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

Object

Representation ID: 12947

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Site within narrow strip of Green Belt between Dronfield and Sheffield where GB functionality is high in preventing urban sprawl. We are pleased to note that several sites in this area will not be taken forward at this time.
Constraints include proximity to Moss Valley - an historic landscape of fields, farms and woodland. Detrimental impact on local water courses and the sensitive ecological balance within this valued landscape area.
Concerns about the number of dwellings and likely impact on local infrastructure. High density housing would be visually and spatially inappropriate in this location.

Comment

Representation ID: 12950

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society welcomes a development that could potentially free up some larger family homes by allowing elderly residents to downsize into smaller housing for independent living in proximity to the Meadow Grange Care Home.
Consideration must however be given to the busy, narrow road which passes the site towards Holmesfield and into the Peak District. Pavements are narrow, public transport is limited and the site lies a considerable distance away from shops and services. It seems a good idea in principle but the location is not ideal as it is somewhat isolated rather than integrated.

Comment

Representation ID: 12951

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Support redevelopment of this town centre site. It is an ideal location for bungalows/smaller houses to enable older residents to downsize from family homes. A mixture of type and tenure would be preferable.
Concerns over a loss of car parking facilities and how a safe access can be achieved.
Site within Conservation Area, close to listed buildings. Development will need to sensitively reflect this in its design, layout and use of materials. The site has huge potential, but comes with high expectations of a design that will complement the existing buildings and historic context of the Conservation Area.

Comment

Representation ID: 12954

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society acknowledges that this site has planning permission for 27 houses and a sports pavilion. We support the use of sites like this within the SDL, brownfield, close to schools and services and a development of an acceptable size for assimilation into its surroundings and potentially acceptable to existing residents. We question why there has been no housing delivery on what would seem to be an appropriate site.

Object

Representation ID: 12959

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society OBJECTS to yet another town edge site within the Green Belt for potential allocation. The site has strong Green Belt functionality, preventing urban sprawl into open countryside and helping to maintain the separation between the outer reaches of Sheffield and Dronfield. Planning Inspectors have previously made comments that sites like this would represent a prominent incursion into open countryside and there is a strong case to make that this development would weaken what is currently a strong, distinctive boundary which currently serves to give permanence to the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12961

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society acknowledges that this site was allocated in the current Local Plan. The fact that it hasn’t been built out is indicative that some sites in Dronfield are particularly unsuited to development for reasons of challenging topography and difficult access which has implications for deliverability and viability in the current economic climate.

Object

Representation ID: 12964

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society wishes to see this site removed from future allocation due to concerns relating to flood risk, harm to the Green Belt and the impact on nearby listed buildings. This is another Green Belt site which has high functionality preventing urban sprawl and maintaining the largely undeveloped gap between Dronfield and Sheffield. This site would result in a harmful projection into open countryside, impacting the openness of the Green Belt.

Object

Representation ID: 12966

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society does not support the allocation of this site. One of the main constraints is the very narrow access up to and along Highgate Lane at Hallowes. The site lies beyond existing development as the lane narrows further to become the access to Ouzel Bank Cottage and what is a very popular PRoW which leads to many other footpaths including the Peak Greenway.

Object

Representation ID: 12968

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society strongly objects to this site coming forward again having been removed by a Planning Inspector for soundness at the examination of the current local plan. The site remains on the edge of the Moss Valley Conservation Area and in the words of the Inspector would represent a prominent and harsh incursion into the largely undeveloped narrow gap which separates Dronfield from Sheffield. Both visible and spatial harm to the openness of the Green Belt would be caused by the allocation of this site, weakening the existing clearly defined boundary that is the line of Eckington Road.

Object

Representation ID: 12977

Received: 28/04/2026

Respondent: Dronfield Civic Society

Dronfield Civic Society strongly objects to this site as an employment allocation. There are a number of high level constraints impacting the viability of this site. They include land stability, matters relating to land contamination, well-established wildlife areas along the river corridor, highway matters including the construction of a bridge to cross both the river and the main railway line and we understand there are issues relating to land ownership where the land owner had not agreed to their land being included.