Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Search Representations

Results for Hallam Land Management search

New search New search

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy LC1: Housing Allocations

Representation ID: 6223

Received: 06/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: DPDS Consulting (Derby office)

Representation Summary:

Concern is that land between the bypass (A617) and to the rear of 109 to 247 Mansfield Road, Hasland has not been allocated for development within the draft Local Plan, and in particular Policy LC1 despite the site benefiting from a previous outline planning consent determined at appeal and subsequent reserved matters application.

The site is considered to be in a sustainable location, outside of the Green Belt where the housing numbers would contribute towards NED's housing land supply. Statement that Housing Site Assessment Report Appendix C concludes that there is 'No apparent LAA or policy constraints' in respect of the deliverability of the site.

It is considered that draft POLICY LC1: Housing Allocations should be amended to include and allocate Land Between Bypass (A617) and the rear of 109 to 247 Mansfield Road, Hasland for 160 dwellings. (See submission for more.)

Full text:

Policy LC1: Housing Allocations

The following comments on the 'North East Derbyshire Local Plan Consultation Draft' are made on behalf of Hallam Land Management (HLM) by DPDS Consulting Group in relation to their land interest to the rear of 109 to 247 Mansfield Road, Hasland (Location Plan Attached).

HLM's main concern is that land between the bypass (A617) and to the rear of 109 to 247 Mansfield Road, Hasland has not been allocated for development within the draft Local Plan, and in particular Policy LC1 despite the site benefiting from a previous outline planning consent determined at appeal (APP/R1038/A/13/2202979 7 February 2014 attached) and subsequent reserved matters application (NED16/00888/RM).

It is acknowledged that the North East Derbyshire Housing Sites Assessment Report (February 2017) discounts the site, as with all sites near neighbouring districts "... as these districts have not requested for North East Derbyshire to accommodate some of their growth, at this point" (Paragraph 8.3).

However, notwithstanding that neighbouring districts, in this case Chesterfield Borough Council have not requested North East Derbyshire to accommodate any of their unmet needs the site is considered to be in a sustainable location, outside of the Green Belt where the housing numbers would contribute towards North East Derbyshire's housing land supply. The Council's own evidence base in the form of the Housing Site Assessment Report Appendix C (Site GRA/1802) concludes that there is 'No apparent LAA or policy constraints' in respect of the deliverability of the site.

The site is also included at Appendix 2 of the Council's own Authority Monitoring Report 2015 & 2016 as a Residential Commitment.

It was agreed as common ground (Statement of Common Ground October 2013) between the Council and HLM at the appeal Inquiry that "The site would be well related to the existing built environment in terms of access to public transport and local facilities and it would adjoin existing built form on two sides" (Paragraph 10.6). It was also agreed at Paragraph 10.7 "... that the appeal site is in a sustainable location, with access by walking or cycling to a wide range of retail, leisure, healthcare, education and other local facilities and employment opportunities in the nearby centre of Hasland. A regular bus service runs along Mansfield Road providing public transport access to the higher order settlement of Chesterfield". There have been no material changes in circumstances since this was agreed to warrant any change in this conclusion.

In fact the main issues in the appeal were:

(a) The effect on the proposed development on highway safety;
(b) The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the locality;
(c) The effect of the proposed development on the interests of the local community; and
(d) The impact of the proposed development on ecology.

In respect of these the Inspector concluded (DL53) that "I find that there would not be any undue harm to highway safety, and no conflict with the objectives of the development plan in this respect. In relation to the character and appearance of the area there would be limited harm to an area of moderate quality, but this harm would not reach the threshold of being significant and demonstrable as described by in the NPPF at paragraph 14. Any conflict with policies designed to protect the countryside for its own sake are outweighed by the presumption in favour of sustainable development. There would be no harm to the interests of the local community, and there are potential benefits, with no development plan conflicts on this matter. Ecological matters have been addressed, and can continue to be addressed in line with best practice. Again there is no conflict with the development plan".

The Inspector's overall conclusion at DL54 is that "Taking these matters together it is clear that the balance of consideration lies heavily in favour of the proposed development. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed".

It is considered that there has been no material change in planning policy since the appeal decision which would mean a different conclusion should be drawn and on that basis the site should be allocated for residential development.

Subsequent to the appeal a Reserved Matters application for 160 dwellings (NED16/00888/RM) has been submitted and determined by the Council at the 4 April 2017 Planning Committee. The Officer's recommendation was approval of the application on the basis that "... on balance, that the proposal generally complies with the saved policies, and specifically BE1 General Design Principles and H12 Design and Layout of New Housing, of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework..."

The application was subsequently refused by Members against Officer recommendation on design grounds. However, it is considered that the outline approval at appeal has established the principle of development on this site and the detailed design issues can be overcome and a satisfactory form of development be provided on the site.

