NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Search representations
Results for Unstone Parish Council search
New search New searchComment
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
Representation ID: 14962
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The respondent considers that, although the District Council’s approach to directing development has evolved, it does not fully reflect local realities relating to infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability. Concern is raised that the strategy places significant emphasis on directing growth to main towns, such as Dronfield, while also distributing development to larger villages and smaller settlements.
The respondent identifies risks that this approach may overestimate the ability of towns like Dronfield to accommodate further growth, underestimate constraints associated with edge-of-settlement locations, and place undue pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone. In Dronfield, it is noted that previous expansion has already had cumulative impacts, with many sites located at a distance from services, facilities and transport links, likely increasing reliance on private car use.
The respondent also considers that insufficient weight has been given to factors including topography, heritage and conservation designations, Green Belt function and existing infrastructure pressures. In relation to Unstone, the proposed level of development is viewed as inconsistent with its role and capacity.
Overall, the respondent concludes that the strategy should be refined to ensure development is directed to locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Comment
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Settlement Hierarchy
Representation ID: 14964
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The respondent acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide development but considers the current methodology to be overly simplistic, failing to fully reflect the quality, accessibility and capacity of services within settlements. It is noted that the hierarchy places emphasis on the presence of services rather than their accessibility in practice, their ability to accommodate additional demand, or whether they can be reached without reliance on private vehicles.
The respondent highlights concerns in relation to Dronfield, which, despite being identified as highly sustainable, contains areas that are not within easy walking distance of services, is constrained by challenging topography, and has infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads already under pressure. The accessibility of the railway station is also considered limited for parts of the population.
In relation to Unstone, the respondent considers that the level of proposed growth is disproportionate to its role, noting its lack of basic services, limited public transport, dispersed form and reliance on private vehicles.
The respondent concludes that the hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and incorporate stronger qualitative assessment of infrastructure capacity, accessibility, settlement form, and environmental and policy constraints to avoid directing development to unsustainable locations.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Comment
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Unstone (Unstone Cluster)
Representation ID: 14969
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The respondent considers Unstone, identified as a smaller village, to be an unsuitable location for significant growth, despite supporting its classification within the settlement hierarchy. It is noted that the village lacks basic services, has limited public transport, constrained school capacity, a dispersed layout, and a high reliance on private car use, limiting its accessibility and sustainability.
The respondent raises particular concern regarding the cumulative impact of four proposed sites, which would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, representing over a 50% increase in housing stock. This scale of development is considered likely to fundamentally alter the character of the village, place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure, increase traffic and car dependency, and erode its rural identity.
Support is expressed for the exclusion of a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and surrounding areas, including those in Unstone, Apperknowle and the Handleys, noting that their omission reflects consideration of Green Belt impact, infrastructure limitations, accessibility, highway constraints and environmental sensitivities. The respondent emphasises that this position should be maintained.
Overall, the respondent concludes that the scale and pattern of development proposed in Unstone is disproportionate and unsustainable, and that development should remain limited, proportionate and appropriate to the village’s role and capacity.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Comment
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
Dronfield
Representation ID: 14970
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The respondent has reviewed the scale and distribution of proposed development in Dronfield and raises concerns regarding the overall level of growth, identified as approximately 860 dwellings. Whilst acknowledging Dronfield’s role as a main town, the respondent considers this quantum of development to be substantial, particularly in light of existing constraints and cumulative impacts on neighbouring communities.
Concern is expressed regarding the focus of development on Green Belt land at the settlement edge, with the cumulative effect of multiple allocations seen as contributing to the gradual erosion of the Green Belt and undermining its role in maintaining separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
The respondent also highlights potential cumulative impacts including increased pressure on infrastructure, additional traffic movements between settlements, congestion on key routes, and the risk of weakening the identity of neighbouring communities. It is further noted that insufficient consideration has been given to the impacts of development in Dronfield on nearby villages such as Unstone.
Overall, the respondent considers the proposed scale of development to risk placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure, eroding the countryside setting, contributing to settlement coalescence, and undermining local character. A more balanced approach is therefore urged.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Comment
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45023 – Station Hill, Main Road, Unstone
Representation ID: 14971
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The respondent raises concerns that Site 45023 at Station Hill, Unstone is significantly constrained in terms of its layout, location and suitability for development. The site’s narrow, irregular and tapering form is considered likely to limit its capacity, with potential for cramped or overdevelopment if 10 dwellings were accommodated.
