Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

Search Representations

Results for Twin Oaks Hotel Ltd search

New search New search

Support

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

MM/009

Representation ID: 10736

Received: 29/01/2021

Respondent: Twin Oaks Hotel Ltd

Agent: DLP

Representation:

Support for the addition of 8. Countryside to clarify the approach to development in the countryside and make clear which policies relate to locations outside of defined settlements.

Full text:

MM/009 – Policy SS2 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
Support for the addition of 8. Countryside to clarify the approach to development in the countryside and make clear which policies relate to locations outside of defined settlements.

MM/017 – para 4.56 Settlement Development Limits
MM/017 seeks to amend paragraph 4.56 in respect of those smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a settlement development limit. The amendment clarifies that these settlements are considered to lie in open countryside and that development within these villages limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside, SS10 NED Green Belt or where allocated within an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets.

In principle this is supported, but the fact that in addition to these small villages and hamlets listed in Table 4.2, there are clusters of development within the countryside which are neither hamlets or villages as such but where nevertheless, a significant amount of development or built form already exists and which would equally be suitable for a limited amount of infill development.

It is therefore recommended that a further modification be made to recognise this within both Policy SS8 and paragraph 4.56. The proposed modification to paragraph 4.56 is set out below (MM/017 deletions indicated by score throughs; MM/017 insertions indicated by underlining; My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

4.56 ‘…. Outside of these main built up areas there are some smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a Settlement Development Limit and are considered to lie in the open countryside. Within these villages <double underlined>and where there are clusters of existing substantial built-form,<end double underlined> but where limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside and SS10: North East Derbyshire Green Belt; or where this is allocated by an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets or SS11 (Development in the Countryside) <double underlined>and SS9 Development in the Countryside<end double underlined>.”

MM/019 Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside
Paragraph 4.61 recognises that the countryside is a constantly changing workplace as well as providing leisure and recreational opportunities and that it is necessary to balance and integrate the requirement to protect the countryside with the need to sustain and encourage the vitality and viability of the rural economy. That is a very positive statement and recognises that change has to take place within the countryside in order to support the rural economy. However, the explanation at paragraph 4.62 goes on to effectively restrict any additional development other than the change of use of existing buildings; it states that ‘Proposals for new buildings in the countryside outside of existing settlements and not on land allocated for development will be strictly controlled’. That statement is a negative policy which fails to recognise the need for existing businesses, some of them with a significant amount of existing built form to expand, nor for those existing clusters of development to contribute in a positive way to further supporting the rural economy. This is reflected in the criteria to Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside. Criteria d) relates to small scale employment uses relating to local farming, forestry, recreation or tourism but there are also other uses entirely appropriate within a countryside area and indeed uses which can only be accommodated within a countryside area: such uses include for instance facilities serving the national highway network; the provision of renewable energy etc. Likewise, criteria e) f) is overly restrictive in that it allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL but then restricts it again in relation to its impact on the character of the countryside, no mention being made of potential enhancements or appropriate mitigation. This is more akin to Green Belt policy and is therefore entirely inappropriate. Countryside policy should support the development of facilities and services including renewable energy and the further development of PDL sites which may result in a greater impact than existing initially but which are necessary to fulfil local and national needs and where impact can be adequately mitigated, sometimes even improving the existing situation. It is therefore recommended that MM/019 be further modified as follows: (My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

“Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside
1. Development proposals in countryside locations outside the Settlement Development Limits will be approved where it can be demonstrated to fall within one or more of the following categories: … d. It involves small scale employment uses <double underlined>including but not restricted to those<end double underlined> related to local farming, forestry, recreation, or tourism; … f. It involves the change of use, re-use, limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of vacant, derelict or previously developed land sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would <double underlined>enhance<end double underlined> or not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside <double underlined>following mitigation<end double underlined> than the existing development; … h. It involves the provision, expansion, or improvement of social infrastructure and accords with policy ID4, or relates to a development which has a demonstrable community and/or social benefit; or g. It is in accordance with the policies of the Nationally Planning Policy Framework or an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.”

MM/113 – Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality
MM/113 to Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality seeks to improve clarity and effectiveness. This Main Modification is supported because it recalibrates the policy from being negative to being positively prepared and therefore more effective and consistent with national policy. In particular, criteria 1. makes it clear that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to their impact on air, light, noise, ground and water pollution. Proposals for green energy including the installation of Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs would be assessed favourably in this respect due to their positive impact on air pollution. This Main Modification is therefore supported.

MM/117 – Policy ID3 Sustainable Travel
Main Modification MM/117 seeks to provide clarity and consistency with paragraphs 32 and 154 of the 2012 NPPF.

