Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Search Representations

Results for John Church Planning Consultancy Limited search

New search New search

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Pilsley Policies Map

Representation ID: 6178

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation Summary:

Questions over why the 'Land at Hallgate Lane, Pilsley' (Outline Permission) was not included in the Pilsley Proposals Map and was instead designated as being a settlement gap. Statement that this is at odds with the Council's clearly expressed decision to grant planning permission.

Full text:

LAND AT HALLGATE LANE, PILSLEY.

On 28 June 2016, the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission in respect of an outline application submitted under code: NED/15/00153/OL that had proposed residential development at land south of the sports ground at the junction between Rupert Street and Hallgate Lane, Pilsley subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. That situation is imminent.

The emerging Local Plan Proposals Map in respect of Pilsley shows the application site as part of a "Settlement Gap". This is at odds with the Council's clearly expressed decision to grant planning permission.

One of the purposes of a successful Local Plan is to provide a considerable degree of certainty to local residents and other interested parties.

Policy SS11 relates specifically to "Local Settlement Gaps" but neither the policy nor its reasoned justification in paragraphs 4.70 - 4.75 explain, other than a brief acknowledgement in paragraph 4.75, that there are instances where there is an extant planning permission, or one soon to be issued, as in the case of the objection site. The draft Local Plan therefore lacks clarity, particularly when it must be accepted that, in many instances, pre-commencement requirements on planning permissions and enabling works cannot all be finalised within a three years' period. The allocation on this site should be reviewed against that background and the contents of paragraph 4.75 and policy SS11 fall well short of what is required in that respect.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS11: Local Settlement Gaps

Representation ID: 6179

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation Summary:

Statement that the Policy SS11 relates specifically to "Local Settlement Gaps" but neither the policy nor its reasoned justification in paragraphs 4.70 - 4.75 explain, other than a brief acknowledgement in paragraph 4.75, that there are instances where there is an extant planning permission, or one soon to be issued, as in the case of the objection site. Statement that due to this the Local Plan therefore lacks clarity.

Full text:

LAND AT HALLGATE LANE, PILSLEY.

On 28 June 2016, the Council's Planning Committee resolved to grant planning permission in respect of an outline application submitted under code: NED/15/00153/OL that had proposed residential development at land south of the sports ground at the junction between Rupert Street and Hallgate Lane, Pilsley subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement under the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. That situation is imminent.

The emerging Local Plan Proposals Map in respect of Pilsley shows the application site as part of a "Settlement Gap". This is at odds with the Council's clearly expressed decision to grant planning permission.

One of the purposes of a successful Local Plan is to provide a considerable degree of certainty to local residents and other interested parties.

Policy SS11 relates specifically to "Local Settlement Gaps" but neither the policy nor its reasoned justification in paragraphs 4.70 - 4.75 explain, other than a brief acknowledgement in paragraph 4.75, that there are instances where there is an extant planning permission, or one soon to be issued, as in the case of the objection site. The draft Local Plan therefore lacks clarity, particularly when it must be accepted that, in many instances, pre-commencement requirements on planning permissions and enabling works cannot all be finalised within a three years' period. The allocation on this site should be reviewed against that background and the contents of paragraph 4.75 and policy SS11 fall well short of what is required in that respect.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS9: North East Derbyshire Green Belt

Representation ID: 6183

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation Summary:

Questions raised over why the Council's green belt review is related mainly to around the fringe of Sheffield. Statement that opportunity for the minor reviews of the boundary was not taken.

Two sites identified: Land at Belmont Cottage, Holymoor Road, Chesterfield and; Land at Hillside, Barrack Road, Apperknowle.

Requests that these sites are released from the green belt and that the Settlement Development Limits be altered accordingly.

See submission or more.

Full text:

LAND AT BELMONT COTTAGE, HOLYMOOR ROAD, CHESTERFIELD AND AT HILLSIDE, BARRACK ROAD, APPERKNOWLE. (MY FILES N49 & H219)

Whilst the Council has undertaken a review of the North East Derbyshire Green Belt, this relates predominantly to major potential development sites around the fringe of the City of Sheffield. The opportunity has not been taken to carry out justified minor reviews of the boundary either to meet previous inconsistencies or to provide for a better definition of the boundary on a defensible basis.