Its immediate proximity to the railway line is identified as a key constraint, giving rise to potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity. The elevated position of the site is also noted, with development likely to be visually prominent within the wider landscape, raising concerns regarding landscape impact and settlement integration.
The respondent further highlights that the site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present issues relating to ground stability, remediation and viability. In addition, the site is recognised as contributing to Green Belt purposes, particularly in preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
Concerns are also raised regarding the suitability and safety of potential access arrangements.
Taken together, the respondent considers that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before development could be regarded as appropriate.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School, Main Road, Unstone
Representation ID: 14972
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45161 – Land to Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
Representation ID: 14973
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
Representation ID: 14974
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The respondent strongly objects to Site 45168 (Land West of Unstone Green), considering the proposed development of up to 212 dwellings to be wholly disproportionate to the size and role of Unstone. It is noted that development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent an inappropriate level of growth.
The respondent raises concerns regarding the site’s location within the Green Belt, highlighting its contribution to openness and the rural setting, and the potential for significant encroachment into the countryside. The site’s visibility from surrounding viewpoints, including parts of Dronfield, is also identified as resulting in a harmful landscape impact.
Further concerns are raised regarding access via Alice Way, which is considered unsuitable for accommodating traffic at this scale, creating highway safety and capacity issues. Local evidence of surface water flooding and existing pressure on drainage infrastructure are also noted, alongside the potential for increased flood risk.
The respondent highlights impacts on biodiversity, including habitat loss affecting species and birds of prey, as well as archaeological considerations and coal mining constraints.
Overall, the respondent considers the site to represent a major and unsustainable expansion and concludes it is wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield
Representation ID: 14976
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
Object
NEDDC Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation on the Strategic Approach to the Location of Development and Refined Sites (March 2026)
45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
Representation ID: 14977
Received: 30/04/2026
Respondent: Unstone Parish Council
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Unstone Parish Council Response
North East Derbyshire Local Plan – Refined Sites Consultation
Unstone Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the current consultation on the emerging Local Plan, including the proposed spatial strategy and refined schedule of sites.
The Parish Council has carefully reviewed the consultation material alongside the views expressed by residents and local stakeholders. This response reflects a collective position based on local knowledge of the village, its infrastructure, and its relationship with neighbouring settlements, particularly Dronfield.
1. Overall Scale of Development and Housing Requirement
Whilst recognising the challenging national policy context, the Parish Council remains concerned that the scale of development being proposed across the District is excessive and not aligned with local circumstances.
The proposed level of approximately 600 dwellings per annum represents a very substantial increase compared to historic delivery rates, which have been significantly lower and more consistent with around 330 dwellings per year in recent years.
There is also a clear mismatch between the scale of housing being proposed and both past and projected population growth:
• The 2021 Census indicates that population growth in the District was only around 3% between 2011 and 2021
• The latest ONS projections suggest population growth of approximately 15% over the plan period (2024–2044)
• By contrast, the proposed housing requirement would equate to population growth in the region of 25% over the same period
This disparity raises serious concerns about whether the level of housing being planned for is proportionate to the actual needs of the District.
In addition:
• Infrastructure limitations remain a significant constraint, including:
o schools operating at or near capacity
o limited access to GP and dental services
o constrained road networks
o ongoing issues with drainage and sewage infrastructure
• There is a risk of unnecessary Green Belt release, driven not by need but by the requirement to meet an inflated housing target
• There are also deliverability concerns, as increasing housing targets does not necessarily increase build-out rates. The District has historically delivered around 330 dwellings per annum, and there is little evidence to suggest that the market could sustainably deliver at almost double this rate
The Parish Council therefore considers that a lower housing requirement, closer to historic delivery levels of around 330 dwellings per annum, would be more realistic, more aligned with projected population growth, and more consistent with the principles of sustainable development.
2. Impact on Unstone and Suitability for Development
Unstone is identified within the consultation as a smaller village. The Parish Council supports this classification but is concerned that the implications of this designation are not being fully reflected in the proposed site allocations.