Paragraph 32 (which is also taken through to the 2019 NPPF) states that significant adverse impacts on economic, social and environmental objectives should be avoided and wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Paragraph 154 (also taken through to 2019 NPPF) states that applications for renewable and low carbon development should be not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Applications should be approved if its impacts are or can be, made acceptable. There is an expectation that allocations for renewable or low carbon energy should be identified through plans. No such allocations are made within the NEDLP with a reliance on provision through proposals for major development. This is simply not sufficient.

Consequently, it is not considered that the Main Modification proposed goes far enough in either clarity or consistency with the NPPF:

Point 1 seeks merely to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport with the aim of reducing congestion and improving air quality and health. However, no mention is made of support for the development and roll out of electric vehicles including the provision of electric vehicle charging points or hubs which will make a significant contribution towards improving air quality. This should be added to point 1.

Point 2 relates to the consideration of major developments and the requirement to promote sustainable travel identified through transport statements attached to major development proposals including both site specific and area wide travel demand measures; improvements to existing pedestrian, cycle and public transport services and facilities and provision of new walking and cycling routes; and optimisation of the existing highway network to prioritise walking, cycling, public transport and other forms of sustainable travel. Again, whilst ‘other forms of sustainable travel’ do get a mention, insufficient emphasis is placed on the need to support the provision of infrastructure which will significantly improve air quality such as Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs – roll out which is required to support the Government’s aim to curtail the manufacture of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. Specific reference to the support for other forms of sustainable travel, or services or facilities that support other forms of sustainable travel in their own right rather than just through other major development proposals. By way of illustration (please see attached sketch plan below), early proposals for the provision of an electric vehicle charging hub close to J29 of the M1 are currently being worked up and which would serve to support necessary longer trips by offering a top-up charge mid-journey to enable the switch between petrol and diesel to electric vehicles. Point 2 should be strengthened accordingly.

Point 3 falls very short of the mark where it refers to highway capacity enhancements to deal with residual car demand (after pedestrian, cycle and public transport) where these are insufficient to avoid significant additional journeys. This point fails to appreciate that travel will always be necessary and that walking, cycling and public transport are never going to be sufficient to remove the need for a significant additional number of journeys. Point 3 should be further modified to accept that travel by other forms of sustainable travel will continue to be required and that support must be given to such initiatives as electric vehicle charging points and hubs to ensure the significant improvements in air quality that the Government is seeking.

Site plans included in attachment.

Support

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

MM/017

Representation ID: 10737

Received: 29/01/2021

Respondent: Twin Oaks Hotel Ltd

Agent: DLP

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

In principle this is supported, but the fact that in addition to these small villages and hamlets listed in Table 4.2, there are clusters of development within the countryside which are neither hamlets or villages as such but where nevertheless, a significant amount of development or built form already exists and which would equally be suitable for a limited amount of infill development.

It is therefore recommended that a further modification be made to recognise this within both Policy SS8 and paragraph 4.56.

Modifications suggestions to include "and where there are clusters of existing substantial built-form", and "and SS9 Development in the Countryside." Full paragraph and proposed amendments in attachment.

Full text:

MM/009 – Policy SS2 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
Support for the addition of 8. Countryside to clarify the approach to development in the countryside and make clear which policies relate to locations outside of defined settlements.

MM/017 – para 4.56 Settlement Development Limits
MM/017 seeks to amend paragraph 4.56 in respect of those smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a settlement development limit. The amendment clarifies that these settlements are considered to lie in open countryside and that development within these villages limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside, SS10 NED Green Belt or where allocated within an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets.

In principle this is supported, but the fact that in addition to these small villages and hamlets listed in Table 4.2, there are clusters of development within the countryside which are neither hamlets or villages as such but where nevertheless, a significant amount of development or built form already exists and which would equally be suitable for a limited amount of infill development.

It is therefore recommended that a further modification be made to recognise this within both Policy SS8 and paragraph 4.56. The proposed modification to paragraph 4.56 is set out below (MM/017 deletions indicated by score throughs; MM/017 insertions indicated by underlining; My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

4.56 ‘…. Outside of these main built up areas there are some smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a Settlement Development Limit and are considered to lie in the open countryside. Within these villages <double underlined>and where there are clusters of existing substantial built-form,<end double underlined> but where limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside and SS10: North East Derbyshire Green Belt; or where this is allocated by an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets or SS11 (Development in the Countryside) <double underlined>and SS9 Development in the Countryside<end double underlined>.”