These representations relate to two such examples:

1. Land at Belmont Cottage, Holymoor Road, Chesterfield and
2. Land at Hillside, Barrack Road, Apperknowle.

In the first case, the existing Green Belt boundary is drawn through a residential property. It should more properly follow the boundary of Belmont Cottage along the eastern side of Holymoor Road and then turn eastwards following the southern boundary of Chatsworth Road (A619) before returning along the ownership's eastern boundary to meet up with the existing northern boundary of the Settlement Development Limits for Holymoorside that are excluded from the Green Belt. The Settlement Development Limits should be extended accordingly so that, to that extent, these representations also constitute representation with regard to the delineation of Settlement Development Limits.

The second case relates to land within the curtilage of Hillside, Barrack Road, Apperknowle. The boundary of the Green Belt along the northern side of Town End provides for a "finger" of Green Belt extending into the built framework of the settlement to the south, south-west of the property that was once the Apperknowle Primary School. There is no justification on the ground for this boundary which should more logically follow the Green Belt boundary that runs to the north north-west of the former Apperknowle Primary School and Cedar Croft to meet with the existing boundary to the north of Town End. To the extent that the current Settlement Development Limits boundary is co-terminus with that of the Green Belt, these representations also represent a representation in respect of Settlement Development Limits.

It has always been held that, in order for Green Belt boundaries to provide permanence, which is a key feature of Green Belt designation, boundaries follow recognisable geographical/physical features on the ground. In both the above cases, the suggested slightly revised Green Belt boundary would follow such features. The objection is submitted on that basis and copies of plans showing the suggested revised boundaries will be forwarded under separate cover by E-Mail.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Distribution of Growth & the Settlement Hierarchy

Representation ID: 6189

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation Summary:

No objection is raised in principle to the identification of Brackenfield under level 4 in the Settlement Hierarchy (Table 4.1), policy SS13 is considered to be unnecessarily restrictive

Statement that the words "and rounding-off" should be inserted between the words "infill" and "development".

It is requested that the policy be modified, slightly, in accordance with these representations.

Full text:

BRACKENFIELD.

The Ogston Estate has previously submitted representations with regard to future development at Brackenfield, predominantly to meet perceived local needs.

Whilst no objection is raised in principle to the identification of Brackenfield under level 4 in the Settlement Hierarchy (Table 4.1), policy SS13 is considered to be unnecessarily restrictive.

It is considered that the words "and rounding-off" should be inserted between the words "infill" and "development".

This would facilitate, in particular, the provision of modestly-proportioned new housing, commensurate with the scale of development at Brackenfield that would also assist in meeting identified need for affordable housing for local persons. It is requested that the policy be modified, slightly, in accordance with these representations.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Shirland Policies Map

Representation ID: 6190

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation Summary:

Concern over lack of Settlement Framework boundaries shown.

Is noted that allocations are provided at three locations identified as "aj, ak and al". These are each greenfield sites. Land to the north of the site identified as "aj" is the subject of these representations and it is shown to be protected as a Settlement Gap on the Proposals Map.





Full text:

LAND AT HALLFIELDGATE, SHIRLAND.

It is understood that the Council intends to delineate Settlement Framework boundaries at a later stage. This is regretted because it fails to provide an appropriate degree of certainty. This should be a central component of all successful Local Plans.

Insofar as the parish of Shirland & Higham is concerned, it is noted that allocations are provided at three locations identified as "aj, ak and al". These are each greenfield sites. Land to the north of the site identified as "aj" is the subject of these representations and it is shown to be protected as a Settlement Gap on the Proposals Map.

The owner of the relevant site, Mr Gladwyn Turbutt, has prepared the following resume of the historic background of this community which should be regarded for planning purposes as a single entity. It reads as follows:

"Shirland and Higham have been linked and administered as a single entity for several hundred years. They have shared Manorial and local Government structures and there has been no distinction between the inhabitants of either village who have shared civic and ecclesiastical responsibilities equally. The mediaeval Manor Court, originally held at Manor Farm, Shirland, moved to the Black Bull Inn at Higham in the 18th Century. Church Wardens (dating back to at least the 14th Century) were chosen from each village and were responsible not only for the upkeep of the Church but for a wide range of civic duties. Overseers of the poor (from 1601), Highway Surveyors and Parish Constables were likewise chosen from each community.