Unstone is not a sustainable location for significant growth. The village has:
• No local services, including:
o no shop
o no GP surgery
o no dentist
o no post office
• Limited public transport, with infrequent bus services
• Small schools with limited capacity
• A linear and dispersed layout, meaning:
o residents are not within easy walking distance of facilities
o accessibility is particularly challenging for those with limited mobility
• A high reliance on private car use
Given these factors, the Parish Council strongly believes that any development in Unstone should be limited, proportionate, and small-scale, rather than the significant allocations currently being proposed.
3. Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
The Parish Council has considered the District Council’s proposed approach to directing development across the District. Whilst we recognise that this approach has evolved following the previous consultation, we remain concerned that it does not fully reflect the practical realities of infrastructure capacity, accessibility and sustainability at a local level.
In particular, the strategy appears to rely heavily on directing development towards the main towns, including Dronfield, with some distribution to larger villages and smaller settlements. However, this approach risks:
• overestimating the ability of towns such as Dronfield to accommodate further growth sustainably
• underestimating the constraints associated with edge-of-settlement development
• placing inappropriate pressure on smaller villages such as Unstone
In the case of Dronfield, although it is identified as a primary location for growth, the Parish Council considers that the town is already experiencing the cumulative effects of previous expansion. The outer edges of Dronfield are now some distance from key services and facilities, and many of the proposed sites are not well located in relation to the town centre, schools or the railway station. As a result, future residents are likely to be heavily reliant on private car use.
Furthermore, the strategy does not appear to give sufficient weight to:
• topographical constraints
• heritage and conservation designations
• Green Belt boundaries and their strategic function
• existing infrastructure pressures
In relation to Unstone, the Parish Council considers that the proposed approach does not adequately recognise the limitations of the village. Whilst classified as a smaller settlement, the inclusion of multiple sites suggests a level of growth that is inconsistent with its role and capacity.
The Parish Council therefore considers that the proposed approach should be refined to ensure that development is directed towards locations that are genuinely sustainable in practice, not simply in theory.
4. Settlement Hierarchy
The Parish Council acknowledges the use of a settlement hierarchy to guide the distribution of development. However, we have concerns that the current methodology is too simplistic and does not fully reflect the quality, accessibility or capacity of services within individual settlements.
A key issue is that the hierarchy appears to be based largely on the presence of services, rather than:
• how accessible those services are in reality
• whether they have the capacity to accommodate additional demand
• whether residents can reasonably access them without reliance on private vehicles
For example:
• Dronfield is identified as a highly sustainable settlement due to its range of services and transport links. However, in practice:
o many residential areas are not within easy walking distance of these services
o the town’s topography significantly limits accessibility
o the railway station, while centrally located on a map, is not easily accessible to large parts of the population
o infrastructure such as schools, healthcare and roads are already under pressure
• Unstone, although recognised as a smaller village, still appears to be expected to accommodate a level of growth which is disproportionate to its role. The village:
o lacks basic services
o has limited public transport
o is dispersed in form
o is heavily car-dependent
The Parish Council therefore considers that the settlement hierarchy should be applied more flexibly and should incorporate a stronger qualitative assessment of:
• infrastructure capacity
• accessibility in practice
• settlement form and layout
• environmental and policy constraints
Without this, there is a risk that development is directed to locations which are not genuinely sustainable.
5. Cumulative Impact of Proposed Development in Unstone
The Parish Council is particularly concerned about the combined impact of the four sites proposed within Unstone.
Taken together, these sites would deliver approximately 288 dwellings, which represents an increase of over 50% compared to the existing housing stock in Unstone and Unstone Green.
This scale of growth would:
• fundamentally alter the character of the village
• place unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and car dependency
• erode the rural setting and identity of the area
The cumulative effect of these sites is therefore considered to be wholly disproportionate and unsustainable.
6. Green Belt and Settlement Separation
The Parish Council places significant weight on the importance of the Green Belt surrounding Unstone and Dronfield.
This area of Green Belt plays a critical role in:
• maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and Sheffield
• preventing incremental urban sprawl
• preserving the rural character and landscape setting of the village
• safeguarding the identity of Unstone as a distinct community
There is particular concern that:
• multiple site allocations, both within Unstone and on the edges of Dronfield, will lead to a gradual erosion of Green Belt boundaries
• the cumulative impact could result in the coalescence of settlements along the Sheffield–Dronfield–Chesterfield corridor
The Parish Council strongly opposes any development which would weaken these strategic functions of the Green Belt.