MM/019 Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside
Paragraph 4.61 recognises that the countryside is a constantly changing workplace as well as providing leisure and recreational opportunities and that it is necessary to balance and integrate the requirement to protect the countryside with the need to sustain and encourage the vitality and viability of the rural economy. That is a very positive statement and recognises that change has to take place within the countryside in order to support the rural economy. However, the explanation at paragraph 4.62 goes on to effectively restrict any additional development other than the change of use of existing buildings; it states that ‘Proposals for new buildings in the countryside outside of existing settlements and not on land allocated for development will be strictly controlled’. That statement is a negative policy which fails to recognise the need for existing businesses, some of them with a significant amount of existing built form to expand, nor for those existing clusters of development to contribute in a positive way to further supporting the rural economy. This is reflected in the criteria to Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside. Criteria d) relates to small scale employment uses relating to local farming, forestry, recreation or tourism but there are also other uses entirely appropriate within a countryside area and indeed uses which can only be accommodated within a countryside area: such uses include for instance facilities serving the national highway network; the provision of renewable energy etc. Likewise, criteria e) f) is overly restrictive in that it allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL but then restricts it again in relation to its impact on the character of the countryside, no mention being made of potential enhancements or appropriate mitigation. This is more akin to Green Belt policy and is therefore entirely inappropriate. Countryside policy should support the development of facilities and services including renewable energy and the further development of PDL sites which may result in a greater impact than existing initially but which are necessary to fulfil local and national needs and where impact can be adequately mitigated, sometimes even improving the existing situation. It is therefore recommended that MM/019 be further modified as follows: (My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

“Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside
1. Development proposals in countryside locations outside the Settlement Development Limits will be approved where it can be demonstrated to fall within one or more of the following categories: … d. It involves small scale employment uses <double underlined>including but not restricted to those<end double underlined> related to local farming, forestry, recreation, or tourism; … f. It involves the change of use, re-use, limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of vacant, derelict or previously developed land sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would <double underlined>enhance<end double underlined> or not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside <double underlined>following mitigation<end double underlined> than the existing development; … h. It involves the provision, expansion, or improvement of social infrastructure and accords with policy ID4, or relates to a development which has a demonstrable community and/or social benefit; or g. It is in accordance with the policies of the Nationally Planning Policy Framework or an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.”

MM/113 – Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality
MM/113 to Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality seeks to improve clarity and effectiveness. This Main Modification is supported because it recalibrates the policy from being negative to being positively prepared and therefore more effective and consistent with national policy. In particular, criteria 1. makes it clear that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to their impact on air, light, noise, ground and water pollution. Proposals for green energy including the installation of Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs would be assessed favourably in this respect due to their positive impact on air pollution. This Main Modification is therefore supported.

MM/117 – Policy ID3 Sustainable Travel
Main Modification MM/117 seeks to provide clarity and consistency with paragraphs 32 and 154 of the 2012 NPPF.

Paragraph 32 (which is also taken through to the 2019 NPPF) states that significant adverse impacts on economic, social and environmental objectives should be avoided and wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Paragraph 154 (also taken through to 2019 NPPF) states that applications for renewable and low carbon development should be not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Applications should be approved if its impacts are or can be, made acceptable. There is an expectation that allocations for renewable or low carbon energy should be identified through plans. No such allocations are made within the NEDLP with a reliance on provision through proposals for major development. This is simply not sufficient.

Consequently, it is not considered that the Main Modification proposed goes far enough in either clarity or consistency with the NPPF:

Point 1 seeks merely to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport with the aim of reducing congestion and improving air quality and health. However, no mention is made of support for the development and roll out of electric vehicles including the provision of electric vehicle charging points or hubs which will make a significant contribution towards improving air quality. This should be added to point 1.

Point 2 relates to the consideration of major developments and the requirement to promote sustainable travel identified through transport statements attached to major development proposals including both site specific and area wide travel demand measures; improvements to existing pedestrian, cycle and public transport services and facilities and provision of new walking and cycling routes; and optimisation of the existing highway network to prioritise walking, cycling, public transport and other forms of sustainable travel. Again, whilst ‘other forms of sustainable travel’ do get a mention, insufficient emphasis is placed on the need to support the provision of infrastructure which will significantly improve air quality such as Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs – roll out which is required to support the Government’s aim to curtail the manufacture of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. Specific reference to the support for other forms of sustainable travel, or services or facilities that support other forms of sustainable travel in their own right rather than just through other major development proposals. By way of illustration (please see attached sketch plan below), early proposals for the provision of an electric vehicle charging hub close to J29 of the M1 are currently being worked up and which would serve to support necessary longer trips by offering a top-up charge mid-journey to enable the switch between petrol and diesel to electric vehicles. Point 2 should be strengthened accordingly.

