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

Search Representations

Results for Dronfield Town Council search

New search New search

Support

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

MM/002

Representation ID: 10611

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Representation:

The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Support

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

MM/003

Representation ID: 10612

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Representation:

The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this
objective

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Object

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

MM/004

Representation ID: 10613

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation:

The figures do not reflect additional permissions granted since 31/3/2020. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.

In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites. Noting this will mean a shortfall (257 dw), she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.

Since, the Council has updated their monitoring figures and at April the shortfall figure stood at just 80. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Clay Cross) includes 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process. This eliminates the shortfall entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.

Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal.

The above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the housing target, providing ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations.

In MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward.

It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 given the above justification.

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Object

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

MM/005

Representation ID: 10614

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation:

This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Support

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

MM/008

Representation ID: 10615

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Representation:

The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Support

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

MM/009

Representation ID: 10616

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Representation:

The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper Planning for the Future reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.

The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan.

The list of brownfield sites within the attachment represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.

In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Object

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

MM/010

Representation ID: 10617

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation:

Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed
from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Support

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

MM/015

Representation ID: 10619

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Representation:

The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District
Local Plan is supported.

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Support

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

MM/016

Representation ID: 10620

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Representation:

The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District
Local Plan is supported.

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

Object

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

MM/026

Representation ID: 10621

Received: 27/01/2021

Respondent: Dronfield Town Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Representation:

Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this
table.

Full text:

In response to the consultation on the Schedule of Main Modifications, associated changes to the
Policies Map and other supporting documents, Dronfield Town Council would like to submit the
attached table of comments on a selection of the proposed Main Modifications and associated
documents as their feedback to the consultation, along with the accompanying flood report.
The Town Council would like to highlight that while they support a number of the proposed main
modifications, particularly the decision to remove the Green Belt allocation DR2 at Coal Aston from
the plan, thus retaining the site a Greenbelt, the council have strong objections to a number of the
modifications.

The housing supply cut off date should be extended
The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect the additional permissions that have been
granted – the cut-off is 9 months out of date. Figures in table 4.1 should be updated to reflect planning
permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 to provide a more accurate picture.

Greenbelt sites should remain in the greenbelt
The retention of the Green Belt sites DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) in the Local Plan remains totally
unacceptable as the District Council and the Inspector have still not demonstrated the exceptional
circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location. These sites are valued as
Greenbelt by residents and still fulfil the Greenbelt criteria and therefore should remain as Greenbelt.
There are numerous issues with developing the sites including the topography, access and traffic
impact, and viability, further details of which are provided within the council’s official response.
The Iceni report has demonstrated that there could be a reduction of eight dwellings per year, which
over a 20 year period would reduce the housing target by 160 houses, thereby negating the need for
DR1 to be included within the plan at all. In addition, the cut off date for additional planning permission
granted across the District to be considered should be updated to the 31st December 2020. This
would contribute to an additional 358 dwelling in the Plan and further reduce the need for use of
Greenbelt Land. The Town Council, therefore strongly request that DR1 should be removed from the
emerging Local Plan.
Furthermore, we attached a list of alternative sites that were put forward by Dronfield residents during
the drafting of Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan, which shows that there are sufficient alternative sites
available, which would preclude the need to use any of Dronfield Greenbelt for development.
In conclusion we would like the District Council to acknowledge receipt of the Town Council’s
feedback on the consultation, which can be found in the attached table and accompanying report.
Included within the table below are also the Town Councils comments and response to Document D:
Report on the Implications of the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the objectively-assessed
housing need in North East Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council and their response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020).

MM/002 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed in the Vision

MM/003 Support, Y The clarification that supporting housing-led neighbourhood regeneration opportunities is welcomed for this objective

MM/004 Object, N The figures shown as proposed modifications do not reflect additional permissions that have been granted giving an up to date position. The cut off date of 31/3/2020 is now 9 months out of date. The Town Council request that this is brought up to date until 31st December 2020.
In February 2019 (ED65) the Inspector removed Green Belt sites at Coal Aston, Eckington and reduced the size and capacity of DR1, Dronfield. Noting that this will mean a shortfall on reaching the 6600 housing target, she does not suggest that this in itself would make the plan unsound.
In July 2019 (ED85) – the Council wrote back to the Inspector clarifying that the above, at the time, would mean a shortfall from the 6600 target of 257. However, since February 2020, the Council has updated commitments and completions and their April monitoring figures suggested that the shortfall figure stood at just 80, due to higher than anticipated completions and permissions. Application reference 16/01260/OL (Land North Of Pilsley Road And West Of Coney Green Road (Plot L), Clay Cross) represents a significant development of 84 dwellings which has come about outside of the District Local Plan process and was not therefore “planned”. This eliminates the shortfall detailed
above entirely and leaves a small surplus of 4 dwellings.
Since 31st March 2020 there have been two further large developments approved on appeal which again fall outside of the District Local Plan process. These are:
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3251224 – Land South East of Williamthorpe Road and West of Tibshelf
Road, Holmewood – 250 dwellings
• Appeal Reference: APP/R1038/W/20/3244154 – Land North of 92 Chesterfield Road, Higham – 24 dwellings
Taken together. the above amounts to a surplus of 278 dwellings on the full District Plan period housing target of
6600, providing the Inspector with ample justification to remove further Green Belt allocations from the emerging
District Local Plan.
In addition to the above, in MM/015, the Inspector also suggests that a further 660 houses at the former Coalite site could come forward during the District Plan period, none of which have been included towards meeting the housing requirement in the District Plan previously due to HS2 blight on the site. The Town Council request that these figures are included.
It is strongly urged that the Inspector removes sites DR1 and DR2 from the District Local Plan allocations given the above justification.

