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

2.1 A Design and Vision Document has been produced for this allocation and submitted to the Council as part of the previous Regulation 18 consultation. Since that time additional discussions have been undertaken, and a Masterplan has been prepared for the site – Reference: Testing Layout Rev B. This masterplan has been submitted alongside these representations and is attached at Appendix B.
2.2 There are ongoing discussions with Policy Officers and the wider Council regarding the allocation of this site. Following on from those discussions, a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and Flood Risk Assessment have been instructed. The results of these studies will be sent over as separate documents prior to the end of the May. In addition to these, the following representations address the bullet points within the supporting text and demonstrate there are no technical reasons why the site cannot be allocated for development.
The Site
2.3 The site is located to the south of Clay Cross. The site is mostly of a gentle gradient of less than 1:25 - with limited areas of steeper topography. The site is currently of agricultural use and therefore features a limited network of existing vegetation - which will be retained where possible. It lies to the south of Clay Cross, is well related to the existing settlement, and sits outside of the Green Belt
2.4 Clay Cross is a tier 1 settlement along with Eckington, Killamarsh, and Dronfield. It is the only non-greenbelt tier 1 settlement within the district unfettered by green belt.
2.5 The site represents the best spatial location for sustainable growth within Clay Cross. Specifically, competing sites ref: 45052, 45920 north are sited wholly within settlement gap which restrict the coalescence of Clay Cross with neighbouring villages of Tupton, and Holmgate. A small settlement gap designation exists south of Claycross preventing coalescence with Stretton (a ribbon development). Development of Claycross South (45060) currently restricts development within the settlement gap to access works alone.
2.6 The rail lines and river define the easterly / westerly limits of Clay Cross beyond which levels rise steeply toward North Wingfield and fall Steeply toward Ashover. Accounting for both topographical and policy constraints the only feasible direction for growth within Clay Cross is south.
Capacity
2.7 The Local Plan identifies the scope for 700 dwellings whereas Persimmon Homes proving layout currently guides a yield of 532 dwellings including land provision for both retail and primary school. The exact plot yield is therefore contingent upon detailed pre-app engagement where discussions around housing mix; ancillary school or retail uses will influence the sites' plot yield.
2.8 Similarly, where the local gap is altered or the need for a new primary school is not required due to excess capacity, the plot yield could readily increase nearer to the LPA target.
Landscape and Settlement Gap
2.9 The consultation notes that a part of the site is identified as a settlement gap (15%) and that a review will be taking place. It further notes the site is visually prominent close to the A61 and it currently plays a role in the spatial separation of Clay Cross and Stretton, which is covered by the Local Settlement Gap. Impact may be reduced by excluding this land from the net developable area, only allowing highway access and maintaining the undeveloped character of the land.
2.10 The Masterplan provided incorporates the settlement gap with Stretton and demonstrates how coalescence is avoided through the arrangement of development parcels and green infrastructure. Only a highways access is shown in this area, with substantial green infrastructure maintaining its open character.
2.11 In terms of landscape impacts, the site is heavily influenced by its urban fringe location with housing development along the northern boundary and the road to the west. It would be read in the context and as an extension to the existing settlement. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment is being undertaken and will be submitted separately. A supplemental LVIA has been commissioned which will be submitted prior to the May 30th deadline.
Archaeology
2.12 The site does not feature any designated heritage assets. The Historic Environment Record indicates that the Ryknield Street Roman Road runs right on the sites western most boundary with the Stretton Road. Only the access road would intersect the line for a small section with no housing proposed in this area. Archaeological investigation work would take place prior to the access road’s construction. There is no indication that archaeological interest would prevent allocation.
Ecology
2.13 A high-level ecological summary of the site can be provided, outlining the existing biodiversity baseline and opportunities for enhancements.
2.14 We included the NEDDC-owned land to the north, designated as a Local Wildlife Site within our wider considerations to illustrate potential ecological connectivity and future green/blue infrastructure opportunities.
2.15 The masterplan demonstrates how hedgerows can be retained within the layout fronted on by housing to provide attractive green corridors. There would be an opportunity to strengthen these corridors with additional planting.
2.16 A permanent wet basin will be proposed to the north to provide an attractive habitat feature, linking into the local wildlife site. Any proposals for planting would have due regard to the LNRS.
Flood Risk
2.17 The green fingers that run through the submitted Masterplan observe the areas of flood zones 2 and 3. No housing is proposed to be located within the areas of higher flood risk.
2.18 In addition, the minor areas of surface water flood risk identified on the site have been fully accounted for within the masterplan, with residential development located outside these zones. To robustly demonstrate there would be no adverse flooding impacts, a flood risk assessment has been instructed and will be submitted as a separate document to support this consultation in May.
Public Right of Way
2.19 The public right of way has been observed within the submitted masterplan for the site. This is situated within the eastern green corridor.