Point 3 falls very short of the mark where it refers to highway capacity enhancements to deal with residual car demand (after pedestrian, cycle and public transport) where these are insufficient to avoid significant additional journeys. This point fails to appreciate that travel will always be necessary and that walking, cycling and public transport are never going to be sufficient to remove the need for a significant additional number of journeys. Point 3 should be further modified to accept that travel by other forms of sustainable travel will continue to be required and that support must be given to such initiatives as electric vehicle charging points and hubs to ensure the significant improvements in air quality that the Government is seeking.

Site plans included in attachment.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

MM/019

Representation ID: 10738

Received: 29/01/2021

Respondent: Twin Oaks Hotel Ltd

Agent: DLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

Although paragraph 4.61 recognises that change has to take place within the countryside to support the rural economy, paragraph 4.62 effectively restricts any additional development other than the change of use of buildings. This is reflected in the criteria to Policy SS9. Criterion d): there are also other uses entirely appropriate within a countryside area and indeed uses which can only be accommodated within a countryside area. Criterion e) f) allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL but then restricts it again in relation to its impact on the character of the countryside, no mention being made of potential enhancements or appropriate mitigation. This is more akin to Green Belt policy. Countryside policy should support the development of facilities and services which are necessary to fulfil local and national needs and where impact can be adequately mitigated, sometimes even improving the existing situation. It is therefore recommended that MM/019 be further modified, as suggested in the attachment.

Full text:

MM/009 – Policy SS2 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
Support for the addition of 8. Countryside to clarify the approach to development in the countryside and make clear which policies relate to locations outside of defined settlements.

MM/017 – para 4.56 Settlement Development Limits
MM/017 seeks to amend paragraph 4.56 in respect of those smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a settlement development limit. The amendment clarifies that these settlements are considered to lie in open countryside and that development within these villages limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside, SS10 NED Green Belt or where allocated within an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets.

In principle this is supported, but the fact that in addition to these small villages and hamlets listed in Table 4.2, there are clusters of development within the countryside which are neither hamlets or villages as such but where nevertheless, a significant amount of development or built form already exists and which would equally be suitable for a limited amount of infill development.

It is therefore recommended that a further modification be made to recognise this within both Policy SS8 and paragraph 4.56. The proposed modification to paragraph 4.56 is set out below (MM/017 deletions indicated by score throughs; MM/017 insertions indicated by underlining; My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

4.56 ‘…. Outside of these main built up areas there are some smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a Settlement Development Limit and are considered to lie in the open countryside. Within these villages <double underlined>and where there are clusters of existing substantial built-form,<end double underlined> but where limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside and SS10: North East Derbyshire Green Belt; or where this is allocated by an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets or SS11 (Development in the Countryside) <double underlined>and SS9 Development in the Countryside<end double underlined>.”

MM/019 Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside
Paragraph 4.61 recognises that the countryside is a constantly changing workplace as well as providing leisure and recreational opportunities and that it is necessary to balance and integrate the requirement to protect the countryside with the need to sustain and encourage the vitality and viability of the rural economy. That is a very positive statement and recognises that change has to take place within the countryside in order to support the rural economy. However, the explanation at paragraph 4.62 goes on to effectively restrict any additional development other than the change of use of existing buildings; it states that ‘Proposals for new buildings in the countryside outside of existing settlements and not on land allocated for development will be strictly controlled’. That statement is a negative policy which fails to recognise the need for existing businesses, some of them with a significant amount of existing built form to expand, nor for those existing clusters of development to contribute in a positive way to further supporting the rural economy. This is reflected in the criteria to Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside. Criteria d) relates to small scale employment uses relating to local farming, forestry, recreation or tourism but there are also other uses entirely appropriate within a countryside area and indeed uses which can only be accommodated within a countryside area: such uses include for instance facilities serving the national highway network; the provision of renewable energy etc. Likewise, criteria e) f) is overly restrictive in that it allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL but then restricts it again in relation to its impact on the character of the countryside, no mention being made of potential enhancements or appropriate mitigation. This is more akin to Green Belt policy and is therefore entirely inappropriate. Countryside policy should support the development of facilities and services including renewable energy and the further development of PDL sites which may result in a greater impact than existing initially but which are necessary to fulfil local and national needs and where impact can be adequately mitigated, sometimes even improving the existing situation. It is therefore recommended that MM/019 be further modified as follows: (My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

“Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside
1. Development proposals in countryside locations outside the Settlement Development Limits will be approved where it can be demonstrated to fall within one or more of the following categories: … d. It involves small scale employment uses <double underlined>including but not restricted to those<end double underlined> related to local farming, forestry, recreation, or tourism; … f. It involves the change of use, re-use, limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of vacant, derelict or previously developed land sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would <double underlined>enhance<end double underlined> or not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside <double underlined>following mitigation<end double underlined> than the existing development; … h. It involves the provision, expansion, or improvement of social infrastructure and accords with policy ID4, or relates to a development which has a demonstrable community and/or social benefit; or g. It is in accordance with the policies of the Nationally Planning Policy Framework or an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.”

