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

RE: NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE LOCAL PLAN - ISSUES AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION ON THE STRATEGIC APPROACH TO THE LOCATION OF DEVELOPMENT AND REFINED SITES (MARCH 2026)

Thank you for consulting us on the emerging Local Plan matters. The comments of Chesterfield Borough Council are set out below. At this stage these are provided as officer comments, recognising the current stage of plan preparation, and are without prejudice to any representations that may be made in respect of subsequent stages of Plan preparation.
Development Needs - Context
Chesterfield Borough Council welcomes the intention to meet the identified housing need arising from the standard method. We understand that there is further work to do in respect of this however, including completing the joint review of the Green Belt that has been commissioned.
Proposed Approach to the Location of Development
We note the proposed approach to location, focussing on the edge of Chesterfield. We note that ‘Edges of Chesterfield’ is identified as a ‘Priority 1 Location’ based on relative sustainability of settlements. We agree that it is appropriate to take a broad approach of establishing a hierarchy but consider that this would benefit from further explanation and justification (for example Chesterfield and Sheffield are in the same category despite being significantly different in size and range of services). We would also wish to see further clarification on whether ‘Edge of Chesterfield’ refers to the edge of administrative boundary Chesterfield Borough, or Chesterfield Town as an urban area – we would note that the borough as a whole includes a variety of locations including more rural settlements to the north and east which may need to be treated differently in terms of site assessment.
It is noted that the settlement role and function study and the related topic paper do not currently look at the relative 'sustainability' of edge of Chesterfield locations, which may vary in terms of range of facilities and services within walking and cycling distance (for example); as noted in the NPPF (paragraph 110), opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in plan making.
We anticipate this will need to be a focus of future cooperation on addressing housing needs in the district and borough. We would also welcome the opportunity to explore if there are any specific spatial factors that arise, such as spatial differences in requirements for affordable housing or infrastructure requirements – and would anticipate providing specific comments on sites adjacent to or close to the borough boundary at the appropriate stage of plan making.
We will be interested to understand how ‘desirable policy restrictions’ such as Local Settlement Gaps will be used in terms of reducing available land to meet housing needs. As a neighbouring LPA our communities will need to understand why developing around Chesterfield may be preferable to developing between settlements within NED.
We would be interested to understand the evidence behind the statement that, in relation to the smaller settlements, ‘there are many areas that cannot be the focus for significant development because the services and facilities do not exist to support them and trying to bring that infrastructure forward through development would not be viable. Will the question of viability be tested through the Whole Plan Viability Appraisal process?
Refined Schedule of Sites
We note that capacities are based on prevailing densities. For sites around Chesterfield a 20% uplift has been added. We are supportive of increasing densities of development and making the most efficient use of land in sustainable locations but were unable to find a clear figure for prevailing density for sites in the HLAA or the assumptions on developable area of a site. It would be helpful if the prevailing density and uplifted density were made clear in the site summaries in the main consultation document. This would support comparison with emerging approaches to density in the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan and achieving consistency in the approach to urban form within the wider urban area of Chesterfield.
For example: Site ID 45065 – Land around Furnace Hillock Way: The ‘uplifted’ capacity figure of 799 dwellings divided by the site area 40.33 gives a density of 19.8 which appears low. We understand that this is likely accounted for by assumptions of net developable area or exclusions for specific constraints, but it would help to see these clearly set out.
With regard to the assessment of potential sites on or close to the boundary with Chesterfield Borough we would expect that the next stages of sites assessment will take into account any potential constraints or impacts within the borough boundary, such as the setting of heritage assets or capacity of social infrastructure (on the understanding that a similar approach would need to be taken by us in preparing the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan).

Finally, I would note the Borough’s continuing willingness to engage in joint working on evidence that will support the emerging Plans for both boroughs, and to identify potential cross boundary implications of development that may require preparation of a Statement (or Statements) of Common Ground.