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

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.

General Comments
We disagree wholeheartedly with the disproportionate allocation of new housing targets to smaller towns and villages, which, whilst they should contribute, do not benefit from a surplus of local infrastructure and amenity. It is widely known that the high street and in general retail has gone through huge change and has become significantly more centralised; this was widely discussed in the House of Lords Built Environment committee report “High streets: life beyond retail.” As a result, retail outlets and amenities in smaller towns and villages are disproportionately smaller than that available in larger towns. Thus, development should focus upon brownfield redevelopment rather than the cannibalisation of smaller settlement’s greenbelt and fringe areas.
There remains a surplus of brownfield land, particularly in chesterfield and the outskirts of Sheffield that should be prioritised for development over sites in rural settings. Development of rural areas will undoubtedly increase congestion, not make the best use of sustainable means of transport (Walking or cycling), and will require disproportionately higher investment in local services and infrastructure.
Road networks within rural areas of north east Derbyshire (such as Dronfield, Barlow, Coal Aston, and Cutthorpe) are simply not designed or developed to cope with additional road users, as has been demonstrated by the very poor condition of our roads, disruption caused during highways works on Dronfield bypass and chesterfield road, as examples, and poor public transport links.
Northeast Derbyshire is an area of excellent natural beauty; it is historic and referenced within the Doomsday book, and due to its topography, does not lend itself to significant highways expansion. It is also home to extensive wildlife and heritage. Due to its proximity to the peak district, and flatter areas to the east, it has many rivers, streams and waterways which are highly liable to localised flooding. Development of green areas removes critical soakaway lands and increases flood risk amidst a changing climate. Development must consider climate change, and this may lead to many sites being unfeasible due to the requirement for additional flood defences and water treatment.
Greenbelt is North East Derbyshire is disproportionately more important than in other areas due to our close interaction with the Peak district, the presence of larger towns and cities and the extensive history of the area. Other areas do not benefit from such natural beauty, requiring conservation. Our proximity to local industrial cities like Sheffield, Chesterfield and Manchester make it an attractive area to commute from. But to over develop these areas robs it of it’s charm, it’s history, and puts unprecedented strain on weaker public services. Development within these rural settings is therefore disproportionately more challenging to achieve sustainably.
For this reason, SRG seek to support smaller developments in rural areas to allow for incremental investment in infrastructure and services whilst not risking failure or collapse through a sudden influx of additional residents. For this reason, we strongly challenge the high housing target allocated to NE Derbyshire vs larger cities and towns (which can more readily absorb the additional homes and residents).
The most effective means of housing additional residents in northeast Derbyshire would be through development of existing arterial roads and carriageways, rather than adopting or building new; this strongly supports the expansion of larger towns and development of brownfield in preference to the expansion of smaller towns and villages. Some extraordinarily successful developments are examples of this; Dunston Grange and the areas near Clay cross are successful due to excellent connectivity to strong existing highways, infrastructure, and local amenities and transport hubs.
Furthermore, understanding that development is an absolute necessity, it is crucial that contributory payments made for the development of infrastructure and services are deployed local to proposed large development sites. Dronfield and Unstone have suffered as money taken from developments within the locality has been used in adjacent towns villages and settlements, and thus oversubscription and a weakening of public services has occurred. Doctor’s surgeries and healthcare is incredibly hard to access in Dronfield. Schools are already taking students from further afield and are generally oversubscribed, and highways are in an appalling state. Investment in quality areas and retail is essential if any further development and increase to population is to be considered.
It is our view that any of the proposed developments must contribute towards the specific improvement of:
• The Callywhite lane/Green lane junction with Chesterfield road
• The Junction between Stubley hollow and Sheffield road
• Dronfield medical practice
• Dronfield Local Police Station
• Stubley medical centre
• Pentland road shops
• Greendale shops
• The Civic Centre and precinct
• Dronfield Fire Station
• Dronfield Train Station, including access to and from
• Cycle paths (Currently only one cycle path through Dronfield)
• Road widening in the Hallowes area
• Public transport availability and routes
• Local Greenspaces
Sites In Dronfield
45054 – Land North of Burns Drive
This site proposal includes a substantial portion of land which was included within the previous local plan; land to the North/West of the site.