MM/005 Object, N This Table should be updated to reflect planning permissions and appeal decisions up until 31st December 2020 including the sites such as Clay Cross (84 dwellings), Holmewood (250 dwellings) and Higham (24 dwellings).

MM/008 Support, Y The less prescriptive approach is welcomed.

MM/009 Support, Y
The increased emphasis on supporting and facilitating regeneration of level 1 towns is welcomed, however, this is not borne out by the continuing emphasis on release on Green Belt land for housing when there are opportunities for brownfield redevelopment within the town centre of Dronfield as referred to by the Town Council in their response to the Main Matters at the Hearing Sessions. The Governments White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ reiterates the long standing requirement that the development potential of brownfield land is maximized.
The list of potential brownfield sites in Dronfield was submitted by the Town Council at that time and was also
referred to in the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan (Page 20, third aim to prioritise the use of brownfield sites for
housing and other forms of development and Policy HOU1 which supports windfall housing withing the existing urban area).
The following brownfield sites represent immediate opportunities for development within the District Local Plan timescale.
• Gladys Buxton, Dronfield North. 35 houses. Planning application being progressed.
• The Talbot pub site, Gosforth Valley. 8 houses. Construction started.
• Alma land, Dronfield North. 20 houses. Discussion have been held in the past with NEDDC but not completed.
• Padley &Venables land. 50-55 houses. Application put forward in the past. Not been used in more than 10
years.
• Manor Farm car park. 6 houses. NEDDC have put advanced plans forward.
Alternative sites put forward by residents for development through the NP is
• Thorpe Avenue. Approximately 10-15 units. The owner is willing to build and has been in touch with NEDDC.
(scrub land located very close to the built form of the town)
• Wreakes Lane/Sheffield Road site approximately 70 -80 units, the developer is currently at an advanced stage
of bringing an application forward with NEDDC.
Since the NP was published, the following site has emerged for potential development
• Miners Arms, Carr Lane, 8-12 units
In total these sites would yield 201-239 dwellings. The Inspector is strongly urged to reconsider the approach to
housing allocations in the Dronfield area given these opportunities which would support redevelopment/regeneration in the town.

MM/010 Object. N Should the recommendations by Dronfield Town Council be accepted and DR1 and DR2 (previously DR3) removed from the District Local Plan, the table should be updated to reflect this position.

MM/015 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/016 Support The inclusion of 660 dwellings and associated facilities at the Coalite Priority Regeneration Area site in the District Local Plan is supported.

MM/026 Object, N Sites DR1, DR2 (previously DR3) should not be allocated in this District Local Plan and removed entirely from this table.

MM/030 Object, N The retention of this Green Belt site DR1 in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as the Council has not demonstrated the exceptional circumstances necessary for release of Green Belt land in this location.
The site is unsuitable for development for the following reasons:
• Development on this site continues to risk settlement coalescence between Dronfield and Unstone by
reducing the historic gap between the settlements.
• Access to the site remains unclear. An additional junction onto the main road could have safety issues which render it unviable. The Inspector said in February 2019: “access arrangements should be identified in order to ensure that the site would be deliverable” but there is no information to suggest they have been identified.
• The Unstone floods in 2019 demonstrated that there may be an issue: substantial flooding was noted in
Unstone village derived from fields at or near this site - despite the plan suggesting that this was unlikely. The
site should be removed from the plan on this basis.
• The site is home to a number of wildlife species.
• The site is still used as agricultural land
Notwithstanding these reasons for removing the site from the District Local Plan, the site area shown in the
modifications is larger than envisaged by the Inspector in her interim findings that required the Council to reduce the site to ‘two fields’. The Council in their response to this have asked that the site is larger than suggested by the Inspector to ‘round off’ the site and align more closely with the existing built development. The Inspector has agreed to a proposed boundary line for the site (ED79). The new site size is 6.52 hectares and with a density of 30 dwellings per hectare would yield 196 dwellings. However, MM/111 clarifies that an assumption should be made that 80% of site areas between 6 and 10ha will be considered developable. This would yield 156 dwellings. The Town Council object to the words ‘approximately 160 dwellings’ in the modified policy. Should the site remain in the District Local Plan it is essential for clarity that the proposed modified Policy DR1 should read ‘a maximum of 160 dwellings’.
In addition, the design of the site should recognize the important ‘gateway’ location of the site and require that the design and layout of the site responds to this context in addition to taking account of the gradients already
mentioned in the policy. More wording should be added to the modified policy to reflect this position, should the site remain in the District Local Plan.
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/031 Support The removal of this Green Belt allocation DR2 is supported

