parking facilities in the centre:- Already very difficult to park in the sport centre in the evenings and near to co-op. Schools :- Currently reaching their maximum intake.

Full text:

I have seen the proposals for building on green belt on the website and I would like to voice some of my concerns.

1. The quality of the land for the build:- I would seriously suspect the land around of the old Westhorpe Colliery to not be suitable for development. Our house is backs on the land of the proposal but is not that close to the pit itself. Despite this, when we asked a developer to build us an extension in 2000 they found a large hole which they believed was left over the from the Colliery. This was a large hole supposedly left by the mine excavations and required many tons of concrete to fill. This ended up putting the cost of the development up by a considerable amount. I have serious concerns that attempting to develop the land as proposed will either create a situation where a builder will start and not finish (i.e create a unfinished construction site in the area, after pulling down the trees and destroying the environment.) when the cost begin to escalate, or create a lot of housing that will not sell after searches are undertaken during the sale, or will be built but will fairly shortly fall into disrepair due to subsidence etc.

2. I would be interested to hear some news on how the council will be increasing the capacity of our current facilities based on the increased population. Specifically :- roads (only 3 in and out and the one to Halfway is always under repair on the narrow bridge, Recreation facilities:- the children in our street don't even have any grass to kick a football on except at the Westend Pub and that's intended for paying customers. The land that is unsuitable for games is in constant use by dogwalkers, these areas are becoming less all the time and have become full of dog poo, to the point that is not suitable for walking with the kids. More houses = more dogs = more poo (anyone fancy a country walk....No I didn't think so). Doctors:- Brilliant at the moment but are already starting to get booked up, Parking facilities in the centre:- Already very difficult to park in the sport centre in the evenings and near to co-op. Schools :- Currently reaching their maximum intake.

I would appreciate a response to reassure me that these matters have been properly considered.

Yours sincerely

Andy Barbour.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1805

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Miss Joanne Pacey

Representation:

The local plan suggests that Greenbelt land continues to be vulnerable to development. I remain concerned about and opposed to potential development on greenbelt. We should protect and value greenbelt rather than view it as something which is constraining development. I remain unconvinced of any evidence that local people will benefit from the development of houses on greenbelt.
Extensive building in Killamarsh is of concern due to the current inability of roads to manage the traffic. There is insufficient parking. I am unable to identify in the local plan how this would be addressed if there were to be a population increase in Killamarsh.

Full text:

The local plan suggests that Greenbelt land continues to be vulnerable to development. I remain concerned about and opposed to the potential development of houses / businesses on greenbelt land. The green belt is something we should continue to protect and value rather than view it as something which is constraining development. I remain unconvinced of any evidence that local people will benefit from the development of houses on greenbelt land and see it only as benefitting developers and possibly as a function of accommodating overspill from Sheffield. I'm concerned that Derbyshire County Council would be quick to give up the greenbelt land for such purposes. For greenbelt development to be considered when there remains many unimplemented planning permissions in the area is quite frankly criminal. The greenbelt in Killamarsh has rights of way used by local people and offers space for recreation thus promoting health and wellbeing. It offers access to green space and prevents the merging of built up areas into a single concrete jungle.
Extensive building in Killamarsh is of concern due to the current inability of Killamarsh roads to manage the traffic already coming in and out of this area, particularly at rush hour when congestion is an ongoing issue particularly with traffic cueing from halfway into Killamarsh. Similarly, there is already insufficient parking in Killamarsh with residents on the outskirts of Killamarsh who drive in to use facilities having to park on friends drives due to insufficient parking. I am unable to identify in the local plan how this would be addressed if there were to be an increase in population in Killamarsh.

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1812

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Christopher Curzon

Representation:



If Killamarsh has declining and ageing population, where is the additional housing need coming from? To meet Sheffield's unmet housing need?

Town centre has a real lack of diverse services & facilities

'Limited' affordable housing in the Green Belt needs to be defined.

Unimplemented planning permissions and vacant properties should be used before new allocations are considered.

There are significant problems with the levels of traffic and road infrastructure as it exists now around Killamarsh.

Existing schools & health infrastructure is overloaded.

The greenbelt acts as a recreational resource, as well as a buffer to prevent urban sprawl and coalescence.

Full text:

I am writing to object to the proposed local plan to Killamarsh.

My objections are as follows

Apparently the population of Killamarsh is decreasing so why do we need more housing for so called local needs? If this is to accommodate the overspill from Sheffield there are enough green spaces for Sheffield to build on if it so wishes.

