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

The notes state this area borders a site selected by Sheffield City Council, which would support a conjoined site where housing is likely to be located already by another local authority. It makes sense to build alongside one another, rather than move further into green belt land.

In the previous consultation I supported the idea of new settlements with a mixture of housing and plans for supporting infrastructure. This is a large site and could meet those needs, which is also close to other local amenities and towns. It would also rehabilitate and make safe the land that was formerly settled as Arkwright Town. It also appears to have good transport links. A larger development here might reduce the need to remove greenbelt land in other locations across the District.

This is another large site that would promote housing of different types and accompanying infrastructure. It has good transport links into South Sheffield and to the M1 and M18 motorway network. I would not support building within the 7% that is at risk of flooding, this area should be identified and housing in that location be avoided.

There has already been a failed planning application and planning review. The land is within 400m of the cordon sanitaire of the water treatment works. The topography makes it very extremely difficult to develop sympathetically. There is a risk of flooding due to the run off into Unstone, which would be exacerbated by increasing the size of the site. Removal from the greenbelt impacts on the separation of Dronfield and Unstone. The site was previously rejected as unsuitable for development by the planning inspector and nothing has changed. This is working farmland.
The respondent states that part of the site was previously included within the Local Plan but was subject to the “Burns Rise” planning proposal, which was refused at appeal due to unacceptable impacts on residential amenity, overdevelopment and poor design. The respondent states that this demonstrates the lack of feasibility of development on this land.
The respondent highlights the steep topography of the site, noting that development would form a prominent gateway to Dronfield and would require sensitive design. They argue that such design, including low-density development and significant open space, would not be financially viable. The respondent emphasises the importance of the remaining Green Belt in preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between Dronfield and Unstone, stating that expansion would undermine this function and harm community identity.
The respondent raises concerns regarding odour and health impacts associated with proximity to a wastewater treatment works, as well as the need for a green buffer to protect existing residents. They propose retaining Green Belt on the northern portion of the site to provide separation, with limited development focused on flatter southern areas.
The respondent concludes by objecting to the proposal, citing harm to Green Belt, character and feasibility, and suggesting an alternative approach.

It is within an area currently being developed and is tucked away, which is unlikely to impact upon surrounding homes, with a natural boundary of the road delineating from remaining greenbelt. It is in effect filling in a gap of the settlement rather than increasing the settlement outside of its boundary.
SRG strongly feel that this land is incorrectly allocated greenbelt protection. It does not appear to offer any significant protection against any of the main greenbelt purposes.
The Site is challenging to develop given the gradient and access arrangements through Stubley Lane/Summerwood Lane. We doubt that forty homes will be possible, and understand this figure is under review.
Consideration should be given to the extra traffic flow, specifically on the junction of Stubley hollow and Sheffield Road and Stubley lane/Stubley hollow; however, the modest size of the development should not result in significant impact.
Noise from the Bypass is a consideration for prospective tenants of the homes, and consideration should be given to the capacity of existing infrastructure and services. The site will benefit from good sustainable transport routes and local amenities. We support this part of the consultation.
SRG support this proposal.

This is good quality farm/green land and should remain within the greenbelt.
This land should not be considered in isolation from 45054 as these two developments would be essentially adjoined. Much like 45054, the proposal does not seem to consider the local context or access to the site that the scale of the development would require.
The Entire Hallowes/Highgate area is incredibly limited to vehicles due to the steep gradients and narrow roads which access the area. Any development of either site would have enormous impact on highways and traffic. The gradient deters walking or cycling as a means of commuting. Distances to amenities are large meaning that residents would be forced to drive. Public transport is difficult due to the size of roads leading there.
The Area is historic in that it is close to the Hallowes golf club and listed farmyard buildings towards Unstone. The Landscape in this area is incredibly scenic and forms one of Dronfield Historic views across towards Hundall and Apperknowle, extensively used within local publications and in general town media.
Any development would have a huge effect on access to the farm at the end of Highgate Lane, which may require widening.
One Positive aspect of the site is that the topography is far more suitable more development than 45054 as it is significantly flatter and amenity issues with existing houses would therefore reduce.
SRG object to this proposal, although this site is a stronger candidate than 45054 as the site benefits from significantly improved development feasibility.

This is already a developed area that has/had existing dwellings owned the local authority and would be a good area to develop homes for older people, which is needed in Dronfield due to the aging population.
SRG support the development of this site. We would however like to highlight the significant historical features very local to this site and the town-centre location means that development could significantly affect local character if not considered correctly.
TPOs must be respected and the number of dwellings should be reduced to account for the historical context.

This land does extend the boundary of Coal Aston, however there will remain a large buffer of greenbelt separating it from Sheffield. The land is probably more conducive to well designed and attractive housing due to it being fairly level with no difficult topography, which would allow for a less obtrusive aspect as motorists enter from the direction of Eckington.
SRG feel that the proposed housing numbers are too high for the site in question. The area must be considered in light of its biodiversity and general ecological value. The site boundary should be reduced in size so as to protect the sensitive elements and environmental assets contained within the proposed boundary. Furthermore, this prevents the potential of prospective developers claiming strong biodiversity net gain as these assets would not be included within the development boundary.
In general, the site presents a good argument for development so long as it is performed in a sensitive and contextual manner. Highways access is good and use of sustainable transport entirely possible from the site. The topography is reasonable and supports feasibility, particularly when considered against the precedents set within the previous local plan.
As with any development, but particularly with developments of this size, consideration of the required contribution to local infrastructure, amenities and services is an absolute prerequisite for inclusion in the new local plan. SRG feel strongly that smaller developments will be more successful within the greater Dronfield area and are more sustainable in the long term, as it is simpler to balance investment in public services without large step changes in population (size and demographic changes).
SRG support this development under the conditions above.

This site already has planning permission and is derelict unused land ready for positive use after it being a previously being a school.
SRG support this proposal as it uses brownfield land. The Land could potentially use additional parts of the playing fields to extend potential housing numbers.

It is not appropriate to utilise the railway bridge from Chesterfield Road to enter this site. It is a single track road and would not support heavy traffic. It would require complete redevelopment of the bridge which would be very costly and cause severe disruption to the Midland Mainline Railway, Sheffield's main route to London. It is not certain there would be a requirement for further industrial land demonstrated by Henry Boot, a large manufacturing company, moving from here. This area is currently a nature reserve backing onto ancient woodland, it is well used and should remain so.
The use of this site for employment purposes is generally supported under the context that this is a brownfield site.
It should be highlighted, however, that a sizeable portion of the site is not feasible for development due to flood risk and achieving the biodiversity net gain required.
In General, this excludes land within the boundary lying immediately to the north of the river drone. This effectively creates two parcels of feasible land for development – one parallel to chesterfield road and the other to the north and east of Callywhite lane. A small amount of the land to the south of the existing roundabout may also be feasible for development.
As such, SRG will provide the following comment, and abstain from support or objection.
The land should be split into two parcels, one running parallel to chesterfield road that may be suitable for housing or light business premises. This land could use the existing access bridge with reinforcement/upgrade. Consideration should be given to flood areas and the railway which runs to the south.
The Land to the norther/east of the roundabout is suitable for development with few conditions and should be prioritised for use.