MM/113 – Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality
MM/113 to Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality seeks to improve clarity and effectiveness. This Main Modification is supported because it recalibrates the policy from being negative to being positively prepared and therefore more effective and consistent with national policy. In particular, criteria 1. makes it clear that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to their impact on air, light, noise, ground and water pollution. Proposals for green energy including the installation of Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs would be assessed favourably in this respect due to their positive impact on air pollution. This Main Modification is therefore supported.

MM/117 – Policy ID3 Sustainable Travel
Main Modification MM/117 seeks to provide clarity and consistency with paragraphs 32 and 154 of the 2012 NPPF.

Paragraph 32 (which is also taken through to the 2019 NPPF) states that significant adverse impacts on economic, social and environmental objectives should be avoided and wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Paragraph 154 (also taken through to 2019 NPPF) states that applications for renewable and low carbon development should be not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Applications should be approved if its impacts are or can be, made acceptable. There is an expectation that allocations for renewable or low carbon energy should be identified through plans. No such allocations are made within the NEDLP with a reliance on provision through proposals for major development. This is simply not sufficient.

Consequently, it is not considered that the Main Modification proposed goes far enough in either clarity or consistency with the NPPF:

Point 1 seeks merely to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport with the aim of reducing congestion and improving air quality and health. However, no mention is made of support for the development and roll out of electric vehicles including the provision of electric vehicle charging points or hubs which will make a significant contribution towards improving air quality. This should be added to point 1.

Point 2 relates to the consideration of major developments and the requirement to promote sustainable travel identified through transport statements attached to major development proposals including both site specific and area wide travel demand measures; improvements to existing pedestrian, cycle and public transport services and facilities and provision of new walking and cycling routes; and optimisation of the existing highway network to prioritise walking, cycling, public transport and other forms of sustainable travel. Again, whilst ‘other forms of sustainable travel’ do get a mention, insufficient emphasis is placed on the need to support the provision of infrastructure which will significantly improve air quality such as Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs – roll out which is required to support the Government’s aim to curtail the manufacture of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. Specific reference to the support for other forms of sustainable travel, or services or facilities that support other forms of sustainable travel in their own right rather than just through other major development proposals. By way of illustration (please see attached sketch plan below), early proposals for the provision of an electric vehicle charging hub close to J29 of the M1 are currently being worked up and which would serve to support necessary longer trips by offering a top-up charge mid-journey to enable the switch between petrol and diesel to electric vehicles. Point 2 should be strengthened accordingly.

Point 3 falls very short of the mark where it refers to highway capacity enhancements to deal with residual car demand (after pedestrian, cycle and public transport) where these are insufficient to avoid significant additional journeys. This point fails to appreciate that travel will always be necessary and that walking, cycling and public transport are never going to be sufficient to remove the need for a significant additional number of journeys. Point 3 should be further modified to accept that travel by other forms of sustainable travel will continue to be required and that support must be given to such initiatives as electric vehicle charging points and hubs to ensure the significant improvements in air quality that the Government is seeking.

Site plans included in attachment.

Support

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

MM/113

Representation ID: 10739

Received: 29/01/2021

Respondent: Twin Oaks Hotel Ltd

Agent: DLP

Representation:

MM/113 to Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality seeks to improve clarity and effectiveness. This Main Modification is supported because it recalibrates the policy from being negative to being positively prepared and therefore more effective and consistent with national policy. In particular, criteria 1. makes it clear that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to their impact on air, light, noise, ground and water pollution. Proposals for green energy including the installation of Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs would be assessed favourably in this respect due to their positive impact on air pollution. This Main Modification is therefore supported.

Full text:

MM/009 – Policy SS2 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
Support for the addition of 8. Countryside to clarify the approach to development in the countryside and make clear which policies relate to locations outside of defined settlements.

MM/017 – para 4.56 Settlement Development Limits
MM/017 seeks to amend paragraph 4.56 in respect of those smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a settlement development limit. The amendment clarifies that these settlements are considered to lie in open countryside and that development within these villages limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside, SS10 NED Green Belt or where allocated within an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets.

In principle this is supported, but the fact that in addition to these small villages and hamlets listed in Table 4.2, there are clusters of development within the countryside which are neither hamlets or villages as such but where nevertheless, a significant amount of development or built form already exists and which would equally be suitable for a limited amount of infill development.

