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

Comment

Representation ID: 13720

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Marrons

The respondent supports the Settlement Role and Function Study in identifying Clay Cross as one of the most sustainable locations in the District but questions how this conclusion is reflected in the spatial strategy shown in Figure 7 of the Consultation Document. The strategy designates the edges of Chesterfield and Sheffield, potential new settlements, and the four main towns as “Priority 1 Locations” through a cascade approach.
Two key concerns are raised. First, growth on the edges of Chesterfield, Sheffield, or at a new settlement does not automatically align with the settlement hierarchy, as some locations may be poorly connected to services, facilities, and public transport. The strategy should therefore consider which specific directions of growth are most sustainable, rather than prioritising locations in principle.
Second, much of the land around Chesterfield and Sheffield lies within the Green Belt. The approach appears to prioritise Green Belt release ahead of other options, contrary to the NPPF requirement to exhaust reasonable alternatives first and in advance of a Green Belt study.
The representation also highlights shortcomings in the Sustainability Appraisal, noting that the preferred spatial strategy—particularly the reliance on a new settlement at Duckmanton Moor—has not been adequately tested against reasonable alternatives and may appear pre-determined.

Comment

Representation ID: 13724

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Marrons

The respondent explains that land to the west of Derby Road is being promoted by SLG for around 40 dwellings. Although this site was originally assessed separately, it has been combined within the Consultation Document with a much larger area of land, forming a single draft allocation of approximately 560 dwellings. Concern is raised with this approach.
A significant portion of the wider site lies within a designated Local Settlement Gap, which the Consultation Document acknowledges has yet to be reviewed. In contrast, the SLG site largely falls outside the Settlement Gap, with development focused on land not subject to this designation, allowing the Gap’s function to be retained. It is argued that this distinction cannot be applied to the wider area, and the SLG site should therefore be identified as a separate allocation.
The respondent also highlights the increased housing requirement facing the Council and the importance of identifying deliverable sites capable of coming forward in the first five years. The SLG site is considered immediately deliverable and would provide early housing supply, whereas inclusion within a larger allocation may delay delivery and reduce the balance of the site portfolio unless explicitly phased for early development.

Comment

Representation ID: 13725

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Marrons

The representation raises concerns about the Sustainability Appraisal’s assessment of landscape impacts. It notes that the wider site has been attributed a major adverse landscape impact, despite a Local Settlement Gap not being a landscape designation and the Consultation Document indicating only a moderate impact. This is described as a technical error that should be corrected.
It is argued that, if the Sustainability Appraisal’s methodology were applied correctly, SLG’s site would not result in a major adverse impact, as most of it lies outside the Local Settlement Gap and areas within the designation would not be developed. This position is reflected in the separate appraisal of the standalone site (reference 45897), which performs more positively across most sustainability objectives. While the larger site scores better in relation to housing delivery due to higher dwelling numbers, the representation emphasises that smaller sites offer sustainability benefits, including faster delivery and a more diverse housing market.
The representation also highlights that the Sustainability Appraisal correctly identifies the wider site (45052) as one of the best-performing locations for access to services and facilities, a conclusion that equally applies to SLG’s individual site, which is described as being in a highly sustainable location.

Object

Representation ID: 13728

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Marrons

The respondent argues that Duckmanton Moor should be categorised as a freestanding new settlement rather than a strategic urban extension, given its location relative to existing settlements. Although the site is proposed to accommodate 2,000–3,000 dwellings alongside employment and supporting uses, no technical evidence has been produced to justify this capacity.
Given its scale and central role in the spatial strategy, the representation highlights a lack of information on deliverability and timing. Evidence suggests that sites of this size typically have long lead‑in times, meaning development is unlikely to commence until well into the Plan period and would not assist with maintaining a five‑year housing land supply. This is considered an optimistic scenario in light of the site’s substantial constraints.
A key concern is that the site forms part of the former Arkwright opencast coal site, presenting significant remediation, safety and cost challenges. These abnormal costs could reduce affordable housing and infrastructure contributions and raise a serious risk of non‑delivery. The Sustainability Appraisal Addendum identifies widespread negative impacts for the site, leading to the conclusion that prioritising a new settlement at this stage is premature without robust evidence of suitability or deliverability.

Object

Representation ID: 13730

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Marrons

This site is said to be able to support 350 dwellings. It is in the Green Belt and has yet to be assessed in terms of its contribution to Green Belt purposes. However, it is noted that the 2016/17 Green Belt Review showed that the site performed strongly against purposes a & b (i.e. checking unrestricted sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns merging). Performance against these purposes is also fundamental to whether the site could be considered as Grey Belt.
Overall, the findings regarding the Site’s performance in Green Belt terms is unsurprising. Once developed, it would represent a peninsula of built form projecting into the countryside and is not well-contained by any built features. The only defensible boundaries are in the form of vegetation – hedgerows and hedgerow trees – which are insufficient to provide with any substantial level of containment from the surrounding countryside for the purposes of Green Belt assessment.
As such, it is unlikely that the site would be a candidate for Grey Belt and its release from the Green Belt would fundamentally undermine at least one of the fundamental purposes of the Green Belt (checking unrestricted sprawl).

Comment

Representation ID: 13731

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Marrons

The Consultation Document states that this site can support approximately 200 dwellings. It is not apparent how the site would be accessed given a considerable level difference between the site and Jordanthorpe Parkway. Whilst this level difference becomes less significant near the Bowshaw Roundabout, having a separate access here for residential development may compromise the safe and effective operation of the roundabout. Given that it is bounded by two busy roads and the roundabout, it is also unclear how noise constraints would affect the number of dwellings achievable.

Comment

Representation ID: 13732

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Marrons

Whilst we do not object to the general principle of this site which has been identified for approximately 620 dwellings, it is not evident how it will be accessed other than through Brassington Lane, which the Consultation Document recognises is unsuitable for this level of development. It is stated that options may need to be explored but it is not clear what options would be available other than additional land assembly given that the site is cut off from the road network by third party land. It is therefore plain that in its current form, this site is undeliverable and it is premature to identify it as a draft allocation.