Because they continue to farm the land in question - and a family of the present owners have owned this land since 1724 - only two building plots have been sold off on which the houses known as "Holmforth" and "Shildon House" were subsequently built. However, having now disposed of their farms in the village, and their present tenant having no connection with the village, the owners feel that the land could now be put to better use for the community by providing an ideal, level and accessible (on to Belper Road) site alongside the public sewer (which runs below the north side of the field) to meet local housing needs.

The "character and distinctiveness" of the two settlements have been merged for generations and it seems, in the owner's opinion, perverse to try to preserve a "gap" between parts of what has been a single community for hundreds of years. Matters relating to this background can be researched in the book "A History of Shirland & Higham" by Gladwyn Turbutt (Higham Press, 1978)".

Against the above background, it is considered that it would be more logical to consider future housing against proposals that could ensure not only a considerable degree of affordable housing to meet the needs of this and adjoining Parishes but to lay out the land in a manner that would provide effective public open space and amenity areas to serve not only the needs of the existing community but those of a new development.

Allocating greenfield sites alongside Park Lane (ak and al) merely provides housing development in an area that, whilst adjacent to the new school, has always been seen as an "outlier" of the physical framework of the village. The objection site is at least equally accessible to all village amenities and public transport routes.

Whilst the identification of Shirland as a "Level 2 Settlement" is supported, and its intended housing provision will assist in meeting the requirement for a minimum 6600 new dwellings in the District, none of the new sites are included within the Settlement Development Limits of the adopted North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2005). It is considered that a more comprehensive approach to residential and associated developments in the Parish is required.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Shirland

Representation ID: 6192

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation Summary:

Resume of the historic background of 'LAND AT HALLFIELDGATE, SHIRLAND' provided in full submission.

Statement that future housing should be considered against amount of affordable housing and public space that could be provided that meets the needs of both the existing community and those of a new development.

Statement that allocating greenfield sites alongside Park Lane merely provides housing development in an area that, whilst adjacent to the new school, has always been seen as an "outlier" of the physical framework of the village. The objection site is at least equally accessible to all village amenities and public transport routes.

Full text:

LAND AT HALLFIELDGATE, SHIRLAND.

It is understood that the Council intends to delineate Settlement Framework boundaries at a later stage. This is regretted because it fails to provide an appropriate degree of certainty. This should be a central component of all successful Local Plans.

Insofar as the parish of Shirland & Higham is concerned, it is noted that allocations are provided at three locations identified as "aj, ak and al". These are each greenfield sites. Land to the north of the site identified as "aj" is the subject of these representations and it is shown to be protected as a Settlement Gap on the Proposals Map.

The owner of the relevant site, Mr Gladwyn Turbutt, has prepared the following resume of the historic background of this community which should be regarded for planning purposes as a single entity. It reads as follows:

"Shirland and Higham have been linked and administered as a single entity for several hundred years. They have shared Manorial and local Government structures and there has been no distinction between the inhabitants of either village who have shared civic and ecclesiastical responsibilities equally. The mediaeval Manor Court, originally held at Manor Farm, Shirland, moved to the Black Bull Inn at Higham in the 18th Century. Church Wardens (dating back to at least the 14th Century) were chosen from each village and were responsible not only for the upkeep of the Church but for a wide range of civic duties. Overseers of the poor (from 1601), Highway Surveyors and Parish Constables were likewise chosen from each community.

Because they continue to farm the land in question - and a family of the present owners have owned this land since 1724 - only two building plots have been sold off on which the houses known as "Holmforth" and "Shildon House" were subsequently built. However, having now disposed of their farms in the village, and their present tenant having no connection with the village, the owners feel that the land could now be put to better use for the community by providing an ideal, level and accessible (on to Belper Road) site alongside the public sewer (which runs below the north side of the field) to meet local housing needs.

The "character and distinctiveness" of the two settlements have been merged for generations and it seems, in the owner's opinion, perverse to try to preserve a "gap" between parts of what has been a single community for hundreds of years. Matters relating to this background can be researched in the book "A History of Shirland & Higham" by Gladwyn Turbutt (Higham Press, 1978)".