It is therefore recommended that a further modification be made to recognise this within both Policy SS8 and paragraph 4.56. The proposed modification to paragraph 4.56 is set out below (MM/017 deletions indicated by score throughs; MM/017 insertions indicated by underlining; My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

4.56 ‘…. Outside of these main built up areas there are some smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a Settlement Development Limit and are considered to lie in the open countryside. Within these villages <double underlined>and where there are clusters of existing substantial built-form,<end double underlined> but where limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside and SS10: North East Derbyshire Green Belt; or where this is allocated by an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets or SS11 (Development in the Countryside) <double underlined>and SS9 Development in the Countryside<end double underlined>.”

MM/019 Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside
Paragraph 4.61 recognises that the countryside is a constantly changing workplace as well as providing leisure and recreational opportunities and that it is necessary to balance and integrate the requirement to protect the countryside with the need to sustain and encourage the vitality and viability of the rural economy. That is a very positive statement and recognises that change has to take place within the countryside in order to support the rural economy. However, the explanation at paragraph 4.62 goes on to effectively restrict any additional development other than the change of use of existing buildings; it states that ‘Proposals for new buildings in the countryside outside of existing settlements and not on land allocated for development will be strictly controlled’. That statement is a negative policy which fails to recognise the need for existing businesses, some of them with a significant amount of existing built form to expand, nor for those existing clusters of development to contribute in a positive way to further supporting the rural economy. This is reflected in the criteria to Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside. Criteria d) relates to small scale employment uses relating to local farming, forestry, recreation or tourism but there are also other uses entirely appropriate within a countryside area and indeed uses which can only be accommodated within a countryside area: such uses include for instance facilities serving the national highway network; the provision of renewable energy etc. Likewise, criteria e) f) is overly restrictive in that it allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL but then restricts it again in relation to its impact on the character of the countryside, no mention being made of potential enhancements or appropriate mitigation. This is more akin to Green Belt policy and is therefore entirely inappropriate. Countryside policy should support the development of facilities and services including renewable energy and the further development of PDL sites which may result in a greater impact than existing initially but which are necessary to fulfil local and national needs and where impact can be adequately mitigated, sometimes even improving the existing situation. It is therefore recommended that MM/019 be further modified as follows: (My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

“Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside
1. Development proposals in countryside locations outside the Settlement Development Limits will be approved where it can be demonstrated to fall within one or more of the following categories: … d. It involves small scale employment uses <double underlined>including but not restricted to those<end double underlined> related to local farming, forestry, recreation, or tourism; … f. It involves the change of use, re-use, limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of vacant, derelict or previously developed land sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would <double underlined>enhance<end double underlined> or not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside <double underlined>following mitigation<end double underlined> than the existing development; … h. It involves the provision, expansion, or improvement of social infrastructure and accords with policy ID4, or relates to a development which has a demonstrable community and/or social benefit; or g. It is in accordance with the policies of the Nationally Planning Policy Framework or an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.”

MM/113 – Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality
MM/113 to Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality seeks to improve clarity and effectiveness. This Main Modification is supported because it recalibrates the policy from being negative to being positively prepared and therefore more effective and consistent with national policy. In particular, criteria 1. makes it clear that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to their impact on air, light, noise, ground and water pollution. Proposals for green energy including the installation of Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs would be assessed favourably in this respect due to their positive impact on air pollution. This Main Modification is therefore supported.

MM/117 – Policy ID3 Sustainable Travel
Main Modification MM/117 seeks to provide clarity and consistency with paragraphs 32 and 154 of the 2012 NPPF.

Paragraph 32 (which is also taken through to the 2019 NPPF) states that significant adverse impacts on economic, social and environmental objectives should be avoided and wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Paragraph 154 (also taken through to 2019 NPPF) states that applications for renewable and low carbon development should be not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Applications should be approved if its impacts are or can be, made acceptable. There is an expectation that allocations for renewable or low carbon energy should be identified through plans. No such allocations are made within the NEDLP with a reliance on provision through proposals for major development. This is simply not sufficient.

Consequently, it is not considered that the Main Modification proposed goes far enough in either clarity or consistency with the NPPF:

Point 1 seeks merely to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport with the aim of reducing congestion and improving air quality and health. However, no mention is made of support for the development and roll out of electric vehicles including the provision of electric vehicle charging points or hubs which will make a significant contribution towards improving air quality. This should be added to point 1.