Agricultural Land
2.20 The mapping layer identifies western parcels as being covered by Agricultural Land Classification Grade 3. These relate only to the western part of the site with the remainder being grade 4 (poor quality). Grade 3 is good to moderate quality. Best and Most versatile Agricultural Land (BMV) is grade 1, 2 and 3a of the ALC. It is therefore unclear whether the site contains BMV. In any event, the NPPF does not preclude the loss of BMV land but does require at paragraph 187b) that the economic and other benefits of BMV are recognised.
Mining Legacy
2.21 Coal Authority historic records indicate potential for shallow workings on the eastern part of the site. These are typical for the area and can be addressed through standard intrusive investigation and mitigation at application stage. We can confirm that this does not present a constraint to development for the purpose of the promotion work.
2.22 The maping data shows: No mineshafts entries, with probable shallow mining works affecting the eastern part of the site around 7 hectares, which amounts to around 100 plots being potentially affected. Egstow park the scheme to the north of clay cross (St Modwin) had much more significant mining legacy issues and this was overcome.
2.23 Persimmon have delivered many schemes in mining legacy areas, with mitigation measures such as drill/grout improved foundations etc. We are confident this can be overcome.
Land Ownership
2.24 Persimmon Homes can confirm the ownership of the remaining land parcels and the willingness of all parties to work collaboratively. Persimmon has contracted land controlled by Pears and Ramsdale Title DY385455 and Pears DY414244 and is progressing terms with the vendors for title DY342322 presently who are landlocked (Smille and Rowell) a letter confirming their engagement with the process is appended Appendix A.
Conclusion
2.25 There are no significant site constraints that could not be overcome by the submission of technical information and high-quality design. The scheme would bring about a multitude of economic, social and environmental benefits including new homes, primary school, local centre, public open space and job creation.

2.26 Persimmon Homes own this land, which can support around 60 dwellings. The site is located within the Green Belt and it is noted that a new Green Belt Review is being undertaken to identify whether the site is Grey Belt and this will inform whether Green Belt boundaries should be altered.
2.27 The 2016/17 Green Belt Review showed that this site (which lies within GB land parcel: KL/GB/021) performed weaker against Green Belt purposes a & d and moderately against purpose b. It is noted that in the 2017 consultation draft the site was shown as removed from Green Belt and therefore considered suitable for housing.
2.29 The updated Green Belt review will follow the new detailed methodology set out in National Planning Practice Guidance. This sets out that it must evaluate the contribution each assessment area makes to Green Belt purposes (a), (b), and (d) using the set criteria.
(a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas.
•
The site previously performed weaker against this criteria. It would result in some loss of greenfield; however, the site would represent an infill development. New housing has been constructed along the entrance to the site at Upperthorpe Road. The site is therefore bounded by housing to the south, west and partially to the north. The development would not extend beyond the existing built form to the south at Manor Road. A hedgerow defines the eastern boundary, which would be retained. Accordingly, the site makes a weak contribution to this criteria.
(b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another.
• The nearest settlement to the east is Highmoor, which is not a town and therefore it would not result in towns merging into one another. The site therefore does not form part of gap between towns and makes no contribution to this criteria. (d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
• The site does not form part of the setting of a historic town accordingly it makes no contribution to this criteria. 2.30 Based on the above assessment, it is considered that the development site represents low-quality Green Belt and doesn’t strongly contribute to the core purposes making it potentially suitable for development. Accordingly, the land would constitute Grey Belt, therefore in accordance with paragraph 148 should be given priority to be released for development. A supplemental Green Belt assessment has been commissioned and will be submitted to the council prior to the May deadline.
Highways
2.24 The supporting text notes that highways access may require further confirmation. However, the site already benefits from an established vehicular access constructed as part of the 10‑dwelling scheme approved under permission 14/01242/FL. This access was delivered through a Section 278 agreement and is fully completed. The access plan is provided at Appendix B. This demonstrates adequate visibility splays, geometry etc. Accordingly, highways access does not present a constraint.
Wider Development
2.25 Parcel 45073 is owned by Persimmon and with an existing access with services, can readily be delivered in isolation; however, there is an opportunity for a wider scheme in this location to incorporate site references 45588, 45905 as well as additional land to the south east, which have recently been submitted to the call for sites process. A Concept Growth Masterplan is enclosed Appendix D highlighting the intended joined up site area comprising both the red outlined area capturing 45073, 45588, 45905 and yellow outlined area which forms part of the supplementary site submission made encompassing all the land.
2.26 Persimmon has engaged neighbouring landowners with various meetings convened to resolve the concept masterplan and joint site submission. Broad consensus has neem reached in acknowledgement that a comprehensive scheme could elevate the spatial benefits of development in this location. A letter provided at Appendix E demonstrating the collaborative approach between all the relevant landowners.