Against the above background, it is considered that it would be more logical to consider future housing against proposals that could ensure not only a considerable degree of affordable housing to meet the needs of this and adjoining Parishes but to lay out the land in a manner that would provide effective public open space and amenity areas to serve not only the needs of the existing community but those of a new development.

Allocating greenfield sites alongside Park Lane (ak and al) merely provides housing development in an area that, whilst adjacent to the new school, has always been seen as an "outlier" of the physical framework of the village. The objection site is at least equally accessible to all village amenities and public transport routes.

Whilst the identification of Shirland as a "Level 2 Settlement" is supported, and its intended housing provision will assist in meeting the requirement for a minimum 6600 new dwellings in the District, none of the new sites are included within the Settlement Development Limits of the adopted North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2005). It is considered that a more comprehensive approach to residential and associated developments in the Parish is required.

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Housing Provision by Settlement

Representation ID: 6193

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: John Church Planning Consultancy Limited

Representation Summary:

Statement that whilst the identification of Shirland as a "Level 2 Settlement" is supported, and its intended housing provision will assist in meeting the requirement for a minimum 6600 new dwellings in the District, none of the new sites are included within the Settlement Development Limits of the adopted North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2005). It is considered that a more comprehensive approach to residential and associated developments in the Parish is required.

Full text:

LAND AT HALLFIELDGATE, SHIRLAND.

It is understood that the Council intends to delineate Settlement Framework boundaries at a later stage. This is regretted because it fails to provide an appropriate degree of certainty. This should be a central component of all successful Local Plans.

Insofar as the parish of Shirland & Higham is concerned, it is noted that allocations are provided at three locations identified as "aj, ak and al". These are each greenfield sites. Land to the north of the site identified as "aj" is the subject of these representations and it is shown to be protected as a Settlement Gap on the Proposals Map.

The owner of the relevant site, Mr Gladwyn Turbutt, has prepared the following resume of the historic background of this community which should be regarded for planning purposes as a single entity. It reads as follows:

"Shirland and Higham have been linked and administered as a single entity for several hundred years. They have shared Manorial and local Government structures and there has been no distinction between the inhabitants of either village who have shared civic and ecclesiastical responsibilities equally. The mediaeval Manor Court, originally held at Manor Farm, Shirland, moved to the Black Bull Inn at Higham in the 18th Century. Church Wardens (dating back to at least the 14th Century) were chosen from each village and were responsible not only for the upkeep of the Church but for a wide range of civic duties. Overseers of the poor (from 1601), Highway Surveyors and Parish Constables were likewise chosen from each community.

Because they continue to farm the land in question - and a family of the present owners have owned this land since 1724 - only two building plots have been sold off on which the houses known as "Holmforth" and "Shildon House" were subsequently built. However, having now disposed of their farms in the village, and their present tenant having no connection with the village, the owners feel that the land could now be put to better use for the community by providing an ideal, level and accessible (on to Belper Road) site alongside the public sewer (which runs below the north side of the field) to meet local housing needs.

The "character and distinctiveness" of the two settlements have been merged for generations and it seems, in the owner's opinion, perverse to try to preserve a "gap" between parts of what has been a single community for hundreds of years. Matters relating to this background can be researched in the book "A History of Shirland & Higham" by Gladwyn Turbutt (Higham Press, 1978)".

Against the above background, it is considered that it would be more logical to consider future housing against proposals that could ensure not only a considerable degree of affordable housing to meet the needs of this and adjoining Parishes but to lay out the land in a manner that would provide effective public open space and amenity areas to serve not only the needs of the existing community but those of a new development.

Allocating greenfield sites alongside Park Lane (ak and al) merely provides housing development in an area that, whilst adjacent to the new school, has always been seen as an "outlier" of the physical framework of the village. The objection site is at least equally accessible to all village amenities and public transport routes.

Whilst the identification of Shirland as a "Level 2 Settlement" is supported, and its intended housing provision will assist in meeting the requirement for a minimum 6600 new dwellings in the District, none of the new sites are included within the Settlement Development Limits of the adopted North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2005). It is considered that a more comprehensive approach to residential and associated developments in the Parish is required.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.