Point 2 relates to the consideration of major developments and the requirement to promote sustainable travel identified through transport statements attached to major development proposals including both site specific and area wide travel demand measures; improvements to existing pedestrian, cycle and public transport services and facilities and provision of new walking and cycling routes; and optimisation of the existing highway network to prioritise walking, cycling, public transport and other forms of sustainable travel. Again, whilst ‘other forms of sustainable travel’ do get a mention, insufficient emphasis is placed on the need to support the provision of infrastructure which will significantly improve air quality such as Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs – roll out which is required to support the Government’s aim to curtail the manufacture of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. Specific reference to the support for other forms of sustainable travel, or services or facilities that support other forms of sustainable travel in their own right rather than just through other major development proposals. By way of illustration (please see attached sketch plan below), early proposals for the provision of an electric vehicle charging hub close to J29 of the M1 are currently being worked up and which would serve to support necessary longer trips by offering a top-up charge mid-journey to enable the switch between petrol and diesel to electric vehicles. Point 2 should be strengthened accordingly.

Point 3 falls very short of the mark where it refers to highway capacity enhancements to deal with residual car demand (after pedestrian, cycle and public transport) where these are insufficient to avoid significant additional journeys. This point fails to appreciate that travel will always be necessary and that walking, cycling and public transport are never going to be sufficient to remove the need for a significant additional number of journeys. Point 3 should be further modified to accept that travel by other forms of sustainable travel will continue to be required and that support must be given to such initiatives as electric vehicle charging points and hubs to ensure the significant improvements in air quality that the Government is seeking.

Site plans included in attachment.

Object

Main Modifications to the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (Publication Draft), 2020

MM/117

Representation ID: 10740

Received: 29/01/2021

Respondent: Twin Oaks Hotel Ltd

Agent: DLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Representation:

Council Officer has summarised.

The NPPF includes an expectation that allocations for renewable or low carbon energy should be identified through plans. No such allocations are made within the NEDLP with a reliance on provision through proposals for major development. This is simply not sufficient.

Consequently, it is not considered that the Main Modification proposed goes far enough in either clarity or consistency with the NPPF:

Point 1 should include mention of support for the development and roll out of electric vehicles including the provision of electric vehicle charging points or hubs which will make a significant contribution towards improving air quality.

Point 2: whilst ‘other forms of sustainable travel’ do get a mention, insufficient emphasis is placed on the need to support the provision of infrastructure which will significantly improve air quality.

Point 3 should be further modified to accept that travel by other forms of sustainable travel will continue to be required and that support must be given to initiatives which ensure significant improvements in air quality.

Full text:

MM/009 – Policy SS2 Spatial Strategy and the Distribution of Development
Support for the addition of 8. Countryside to clarify the approach to development in the countryside and make clear which policies relate to locations outside of defined settlements.

MM/017 – para 4.56 Settlement Development Limits
MM/017 seeks to amend paragraph 4.56 in respect of those smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a settlement development limit. The amendment clarifies that these settlements are considered to lie in open countryside and that development within these villages limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside, SS10 NED Green Belt or where allocated within an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets.

In principle this is supported, but the fact that in addition to these small villages and hamlets listed in Table 4.2, there are clusters of development within the countryside which are neither hamlets or villages as such but where nevertheless, a significant amount of development or built form already exists and which would equally be suitable for a limited amount of infill development.

It is therefore recommended that a further modification be made to recognise this within both Policy SS8 and paragraph 4.56. The proposed modification to paragraph 4.56 is set out below (MM/017 deletions indicated by score throughs; MM/017 insertions indicated by underlining; My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

4.56 ‘…. Outside of these main built up areas there are some smaller villages and hamlets identified within Level 4 of the settlement hierarchy which do not have a Settlement Development Limit and are considered to lie in the open countryside. Within these villages <double underlined>and where there are clusters of existing substantial built-form,<end double underlined> but where limited infill development may be appropriate in accordance with Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside and SS10: North East Derbyshire Green Belt; or where this is allocated by an adopted Neighbourhood Plan as set out in Policy SS8: Development in Small Villages and Hamlets or SS11 (Development in the Countryside) <double underlined>and SS9 Development in the Countryside<end double underlined>.”

MM/019 Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside
Paragraph 4.61 recognises that the countryside is a constantly changing workplace as well as providing leisure and recreational opportunities and that it is necessary to balance and integrate the requirement to protect the countryside with the need to sustain and encourage the vitality and viability of the rural economy. That is a very positive statement and recognises that change has to take place within the countryside in order to support the rural economy. However, the explanation at paragraph 4.62 goes on to effectively restrict any additional development other than the change of use of existing buildings; it states that ‘Proposals for new buildings in the countryside outside of existing settlements and not on land allocated for development will be strictly controlled’. That statement is a negative policy which fails to recognise the need for existing businesses, some of them with a significant amount of existing built form to expand, nor for those existing clusters of development to contribute in a positive way to further supporting the rural economy. This is reflected in the criteria to Policy SS9 Development in the Countryside. Criteria d) relates to small scale employment uses relating to local farming, forestry, recreation or tourism but there are also other uses entirely appropriate within a countryside area and indeed uses which can only be accommodated within a countryside area: such uses include for instance facilities serving the national highway network; the provision of renewable energy etc. Likewise, criteria e) f) is overly restrictive in that it allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL but then restricts it again in relation to its impact on the character of the countryside, no mention being made of potential enhancements or appropriate mitigation. This is more akin to Green Belt policy and is therefore entirely inappropriate. Countryside policy should support the development of facilities and services including renewable energy and the further development of PDL sites which may result in a greater impact than existing initially but which are necessary to fulfil local and national needs and where impact can be adequately mitigated, sometimes even improving the existing situation. It is therefore recommended that MM/019 be further modified as follows: (My proposed amendments indicated by double strike throughs and double underlining):