MM/032 Object. N The retention of this site in the District Local Plan is unacceptable as there are number of issues with this site still outstanding. The development of this site would have an unacceptable impact upon the vicinity of the site for a number of reasons –
Topography: the site is on a steep slope with a steep bank between the site and Stubley Hollow which will make it difficult to develop. The hill side slope will have surface water run off implications which are likely to have an adverse impact on the valley bottom, Sheffield Road and the railway line.
Access/traffic impact: Stubley Hollow is a narrow lane, not easily widened and with no on street parking, it is the main access road to Dronfield Woodhouse despite its width. There have been longstanding issues with HGV vehicles, particularly truck deliveries to the Gunstones Bakery on Stubley Lane. No detail has been provided as to an appropriate access point for the new housing.
Viability: 40 units is not of economic size to justify the S106 receipts available to mitigate the impact of the
development or make the infrastructure improvements required.
Location: development of this site would result in the demise of the separation between Dronfield Woodhouse
(formerly a separate parish) and the rest of Dronfield which would have an adverse impact on the historic context of the area.
Recent and emerging housing sites will deliver new housing in the immediate locality of up to 30 units. (6 houses at the Hearty Oak pub, Northern Common; 8 houses at The Talbot located off Carr Lane; The Miners Arms which is currently up for sale or lease – 8 to 12 houses; 4 units being built on the Northern Common currently.)
In conclusion, the site is less suitable than sites which have been taken out of the Plan and it is strongly urged that the site should be removed from the District Local Plan.

MM/033 Comment The removal of this Green Belt Allocation appears illogical when compared to the lack of merit of sites DR1 & DR2.
The same arguments that the Inspector has used to remove this site from the District Local Plan could be applied to Dronfield sites.

MM/111 Support The new paragraph gives more clarity on the yield expected from new allocated sites.

MM/118 Support The safeguarding of land for education facilities is supported.

Response to document D: Report on the Implications of
the ONS 2018-based Household Projections on the
objectively-assessed housing need in North East
Derbyshire prepared by Iceni on behalf of the Council
(ED101A)
Dronfield Town Council has the following comments to make on the Iceni Report:
• 2018 ONS data suggests a higher level of population and household growth than predicted in 2014 or 2016. It sets baseline demographic need at 279 dwellings pa.
• This is elevated to 293 dpa, in order to support “improved household formation amongst younger households”.
• Due to higher levels of migration into the District recorded in the ONS 2018 figures, it is no longer necessary to “add on” the extra dpas to justify the ambitious economic growth scenario envisaged in the 2018 Submission version of the District Plan.
• However, they are still applying a 10% uplift to support
affordable housing delivery and therefore set the target as (293 + 10% =) 322 dpa
• Iceni and the District Council suggest that it does not
represent a “meaningful change” from the original target of 330. However, even the reduction of 8 dwellings per year over the 20 year plan period (2014-34) is 160 dwellings and therefore it is strongly urged that DR1 should be removed from the emerging District Local Plan.
The Town Council questions that the 10% uplift for affordable housing is justifiable. Iceni allude to Government planning advice suggesting that it is reasonable, but this overall uplift is unlikely to make a direct material difference on affordable housing delivery and it would be better to address that issue through policies and allocations within the District Plan itself to promote affordable housing.
Iceni allude to the impact of Covid-19 on housing market activity but suggest it is too early to know by how much. There is a need for additional research on this point given that we are further on through the pandemic now and have a realistic understanding that Covid-19 will continue to have a significant impact until well into 2021. Covid-
19 may also impact on migration rates due to less movement and impacts could be longer lasting (people wanting to stay closer to home, family, friends etc). Changing work patterns may also drive changes in the housing market with technology advances enabling
more people able to work at home. This could therefore mean that C19 has an impact both on the delivery and the demand for new housing.

Response to Document F: Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement at adoption (updated data to 31 March 2020)
In the housing land supply documents, for both major and minor sites with planning permission, the District Council has taken the decision to “halve the site promoters’ anticipated completions in 2020/21 as a
minimum precaution” due to Covid-19 (paragraph 11). There is little evidence to support this approach available as yet, but the housing supply and demand in the area and the wider region should be closely scrutinised by the District Council to see if the emerging trends support this approach.
It is highly likely there will be a reduction in demand for employment sites such as office, retail and hospitality space (see reuse/redevelopment of pub sites in Dronfield). More brownfield sites or commercial buildings are likely to become available for housing or conversion in the near future due to the impact of Covid 19.

Attached:
Flood Risk Assessment & Outline Sustainable Drainage Strategy - Residential Development Chesterfield Road, Dronfield, Dronfield Town Council, January 2021

National Risk Register, 2020 edition, HM Government

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