NEDDC – LOCAL PLAN. PBLICATION DRAFT 2018

NEDDC – LOCAL PLAN
PUBLICATION DRAFT, 2018.

My comments relate to the plans in respect of the north of the District, but my specific
interest is in the effect that issues contained within the Publication draft Local Plan would
have on Killamarsh.

Chapter 2 – Spatial Portrait.

This shows that the Constrained North has a mining history and comments that little
evidence of it exists today.

This is true of the overt aspects of mine working, but not so of its legacy. Sites will require
Coal Mining Assessment Reports concerning the known mines worked during the 20th
Century, but little is known, other than through historical records, about mines pre-dating
this period.

Historical accounts detail hundreds of small, sometimes family owned and operated, mines, stretching through Killamarsh as far as Barlborough, that have been abandoned without the benefits of the Health and Safety concerns prevalent today. It is known that there are dangerous areas in the prime site of Killamarsh (Westthorpe Fields) because a previous farmer on the site had the misfortune to have his tractor fall into a sinkhole on the plot. Recent drilling has discovered a dangerous area near to a potential entrance to the site.

To support the dangerous ground theory a number of established houses on Green Lane
have suffered significant subsidence, as their own submissions will verify.

As evidence of this research in 1947 into the Nationalisation of Mines shows that there
were more than 442 abandoned mine workings in the immediate vicinity of Killamarsh and Barlborough. Their location is not known with any certainty.

One specific one relates to a mine known as Worrall’s Colliery which was sunk in ‘green
fields off the main Rotherham Road in Killamarsh’ (the site of one main development).
Owned by JJ Worrall, the mine was sunk by his grandfather. It closed in the early 1900’s
but was reopened in 1913, operating until 1943. The shaft drove 60 feet underground(source Holbrook and Halfway, the early years, by James Walton, 1996).

This network of subterranean tunnels holds hidden dangers, including subsidence and gas
escapes, not only for workmen on the site but to new home occupiers and existing
residents.

This does not support sustainable development, more likely, dangerous development.

Paragraph 2.6 acknowledges the link between Killamarsh (and others) to the Sheffield
conurbation, with just under 25% of people commuting out of the District to work in the
city. Other evidence-base documents state that 61% of people commute out of the district
daily. This is relevant to a later comment on the employment strategy, jobs growth and
sustainability.

Affordable Housing Need (LC2)

The requirement for affordable homes within the District has varied wildly throughout the
protracted term of the Plan’s submission.

– 2012 consultation version – requirement 494 affordable homes p.a.
– 2015 consultation version – requirement 381 affordable homes p.a.
– 2018 publication version – requirement 172 affordable homes p.a., enhanced by
demographic requirement to 248, with 10% added, presumably for ‘good luck’, giving a total of 273 affordable homes p.a.

Whilst accepting that situations change over time it does appear that there is a declining
trend, which makes the enhancement of the affordable homes ‘need’ figure aspirational,
without good evidence.

Research by the National Trust has shown that some 330,000 building plots, each with
planning permission, have not been developed, mostly by the ‘big’ builders.

Research carried out by NEDDC shows between 2006 and 2011 there was a growing
proportion of larger houses built, with a significant decline in 1 or 2 bedroom properties.
Equally disturbing are the figures which show that, between 2002 and 2011, only 9.5% of
the properties built were in the affordable category – this in an era when the requirements
was 40%. As I understand from previous evidence documents then need is for one, two and three bedroomed homes. I have not seen any more up-to-date figures

Whilst I agree that the District Council should have the provision of affordable housing as a priority it should be to provide a ‘reasonable’ number of affordable units in ‘appropriate’ places, for ‘local’ need. This should exclude Green Belt areas.

This view is supported by a comment, reported in a national newspaper, by a spokesperson for the Department of Communities and Local Government. When commenting about the NPPF she said, “This will put power back in the hands of local people, ensuring they are in charge of deciding the areas they wish to see developed and those to be protected, including green spaces of value to the community”.

Killamarsh Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion (RAGE) has a petition with more than 1,100 signatures of local residents strongly opposed to the development of Green Belt sites surrounding Killamarsh. The signatories to this petition, and many others not yet mobilised, will form a significant opposition group in the prevention of building on Killamarsh Green Belt land.

Paragraph 2.15 relates to the alleged link between affordability and home owning,
apparently necessitating the building of more homes in the north.

It is worth pointing out that home values have fallen in real terms by 22% in the Killamarsh

West ward and by 12% in Killamarsh East, according to the BBC Business News report on
the 17th October, 2017.

Paragraph 2.16 espouses the ‘need to provide employment locally in order to provide the opportunity for people to work close to where they live.’

The two employment sites specified for Killamarsh are located at the Westthorpe Business
Centre and the Norwood Industrial Estate. Westthorpe has capacity for one more unit only
on a site of .35 of a hectare. The last time I saw figures for this complex it was operating at
about 50% of capacity.