7. Sites Not Taken Forward
The Parish Council welcomes the decision not to take forward a number of previously promoted sites within Unstone Parish and the surrounding area.
In particular, this includes sites within:
• Unstone (at St John’s Road and Spring Bank)
• Apperknowle
• The Handleys (Nether, Middle and West Handley)
together with a number of wider sites in and around Dronfield.
These sites generated significant concern during earlier consultation stages, particularly in relation to:
• Green Belt impact and the risk of settlement coalescence
• lack of local infrastructure and services
• unsustainable locations with high reliance on car travel
• highway safety and access constraints
• landscape, ecological and heritage sensitivities
The Parish Council considers that the exclusion of these sites reflects a sound and evidence-based approach, taking into account both technical constraints and strong community feedback.
However, it is important that this position is maintained. The Parish Council would strongly urge the District Council to ensure that these sites are not reconsidered at later stages of the plan-making process, unless there is clear and compelling new evidence to justify doing so.
8. Unstone Site-Specific Comments
Site 45023 – Land at Station Hill, Unstone
In relation to this site, the Parish Council would make the following observations:
• Site constraints and layout:
The site is narrow, irregular in shape and tapers significantly, which raises concerns as to whether the suggested capacity of 10 dwellings could be accommodated without resulting in a cramped or overdeveloped form of development that would be out of keeping with the surrounding area.
• Proximity to railway:
The site lies immediately adjacent to the railway line, with parts potentially within a relatively close buffer. This introduces potential issues relating to noise, vibration, safety and residential amenity, which would need to be carefully assessed.
• Topography and visual prominence:
The site is elevated above the main road and wider village, meaning that any development would be highly visible from surrounding areas. This raises concerns about landscape impact and the integration of development into the existing settlement pattern.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present constraints relating to ground stability, remediation requirements and overall viability.
• Green Belt function:
Previous Green Belt assessments have identified this land as contributing towards preventing urban sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements, which is an important consideration in this location.
• Access considerations:
Concerns have been raised locally regarding the suitability, safety and visibility of any proposed access arrangements onto the existing highway network.
Taken together, these factors indicate that the site is constrained and would require careful and detailed assessment before any development could be considered appropriate.
Site 45385 – Land to the East of Unstone Junior School
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Loss of school playing field:
The site is currently used as a playing field associated with Unstone Junior School and may be formally protected. Development would therefore require approval from Sport England and the Secretary of State, which represents a significant policy constraint and is unlikely to be supported.
• Safeguarded education land:
The site is identified within the adopted Local Plan as safeguarded land for education use. Its allocation for housing would therefore conflict with existing policy and long-term educational needs.
• Highway safety concerns:
The area around the school already experiences congestion, parking pressure and safety concerns, particularly at peak drop-off and pick-up times. Additional development would exacerbate these issues and could pose risks to pupils and other road users.
• Green Belt impact:
The site has previously been identified as performing strongly against Green Belt purposes, including preventing sprawl and maintaining separation between settlements.
• Flood risk and drainage:
A proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, and there are wider concerns regarding drainage and surface water management.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may affect its suitability and deliverability.
Overall, the site is subject to multiple and significant constraints and is considered unsuitable for development.
Site 45161 – Land at Rear of the Horse and Jockey, Unstone Green
The Parish Council objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Flood risk:
A substantial proportion of the site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3, with additional areas affected by surface water flooding. This raises serious concerns regarding the appropriateness of residential development and the ability to manage flood risk effectively without displacing it elsewhere.
• Ecological sensitivity:
The site includes areas of priority habitat and lies adjacent to a Local Wildlife Site. Residents have identified a wide range of wildlife using the site, including protected and notable species. Development would likely result in significant biodiversity loss.
• River corridor and public amenity:
The River Drone runs through the site, accompanied by a well-used public footpath. This area is valued for recreation and contributes to the character of the village. Development would harm both its environmental and amenity value.
• Community impact:
The site includes the Horse and Jockey public house, which is one of the few remaining community facilities in the village. Its loss or compromise would have a negative impact on community cohesion and local identity.
• Green Belt function:
The site contributes to the openness of the Green Belt and plays a role in preventing coalescence between settlements.
• Coal mining constraints:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, which may present further development challenges.
Given the combination of flood risk, ecological value and community considerations, this site is not considered suitable for development.