“Policy SS9: Development in the Countryside
1. Development proposals in countryside locations outside the Settlement Development Limits will be approved where it can be demonstrated to fall within one or more of the following categories: … d. It involves small scale employment uses <double underlined>including but not restricted to those<end double underlined> related to local farming, forestry, recreation, or tourism; … f. It involves the change of use, re-use, limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of vacant, derelict or previously developed land sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would <double underlined>enhance<end double underlined> or not have a greater impact on the character of the countryside <double underlined>following mitigation<end double underlined> than the existing development; … h. It involves the provision, expansion, or improvement of social infrastructure and accords with policy ID4, or relates to a development which has a demonstrable community and/or social benefit; or g. It is in accordance with the policies of the Nationally Planning Policy Framework or an adopted Neighbourhood Plan.”

MM/113 – Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality
MM/113 to Policy SDC13 Environmental Quality seeks to improve clarity and effectiveness. This Main Modification is supported because it recalibrates the policy from being negative to being positively prepared and therefore more effective and consistent with national policy. In particular, criteria 1. makes it clear that all development proposals will be assessed in relation to their impact on air, light, noise, ground and water pollution. Proposals for green energy including the installation of Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs would be assessed favourably in this respect due to their positive impact on air pollution. This Main Modification is therefore supported.

MM/117 – Policy ID3 Sustainable Travel
Main Modification MM/117 seeks to provide clarity and consistency with paragraphs 32 and 154 of the 2012 NPPF.

Paragraph 32 (which is also taken through to the 2019 NPPF) states that significant adverse impacts on economic, social and environmental objectives should be avoided and wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Paragraph 154 (also taken through to 2019 NPPF) states that applications for renewable and low carbon development should be not be required to demonstrate the overall need for renewable or low carbon energy and recognise that even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Applications should be approved if its impacts are or can be, made acceptable. There is an expectation that allocations for renewable or low carbon energy should be identified through plans. No such allocations are made within the NEDLP with a reliance on provision through proposals for major development. This is simply not sufficient.

Consequently, it is not considered that the Main Modification proposed goes far enough in either clarity or consistency with the NPPF:

Point 1 seeks merely to maximise walking, cycling and the use of public transport with the aim of reducing congestion and improving air quality and health. However, no mention is made of support for the development and roll out of electric vehicles including the provision of electric vehicle charging points or hubs which will make a significant contribution towards improving air quality. This should be added to point 1.

Point 2 relates to the consideration of major developments and the requirement to promote sustainable travel identified through transport statements attached to major development proposals including both site specific and area wide travel demand measures; improvements to existing pedestrian, cycle and public transport services and facilities and provision of new walking and cycling routes; and optimisation of the existing highway network to prioritise walking, cycling, public transport and other forms of sustainable travel. Again, whilst ‘other forms of sustainable travel’ do get a mention, insufficient emphasis is placed on the need to support the provision of infrastructure which will significantly improve air quality such as Electric Vehicle charging points or hubs – roll out which is required to support the Government’s aim to curtail the manufacture of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. Specific reference to the support for other forms of sustainable travel, or services or facilities that support other forms of sustainable travel in their own right rather than just through other major development proposals. By way of illustration (please see attached sketch plan below), early proposals for the provision of an electric vehicle charging hub close to J29 of the M1 are currently being worked up and which would serve to support necessary longer trips by offering a top-up charge mid-journey to enable the switch between petrol and diesel to electric vehicles. Point 2 should be strengthened accordingly.

Point 3 falls very short of the mark where it refers to highway capacity enhancements to deal with residual car demand (after pedestrian, cycle and public transport) where these are insufficient to avoid significant additional journeys. This point fails to appreciate that travel will always be necessary and that walking, cycling and public transport are never going to be sufficient to remove the need for a significant additional number of journeys. Point 3 should be further modified to accept that travel by other forms of sustainable travel will continue to be required and that support must be given to such initiatives as electric vehicle charging points and hubs to ensure the significant improvements in air quality that the Government is seeking.

Site plans included in attachment.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.