On the above basis it is considered that the site is deliverable within 5 years as it is available now, and offers a sustainable location for development; achievable as the reserved matters application shows that there is a realistic prospect of housing being built and the site within 5 years.

On the evidence above it is considered that draft POLICY LC1: Housing Allocations should be amended to include and allocate Land Between Bypass (A617) and the rear of 109 to 247 Mansfield Road, Hasland for 160 dwellings.

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS2: Scale of Development

Representation ID: 6396

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land Management Ltd objects to Policy SS2 because it would fail to account for full objectively assessed housing need, would be unduly pessimistic in respect of economic growth and would fail to meet anticipated housing need arising from the Sheffield City Region. The respondent refers to the SHMA projection PROJ B which indicates high commuting rates and total jobs which would more than double. It is therefore suggested that the housing requirement figure is re-evaluated. Eventually, Sheffield is likely to have a shortfall which should be accommodated over the plan period by NED.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy LC1: Housing Allocations

Representation ID: 6419

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land writes in support of Land to the South East of Bochum Parkway which is currently not included within the proposed housing allocations. This site would represent a significant opportunity to be allocated to meet Sheffield's unmet housing needs. The respondent also argues that the site could be released from the Green Belt because it would not impact on its openness given that the site adjoins the settlement's existing urban framework and would not dilute the Green Belt's role in preventing coalescence with other settlements. Eventually, the site also presents a sustainable and logical extension to the built environment.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy LC2: Affordable Housing

Representation ID: 6421

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land objects to Policy LC2 and points out that the affordable housing provision appears to be derived from the Housing Needs, Market and Availability Study in 2011 which is now out of date. The proposed level of affordable housing would be unrealistic and would have a detrimental impact on delivering houses. The policy should be based on up to date viability information to ensure that the requirements are realistic and deliverable.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS2: Scale of Development

Representation ID: 6422

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land Management Ltd objects to Policy SS2 because it would fail to account for full objectively assessed housing need, would be unduly pessimistic in respect of economic growth and would fail to meet anticipated housing need arising from the Sheffield City Region. The respondent refers to the SHMA projection PROJ B which indicates high commuting rates and total jobs which would more than double. It is therefore suggested that the housing requirement figure is re-evaluated. Eventually, Sheffield is likely to have a shortfall which should be accommodated over the plan period by NED.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

i. Land off Hilltop, Dronfield

Representation ID: 6425

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land supports this proposed housing allocation and argues that the removal of the site from the Green Belt would be logical. The respondent points out that Dronfield is the largest settlement in the district with the greatest concentration of services, very good levels of public transport accessibility and has an important role in serving the day to day shopping. The site itself would be well located for access to local services and does not have any major constraints. Residential development of the site would significantly assist with housing delivery in a sustainable and logical extension to the settlement.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy LC2: Affordable Housing

Representation ID: 6427

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land objects to Policy LC2 and points out that the affordable housing provision appears to be derived from the Housing Needs, Market and Availability Study in 2011 which is now out of date. The proposed level of affordable housing would be unrealistic and would have a detrimental impact on delivering houses. The policy should be based on up to date viability information to ensure that the requirements are realistic and deliverable.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS2: Scale of Development

Representation ID: 6461

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land Management Ltd objects to Policy SS2 because it would fail to account for a full objectively assessed housing need, would be unduly pessimistic in respect of economic growth and would fail to meet anticipated housing need arising from the Sheffield City Region. The respondent refers to the SHMA projection PROJ B which indicates high commuting rates and total jobs which would more than double. It is therefore suggested that the housing requirement figure is re-evaluated. Eventually, Sheffield is likely to have a shortfall which should be accommodated over the plan period by NED.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

Policy SS10: Safeguarded Land

Representation ID: 6470

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land supports the principle of Policy SS10, although proposes that further revisions should be made to increase the size of the safeguarded land to the extension shown on the enclosed drawing (Plan A) which would represent an increase from approx. 31ha to 84ha. This amended boundary would cause no additional harm, would respond to the existing natural features and would be contained by Foxstone Wood.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Consultation Draft (February 2017)

l. Eckington South

Representation ID: 6510

Received: 07/04/2017

Respondent: Hallam Land Management

Agent: Freeths LLP

Representation Summary:

Hallam Land supports housing allocation site l (Eckington South), although points out that there is potential for a much larger development encompassing all land proposed by their amended 'safeguarded land' designation (Plan A). This would allow to develop up to 1500 to 1800 dwellings in total and could deliver between 880 to 1110 dwellings within the plan period. Significant benefits to increase the size of the allocation site are as follows:
- Meeting NED Objectively Assessed Housing Need
- Meeting unmet need from Sheffield
- Creation of a southern Eckington Bypass
- Town Centre improvements

Full text:

See attachment

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