Site 45168 – Land West of Unstone Green
The Parish Council strongly objects to this site for the following reasons:
• Scale and proportionality:
The proposed capacity of up to 212 dwellings is wholly disproportionate to the size of Unstone and Unstone Green. Development at this scale would fundamentally alter the character of the village and represent a level of growth that is inappropriate for a settlement of this type.
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes significantly to openness and the rural setting of the village. Development would represent a substantial encroachment into the countryside.
• Landscape impact:
The site is visible from a number of surrounding viewpoints, including from parts of Dronfield. Development would therefore have a pronounced and harmful visual impact on the wider landscape.
• Highway access constraints:
The likely access via Alice Way, a relatively small residential cul-de-sac, is not suitable for accommodating traffic associated with a development of this scale. This raises serious concerns regarding highway safety and capacity.
• Drainage and flooding:
There is clear local evidence of surface water flooding in the area, including along Cheetham Avenue. Existing drainage infrastructure is already under pressure, and additional development could exacerbate these issues.
• Biodiversity impact:
The site supports a range of wildlife, including deer, *redacted* and birds of prey. Development would result in habitat loss and fragmentation.
• Archaeological and heritage considerations:
There are identified archaeological constraints which would need to be fully assessed.
• Coal mining legacy:
The site lies within a Coal Authority high-risk area, raising further concerns about ground conditions and viability.
This site represents a major and unsustainable expansion of the village and is considered wholly unsuitable for allocation.
Overall Position on Unstone Sites
Taken individually, each of the above sites raises significant concerns. When considered collectively, they represent a level and pattern of development which is entirely inappropriate for a small rural village with limited infrastructure.
The Parish Council considers that the combined impact of these sites would:
• place unsustainable pressure on local infrastructure
• significantly increase traffic and reliance on private vehicles
• erode the Green Belt and countryside setting
• harm biodiversity and landscape character
• undermine the identity of Unstone as a distinct rural community
For these reasons, the Parish Council strongly urges the District Council to reconsider the inclusion of these sites and to ensure that development within Unstone remains limited, proportionate and genuinely sustainable.
9. Dronfield Site-Specific Comments
Site 45438 – Land off Callywhite Lane, Dronfield (Employment Allocation)
The Parish Council strongly objects to the proposed allocation of this site for employment use for the following reasons:
• Access constraints and highway capacity:
Access to the site is severely constrained, particularly via the narrow bridge on Chesterfield Road which forms a key route into Dronfield. This route is not suitable for significant increases in traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles associated with employment uses.
• Existing congestion issues:
The wider Callywhite Lane industrial area already experiences congestion and limited access, with few alternative routes available. Additional development would intensify these existing problems and could lead to wider impacts on the local highway network.
• Suitability for employment use:
There is concern that the site may attract uses such as warehousing or storage, which generate high levels of traffic without necessarily delivering meaningful or high-quality local employment opportunities.
• Flood risk and environmental constraints:
The River Drone runs through or adjacent to the site, raising concerns about flood risk, surface water management and the impact on downstream areas.
• Ground conditions and contamination:
The site’s historic use, including as a former tip, may result in contamination and ground stability issues which could significantly constrain development.
• Emergency access and resilience:
Limited access points raise concerns regarding emergency vehicle access and the resilience of the site in the event of incidents or congestion.
Overall, the Parish Council considers that this site is not well suited to the proposed employment allocation and raises significant concerns in terms of access, environmental constraints and deliverability.
Site 45251 – Land off Highgate Lane, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to the inclusion of this site for the following reasons:
• Green Belt impact:
The site lies within the Green Belt and contributes to the open countryside separating Dronfield from surrounding settlements, including Unstone. Development would represent an encroachment into this area and weaken its role in maintaining settlement separation.
• Cumulative coalescence risk:
When considered alongside other sites in the southern and eastern parts of Dronfield, development here would contribute to the gradual erosion of the gap between Dronfield and Unstone, increasing the risk of coalescence.
• Landscape and visual impact:
The site forms part of the rural fringe of Dronfield and contributes to the transition between the built-up area and open countryside. Development would have a noticeable and harmful impact on this setting.
• Access and highway suitability:
Highgate Lane is rural in character and not well suited to accommodating significant additional traffic. Increased vehicle movements, including construction traffic, would raise safety and capacity concerns.
