NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)

General Comments
We appreciate the difficulties in developing a truly strategic approach in the absence of spatial development strategies for South Yorkshire and the East Midlands. However, the Government expects SDSs to be in place by the end of the current parliament and that could lead to different strategies for accommodating growth in the medium to long term (say, from 2031 onwards). The new NEDD Local Plan could therefore set out a shorter term strategy for housing delivery whilst keeping open options for accommodating growth after the first plan review.

The need for urban expansion onto greenfield sites is likely to become ever more pressing for local authorities in both regions as the supply of brownfield sites is used up over the next 10-15 years. Radical solutions for major new settlements and urban extensions are likely to be required to meet longer term needs. These matters should be considered through the SDSs being prepared by SYMCA and EMCCA. We note that the consultation paper recognises that there is a clear mismatch between the public’s preferred locations for growth and the availability/suitability of land - highlighting the difficult decisions that need to be taken by the Council.

We think that the strategic approach for accommodating growth needs to reflect opportunities for new public transport infrastructure as well as existing infrastructure. For example, reopening of the Barrow Hill Railway line (between Sheffield and Chesterfield) for passenger services is strongly supported by SYMCA (see Appendix 2 for note on SYMCA comments - submitted as evidence to the Sheffield Plan public examination). Reopening of the Barrow Hill Railway line would provide a stronger justification for new housing allocations close to the proposed new station at Killamarsh.

We recognise the need for ongoing and continuous dialogue on the above issues to enable progression of both the Sheffield and NEDDC Local Plans.

Housing
Priority 1 housing allocations on the edge of Sheffield would effectively meet needs arising in Sheffield, rather than need arising in NEDD. The development would primarily be reliant on services and infrastructure in Sheffield. It would therefore be helpful to discuss whether NEDD could accommodate some of Sheffield’s needs or whether the land could be transferred to Sheffield as part of a boundary review (as has happened at Oughtibridge in Sheffield where a housing site formerly in Barnsley MBC has been transferred to Sheffield).

Employment
Whilst there are no employment allocations proposed on or near the boundary with Sheffield, the provision of strategic logistics sites within North East Derbyshire does raise cross boundary issues which, due to their scales of operation, need co-operation at local and wider regional level. This is recognised within the Bolsover, Chesterfield and North East Derbyshire Economic Needs Assessment Study (March 2025), which draws a wider area of influence (property market area), along the M1, for strategic logistics sites beyond the functional economic market area of North East Derbyshire, Chesterfield and Bolsover. This includes Sheffield.

Following the hearing sessions on the Sheffield’s Local Plan, the Inspectors determined that the plan should have a requirement of 2.45 hectares of logistics development per annum, this equates to 41.7 hectares over the plan period. However, they did attach a note of caution, recognising the cross-boundary nature of logistics and wider property market area and have recommended that, following adoption of Sheffield’s Local Plan, the Council should explore opportunities for carrying out further assessment of the supply and requirements for large scale logistics over a wider area in the sub-region. This would include strategic logistics sites in North East Derbyshire.

Given the clear cross boundary implications of strategic logistics developments and the prospect that development in either Sheffield and North East Derbyshire could meet each other’s need, we would welcome further discussions regarding these issues and the commissioning of this further logistics study.
Green Belt

The most recent statement of common ground between SCC and NEDDC regarding Green Belt review may need revisiting as part of the exercise in developing the Reg 19 Draft Plan. Work is being undertaken at South Yorkshire level to develop a common methodology for the review of Green Belt land against Green Belt purposes and the identification of Grey Belt – the SoCG is likely to need updating to reflect this.

General comment
The potential re-opening of the Barrowhill Railway line could help to justify higher levels of growth around Killamarsh (but subject to other constraints). We note that 13 sites are under consideration in, and on the edge of, Killamarsh. It is important that land that may be required for a potential new railway station is safeguarded.

Site 45900 – White Lane Farm, White Lane, Ridgeway, Sheffield
The site adjoins proposed Sheffield Plan site allocation SS19 (Land south of White Lane) which has an estimated capacity of 304 homes.

The cumulative impact of the two adjoining housing sites on local infrastructure needs to be considered as part of the decision on whether site 45900 should be included as a proposed allocated site.

We note that further assessments, including on the purposes of Green Belt are still to be undertaken. The report states that the landscape impact level is assessed as ‘major’ but that this needs further consideration. There are also highways issues that need to be addressed. We note that the whole of site 45900 lies within the Moss Valley Conservation Area whereas site SS19 adjoins the Conservation Area.

If the site is taken forward and included within the Draft NEDDC Local Plan, the site allocation policy should set out the expectations for comprehensive development of the site in conjunction with site allocation SS19 in the Sheffield Plan. It would also be beneficial to consider a similar approach to capacity/density assumptions. The Sheffield Plan assumes a density of 40dph given the proximity of the site to the tram route. We note that the NEDDC consultation document suggests an uplift in densities could be required in locations around larger settlements and that 57% of respondents to the previous consultation supported that approach.

Site 45129 – Land between Jordanthorpe Parkway (B6057) and Chesterfield Rd South (A61), Jordanthorpe, Sheffield
The NEDD assessment of the site notes that it lies wholly within 200m of the Sheffield Citywide AQMA and development at such sites ‘is likely to locate site end users in areas of existing poor air quality. It should be noted, however, that the whole of Sheffield is a designated AQMA and, if the site were to be allocated, an air quality assessment and, appropriate mitigation may be needed.

We note that the NEDDC consultation document states that ‘despite being in Green Belt, the site lends itself to natural urban infill adjacent to a major highway junction’. We would question whether this represents urban infill - the site is bounded by two main roads but existing development in Sheffield only exists to the north of the site and we would therefore question whether this constitutes ‘rounding off’ of the built form.

Site 45243 – Land North East of High Lane, Ridgeway, Sheffield
This site is 0.5 hectares in size with an estimated residential working capacity of 10 dwellings with a ‘policy-on’ residential working capacity of 12 dwellings. We note that the site promoter suggests 5-8 dwellings at a fairly low density would be in keeping with the existing development. The site is right on the boundary with Sheffield and would be accessed via the existing residential estate in Sheffield. However, development would represent logical rounding off of the built-up area. We have no objection in principle to this site being allocated, subject to further investigations.

We note that the site has been assessed as having ‘no significant landscape constraints affecting it and is ‘visually contained’. However, the Highways comments suggest potential issues with obtaining satisfactory access. It is also within the Moss Valley Conservation Area.

Site 45247 – Land North East of High Lane, Ridgeway, Sheffield
Overall, this site is very similar to site 45243 but development would extend the urban form beyond the natural build line and in our view it is not therefore such a logical infilling or rounding off of the built-up area. This site is also within the Moss Valley Conservation Area. However, we have no objection in principle to this site being allocated, subject to further investigations.

Priority 2 – Level 2 Settlements – Larger Villages
We have no comments on the sites in this category.

Priority 3 – Level 3 Settlements – Smaller Villages
We note that sites 45243 and 45247 both adjoin Ridgeway (listed as a Level 3 settlement in the settlement hierarchy) but they have been included as ‘Edge of Sheffield’ in the consultation document.

Priority 4 – Level 4 Settlements – Very Small Villages/ Hamlets
We have no comments on the sites in this category.