There are 3 main routes in and out of Killamarsh which are already congested at peak times and cannot cope with much more traffic. There are historic problems that should be addressed before any new housing development is considered.

The town centre has a limited variety of shops and is only ok if you want a takeaway or haircut. There is a considerable lack of public parking spaces and existing residents already have problems parking. The amount of illegal parking on Bridge Street is ever increasing and it is only a matter of time before there is a serious accident.

The NPPF states that a limited amount of affordable housing maybe built on greenbelt but doesn't define "limited". The NPPF also states that 100% affordable housing may be built on greenbelt and not 60% private and 40% affordable as many developers would wish. This in my opinion if anything less that 100% is considered that the law is been broken.

Apparently there are 1000 empty houses in the N E Derbyshire and Bolsover districts and my question is, why cant these be brought back into use before green belt is built on, as building on greenbelt contradicts the terms sustainable. Once our greenbelt is built on it has gone and is irretrievable.

The greenbelt in Killamarsh is used by local residents for recreational purposes with many public footpaths that are used daily and has been found to home a variety of wildlife.

Local schools cannot cope with any more pupils unless more teachers are employed.

The local doctors and dentist are both full to capacity and both have waiting lists for new patients.

The greenbelt is considered a buffer to prevent urban sprawl otherwise many small towns and villages will become one large city

Chris Curzon

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1815

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Mrs Karen Brown

Representation:

Killamarsh:
Why do we have land called green belt if its not going to be protected, there is really no such thing then, moved to this area some 20 yrs ago to live on the edge of our village, with its beautiful countryside, let's keep it that way don't let them build

Full text:

Why do we have land called green belt if its not going to be protected, there is realy no such thing then, moved to this area ome 20 yrs ago to live on the edge of our village, with its beautiful countryside, let's keep it that way don't let them build

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1817

Received: 25/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Jim McIntosh

Representation:

Objection to the proposed development on green belt land in Killamarsh.
1. The proposed development of some 500 houses will bring an additional 1000 cars into the village.
2. Peak rush hour is already a tribulation
3. The lack of parking in the village centre
4. The question of increased pollution due to the increased volume of traffic would need to be addressed.
5. Parents are already struggling to park their cars in the vicinity of the primary school
6 . There will be a huge impact on local services, namely the doctors, dentist and local schools.

Full text:

Dear sir\madam,
Please take the following points as my objection to the proposed development on green belt land in Killamarsh. I have been a resident of Killamarsh for 17 years so I feel that my concerns are genuine and justified.
1. The proposed development of some 500 houses will bring an additional 1000 cars into the village. I base this estimate on the fact that every house on my road has at least 2 if not 3 cars on its drive or even worse parked on the road outside.
2. Peak rush hour is already a tribulation without these additional vehicles. There may be an extra 2000 daily journeys made in and out of the village by the new residents.
3. The lack of parking in the village centre can now be described at best as chaotic on a Saturday. The area around Aldi and the leisure centre is wholly inadequate for the villages current needs, never mind the possibility of a further 1000 cars being added. I would now actually consider it dangerous for pedestrians are drivers alike as cars as just being abandoned on yellow lines and on pavements.
4. The question of increased pollution due to the increased volume of traffic would need to be addressed.
5. Parents are already struggling to park their cars in the vicinity of the primary school on Sheffield road. The police have been involved in protecting access for local residents. This will only be compounded with the addition of the new housing proposed and the number of journeys that will be made to the school and indeed past it.
6 . There will be a huge impact on local services, namely the doctors, dentist and local schools. There could be a minimum of a thousand new inhabitants to the village wishing to register at the only doctors surgery in Killamarsh.

Jim McIntosh

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 1973

Received: 23/03/2015

Respondent: Mr Ian Walker

Representation:

I wish to place an objection to proposed devolpment of the land in killamarah green lane and upperthorpe road the village can not cope with extra houses and the destroying of the green belt land

Full text:

I wish to place an objection to proposed devolpment of the land in killamarah green lane and upperthorpe road the village can not cope with extra houses and the destroying of the green belt land

Comment

Schedule of Sites Consultation Document (February 2015)

Representation ID: 2101

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Harworth Group

Agent: Urbana Town Planning

Representation:

Resubmission of site KIL/701. The site area is slightly different and should be amended.

Full text:

See attached