Whilst this was previously accepted, this land has been subject of a large planning application named “Burns Rise.” The developers presented a plan for fewer homes than were suggested during the consultation and included a proposal to site mandatory drainage infrastructure on the remaining greenbelt land to the southeast. The developers were unsuccessful in their application and subsequent appeal, due to an inability to protect the amenity of surrounding residents. The Design was additionally criticised for over-population and lack of communal areas. That they were unsuccessful despite reducing the number of homes significantly clearly demonstrates the lack of feasibility in developing this specific part of the site.
For the uninformed, this site resides on a very steep hillside, the steepest part of which is on the northern part of the site, backing onto Southfield Mount and Burns Drive. This slope reduces significantly as you travel south towards Unstone Farm. Any development would form a new “gateway” to Dronfield. As such, it is critical that any development considers the context, the landmark setting of the site, and the historical nature of the Dronfield settlement. This would suggest a subtle, unintrusive development of smaller homes or bungalows mixed with large open spaces; neither of which support the financial feasibility of potential developments.
Within the last local plan, the importance of the greenbelt that remained (Now included within this proposal) was highlighted; any development would need to enhance or improve the remaining greenbelt and must consider the local context. Furthermore, this plan highlighted the need to incorporate local greenspace, enhance the character of Dronfield (as it would become the new “gateway”) and contribute heavily towards infrastructure improvements, particularly on Chesterfield Road.
SRG strongly object to the expansion of the previous DR1 site as the addition of the land to the south totally undermines the limited protection against urban sprawl that would have remained with the remaining greenbelt. This thin area is currently the only land which prevents urban sprawl/joining of Dronfield and Unstone (including Unstone hall), both of which are historic settlements, and would significantly impact the local community identity, with famous landmarks and views from the Hallowes area across to Apperknowle and Hundall.
SRG would however like to offer what we feel is an improved plan concerning this site.
During the previously unsuccessful application and subsequent appeal, it was widely agreed that, due to the steep slope and the effect of building without significant excavation, cut and fill, residents on Burns Drive and Southfield mount would be significantly affected. As such, proposals for a green buffer between the proposed development and homes on both developments were tabled and few counter-arguments were made. A green buffer is therefore considered compulsory for any potential development.
SRG would therefore propose to reinstate the greenbelt protection to the most northerly field and areas abutting burns drive. Development of the upper field and flatter southern fields offer significantly improved feasibility and could be interconnected via existing land on burns drive. A secondary road access (With subsequent road-safety benefits) could be made onto chesterfield road. This solution would also enable full satisfaction of the cordon sanitaire surrounding the wastewater treatment plant, which statutory consultees highlighted during the previous planning application. Odour issues at this site are prevalent and new developments should consider the long-term health effects of being positioned so close to this industrial facility.
In Summary, SRG object to the proposal and offer a counter proposal whereby the new land identified for development is used within the future local plan with greenbelt protection afforded to the land to the North to establish the required green buffer and segregation between neighbouring settlements.
45160 – Land north of Dronfield Woodhouse
Given the precedent set through the allocation of 45054 for development (the previous scoring of this site against greenbelt purposes a & b) this site may be considered for development. There would remain a good quantity of land between the new edge of Dronfield woodhouse and the nearest settlement, and the land affords little to the local character. Whilst public rights of way exist on this site these are not heavily enjoyed and development of this site, in the right way, could lead to greater access and use of this green space by existing and new residents.
Access to local road networks and interconnection is possible in 2 or 3 distinct areas. This site could make a significant contribution towards NE Derbyshire’s housing target allocation and despite technical challenges (Floor Risk and Coal mining risk) would not significantly degrade the overall attractiveness of the area. It is noted that this area is not highly biodiverse and the topography of the site lends itself to enhancing biodiversity through use of existing natural features.