2.27 A separate representation is being submitted for the wider scheme at this location; which will include an appropriate review of the Green Belt. However, there is nothing to prevent site reference 45073 being developed in solus as demonstrated by these representations.

2.26 Persimmon Homes own the land with site reference number 45059. The adjacent land site reference 45494 is under contract to assist in forming a more comprehensive form of development at this location unifying the built form of Tupton into line with the A61.
2.27 A pre-app has been submitted to the LPA under reference PREAPP/25/00044. A meeting has been held with the Case Officer to discuss the site and its merits. A response to the pre-app was received 04/08/2025.
2.28 The capacity assumption state that approximately 70 dwellings would be secured on this parcel of land, but that mitigation measures have not been applied, and this may alter the total. The pre-app layout submitted to the LPA indicated how 94 dwellings could be developed on this area of land. It is recognised that a design review would need to take place, but it is not envisioned that the number of dwellings would drop below the 70 indicated.
Landscape
2.29 The comments indicate the development may have a moderate landscape impact. The A61 provides a strong defensible edge to the settlement and bringing built form to this boundary would make logical sense in rounding off the settlement. The site is within a typical urban fringe location with housing sitting to the east, a car wash to the south and the main road to the west. The existing band of trees along the A61 would be retained as much as feasible to assist in screening the proposals from the main road. Accordingly, the development would therefore not result in any unacceptable level of landscape and visual harm. This would be robustly demonstrated with an LVIA at application stage.
Archaeology
2.30 An archaeology desk-based assessment has confirmed that the site does not contain any heritage assets with formal designation. A focus of the desk-based assessment has been to establish the potential for the survival of the Roman Road, Ryknield Street, the alignment of which is projected through the site.
2.31 The assessment highlights that the site has been subject to mining and quarrying, which has impacted the course of the Roman Road within the site. The assessment highlights there is only one small area within the site it could possibly have survived in the southeastern corner. Recommending that archaeological attendance should be present in any geo-technical investigations in this specific area. It goes onto state that no further archaeological work is likely required given the sites historic quarrying legacy. Accordingly, this feature does not result in a constraint in the development of the site.
Heritage
2.32 A Listed Structure - an early 19th Century iron milepost (LB ref 393543) - is recorded immediately west of the study site on the A61. The setting of the listed milepost (HER 15332) on the western verge of the modern A61 is governed by its association with the road. Any proposed development within the wider site will not affect the setting of this designated asset. Accordingly, this feature does not result in a constraint in the development of the site.
Ecology
2.33
The site does not contain any ecological designations. A full ecological & biodiversity assessment would support any planning application to demonstrate the sites acceptability and show how it will provide a 10% net-gain.
Flood Risk
2.34
The Environment Agency data shows the site is located within Flood Zone 1, with a low probability of flooding. The current flood mapping data shows there is very little surface water flood risk associated with the development, see extract below:
2.35 With climate change taken into account, this shows a small area of low surface water flood-risk in the most north part of the site see plan below. This could easily be captured in area of public open space.
2.36 The surface water flood maps show the risk appears very low overall. The application will be supported by a Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy. It is considered that flood risk would not pose a risk to development on this site.
Public Right of Way
2.36 Tupton Public Footpath No 3 and No 2 pass through the site. These are shown in the extract below with the redlines indicating the routes of the paths:
2.37 Any final layout would be sensitively designed to take account of the PROW with dwellings fronting on to provide natural surveillance.
Coal Mining
2.38 Extensive geological investigations have been undertaken on this land to date and a mitigation strategy for foundation solutions has been resolved because of these investigations. It is considered that this risk can be appropriately mitigated, any application will be supported with an appropriate Coal Mining Risk Assessment to demonstrate this.

2.39 Persimmon Homes have contracted this site, which can come forward with the neighbouring land to the west under Persimmons ownership – site reference: 45059.
2.40 The comments suggest a capacity of around 50 dwellings, on this parcel of land, which would appear a reasonable assumption. The total suggested as part of the pre-app was 149 dwellings across both parcels. The total indicated on the consultation is 120. Therefore, there is likely scope to achieve the expected capacity, even with any amendments following a design review.
2.41 In terms of archaeology, the site will be subject to a desk-based assessment and following that any additional works as considered necessary. This could be captured by a site-specific policy requiring details to be submitted with the application. This would not pose a constraint to development.
2.42 The comments suggest that highway access may need to be confirmed. Access to the site would be taken from the Persimmon Homes parcel to the west. As such, a suitable access can be formed into the site, and this does not pose a constraint.
2.43 In terms of Coal Mining legacy, a Coal Mining Risk Assessment would be submitted with the application identifying the extent of mining legacy and any recommendations in terms of mitigation.