• Sustainability concerns:
The site is not well located in relation to key services, schools and public transport. Future residents would be heavily reliant on private vehicles.
• Drainage and infrastructure:
There are concerns regarding drainage capacity and the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate further development.
For these reasons, the Parish Council considers that this site is not a suitable or sustainable location for development.
Site 45054 – Land North of Burns Drive and East of Southfield Mount, Dronfield
The Parish Council strongly objects to any expansion of this site beyond its current allocation for the following reasons:
• Established site constraints:
Previous planning decisions and appeal findings have already identified significant constraints affecting this site, including topography, landscape impact and its relationship with the surrounding countryside.
• Topography and development form:
The steep gradients across the site present challenges for access, layout and design. There is a risk that development would be dominated by engineering solutions rather than achieving high-quality placemaking.
• Settlement edge impact:
The site occupies a sensitive position at the edge of Dronfield, forming part of the transition between the town and open countryside. Further development would create a more abrupt and urbanised boundary.
• Green Belt considerations:
The remaining undeveloped land continues to contribute to openness and should be carefully considered in terms of its long-term role. There is a strong argument for retaining this land as part of the Green Belt.
• Proximity to Wastewater Treatment Works:
The nearby treatment works has been associated with odour issues, which may affect residential amenity.
• Infrastructure pressure:
Additional development would place further strain on schools, healthcare provision, highways and utilities, which are already under pressure.
The Parish Council therefore considers that any further extension of this site would be inappropriate and should not be supported.
Overall Impact of Development in Dronfield
The Parish Council has carefully considered the scale and distribution of development proposed in neighbouring Dronfield, alongside the specific site allocations referenced above which are closest to and will have most impact on Unstone Parish.
Whilst it is recognised that Dronfield, as one of the District’s main towns, will be expected to accommodate a proportion of future growth, the current proposals suggest development in the region of approximately 860 dwellings. The Parish Council considers that this represents a very substantial level of expansion, particularly when viewed alongside the constraints affecting the town and the cumulative impact on surrounding communities.
A key concern is the extent to which development is being directed towards Green Belt land on the edges of Dronfield. Whilst individual sites may be assessed on their own merits, the combined effect of multiple allocations risks a gradual and incremental erosion of the Green Belt. This is of particular concern given the important role that this land plays in maintaining the separation between Dronfield, Unstone and the wider Sheffield urban area.
There is also concern regarding the cumulative impact of development across multiple sites, particularly in terms of:
• increased pressure on shared infrastructure, including roads, schools, healthcare provision and utilities
• additional traffic movements between Dronfield and surrounding villages, including Unstone
• the potential for increased congestion on key routes linking settlements
• the risk of gradually weakening the distinct identity of neighbouring communities
• there is insufficient consideration of how development in Dronfield will impact neighbouring villages such as Unstone, particularly in terms of traffic, infrastructure and settlement separation
The Parish Council is also concerned that the proposed level of development does not fully reflect the physical and environmental constraints of Dronfield, including its topography, existing infrastructure pressures and the sensitivity of its surrounding landscape.
Taken together, the Parish Council considers that the current proposals risk:
• placing unsustainable pressure on infrastructure
• eroding the Green Belt and countryside setting
• contributing to the gradual coalescence of settlements
• and undermining the character and identity of both Dronfield and neighbouring rural villages
The Parish Council therefore urges the District Council to:
• reconsider the overall scale of development proposed in Dronfield and Unstone.
• ensure that Green Belt boundaries are properly protected and not incrementally eroded
• give greater weight to the cumulative impacts of development across the area
• and adopt a more balanced approach which reflects the capacity and constraints of both Dronfield and surrounding communities such as Unstone
10. Conclusion
Unstone Parish Council considers that the current proposals represent an unsustainable level of development for both the village and the wider area.
In summary, the Parish Council:
• supports a reduced housing requirement aligned with local evidence
• opposes disproportionate development in small villages such as Unstone
• strongly supports the protection of the Green Belt and settlement separation
• welcomes the removal of unsuitable sites and urges they remain excluded
• raises serious concerns regarding the cumulative impact of development both within Unstone and in neighbouring Dronfield
The Parish Council urges the District Council to adopt a more balanced and locally responsive approach which prioritises sustainability, infrastructure capacity, and the protection of rural character and green belt.