A settlement of this size must make significant contribution towards the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure within the area, and specifically the provision of local health services.
SRG generally support this proposal, with the previously mentioned caveat.
45218 – Land at Stubley Lane, Stubley Hollow, Dronfield
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.
45228 – Land at Holmley Common, Dronfield
This site, under greenbelt protection, performs weakly in our view with respect to preventing urban sprawl and preventing neighbouring towns from merging. It does exist next to a historic building (Nether Birchett), but this alone appears to be a relatively modest argument.
The site sites within a natural valley and would likely be subject to flooding. Access to existing highways is not simple and these matters should be considered before removing greenbelt protection. The site is of an odd shape and has challenging topography. Again, this will affect the feasibility of development.
The river and woodlands provide a strong biodiversity score and should be protected from any development. Likewise, achievement of a net gain in biodiversity must be applied as a mandatory condition.
An extension of the site to the east and towards Holmley lane may be possible and should be brought into consideration. It is not clear why this has been excluded as this would become a parcel of undeveloped and inaccessible farmland.
SRG on the Balance of consideration object to this proposal due to the far improved potential of existing brownfield sites. There does not appear to be exceptional need for development in this instance.
45249 – Land adjacent to Meadow Grange Care Home, Holmesfield Road, Dronfield Woodhouse
This Greenbelt site does not appear to offer strong scores against greenbelt purposes b and d. There is no neighbouring settlement to be concerned about, and this piece of land otherwise forms an island between the main road and Hall farm.
Particular attention should be paid to the location of the Slurry bed on the farm which will produce noxious odours throughout the year. This will affect the amenity of residents within the proposed extension to the care home.
In General, SRG support this proposal as it is of modest size, meets a specific need for independent serviced housing for older generations, and uses existing infrastructure well. It is unlikely to affect highway networks significantly.
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
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.
45384 – Land at Manor Bungalows, Dronfield
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.
45483 – Land off Eckington Road, Coal Aston, Dronfield
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.
45671 – Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield
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.
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
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.
Neighbouring Areas
45202 – Land at Cartledge Grange Farm, Cartledge Lane, Holmesfield
SRG object to this proposal on the basis that it would use land which performs strongly in Greenbelt purpose.
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Whilst this land is of low value (in terms of greenbelt), its proximity to the railway and local school does limit the feasibility for development.
SRG do consider the allocation of the site for development to be defensible, however this does not appear to be beneficial if the site is deemed unfeasible. We therefore which to support the proposal, but only once full feasibility assessment is performed.
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
SRG are not clear on the reason this site has been afforded DCC safeguarding. We therefore abstain from a view until this has been confirmed.
In General, the site is a reasonable candidate for development, although flooding and highways access need to be considered. As a Modest development we would support it as a development of suitable size and therefore lower impact to the surrounding area, its context, and the available services and infrastructure.
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
This is a site that suffers from flooding. It ‘s impact should also be considered with respect to the relatively new developments lower down the valley, towards chesterfield.
The Proximity to the railway is also a consideration from a safety, amenity, and noise perspective.
The Greenbelt protection afforded to this land does not appear to be justified given that the Unstone settlement continues as you travel south on chesterfield road. There is no historical context that we are aware.
SRG support a modest development of this site, with particular consideration to the river that passes through it.
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
This Land appears to be a suitable candidate for development; it resides on land feasible for development and would have only moderate impact on local amenity.
It has strong links to the main arterial road and would potentially be of strong benefit to the surrounding Unstone settlement.
A Development of this size would require new urban greenspace provision, and likely local amenities (Shops). It could promote sustainable means of transport and would not, to our knowledge suffer from flooding.
In general, a development such as this should also contribute to highways improvements along chesterfield road, including Bowshaw and Callywhite lane roundabouts.
SRG support this proposal.