The Norwood site has proved unpopular with developers, according to the District’s
environmental scan. This is, no doubt, because of its proximity to the former sites of
Yorkshire Tar Distillers, Lee Environmental and, currently Veolia, in view of the
significant contamination known to have emanated from those sites.

This is reinforced by the assessment of the site, during a study entitled, ‘NE Derbyshire
Employment Sites’, by Aspinall Verdi, which concluded that Norwood (and Callywhite
Lane at Dronfield) each scored 13 – the lowest of the sites studied. In contrast, Markham
Vale and Biwaters/Clay Cross scored 25 and 23 respectively.

The scoring parameters encompassed strategic communications, proximity to the labour
market, local services, adjoining uses, development constraints and attractiveness to
occupiers.

How does this lack of options for employment equate with the regeneration aspiration
and the building of homes for local employment use.
——————————————————————————————————-
Chapter 4 – Spatial Strategy

Paragraph 4.2 relates to sustainable development.

The Plan states that sustainable growth will lead to residents enjoying a ‘better quality of
life’, but that it means ‘encouraging suitable development.’ The two are, to a large extent,
incompatible, unless there is sufficient capacity within settlements to sustain increased
development. If not it will diminish the quality of life not only during the development
process, with all the inherent inconvenience and upset that this entails, but also by ‘building in’ pressure on services and facilities for the longer term.

Paragraph 4.31 appears to recognise that villages such as Killamarsh will be used as
‘dormitories’ for other areas where employment and the economic benefits that engenders
for that area, not Killamarsh. Due to traffic movements, and the pollution accompanying
them, through commuting, this is unsustainable development.

The negligible proposed infrastructure developments for Killamarsh within the Local Plan
are laughable in the context of the massive 20th Century development already undertaken,
coupled with the planned addition of 523 homes, leading realistically to 2,000 extra people and 1,000 extra vehicles within the village. This is an extra 20% added to the current population of Killamarsh.

No road improvements are planned by either Derbyshire County Council or the District
Council, with the only potential alleviation being ‘new site specific’. Even then any light at
the end of a very dark tunnel depends on the unreliable source of developer contributions
via S. 106 agreements. Factor in the ‘viability get-out-of-jail-free card’ and the prospects
of any positive benefits for current residents are extremely uncertain.

Paragraphs 4.6 – 4.12 detail the rationale for the figure of 330 new dwellings p.a. This
figure contradicts the Government target of 276 dwellings p.a., based on the aspiration for
the maximum increased employment growth. The CPRE suggest that this number should
be 270.

The document links housing requirement to employment growth, pitching the latter right at the top of an estimated scale. I am aware that such targets should be challenging, but I am also aware that such targets should be realistic and achievable. These are not.

The rationale is incompatible with the requirements within paragraph 17 of the Housing
and Economic Needs Assessment, PPG, which requires that estimates be ‘clearly explained and justified on the basis of established sources of robust evidence’. This aspirational target does not meet that criterion. The Local Plan admits as much where, in paragraph 3.33, it states that ‘a level of policy intervention and support would likely be required’ to achieve the challenging target.

GL Hearn’s comments within the Economic Growth Analysis, 2018, confirm that when
considering a regeneration/growth scenario, the District Council should ‘test the potential to support the higher growth or regeneration scenario figure in bringing together the evidence during the Plan-making process.  Such evidence has not been presented; neither has the policy intervention been identified or explained in the Plan.

Settlement Hierarchy. (Paragraphs 4.29 to 4.35 and Table 4.2)

The Settlement Hierarchy approach designates the areas with current facilities as being
appropriate for future development. This takes for granted that the facilities present are
adequate, or will endure.

Taking Killamarsh as an example, there is a bus service, the Council Leisure Facility, a
Post Office, a Doctors Surgery and Dental surgery and numerous shops. This may seem
adequate on a shallow (desk top) overview.

The reality is somewhat different.

The private provider of the bus services is currently withdrawing some services.  According to local sources, other services are planned for withdrawal, whilst others are significantly curtailed.

The Council Leisure facility is a massive drain on local finances and the Parish Council has previously had had to borrow money from the NEDDC to survive until the end of the financial year.   It runs at a massive overspend which, for the new Council Tax year, has to be made up by a huge rise in the Parish precept. This causes much local disquiet.

The Post Office survived the last ‘cull’ of similar offices and its continuing existence must be debateable.   The Doctors surgery, despite a recent extension, is full to capacity and the Dental Surgery is not able to accept new NHS patients for the foreseeable future.

The shops consist predominantly of a mixture of fast food outlets (hardly conducive to a healthy lifestyle or the fitness aspiration of the Vision), and a number of hair and nail salons.   The evidence base shows that 90% of evening leisure activity in Killamarsh involves takeaways  Apart from being an indictment of lifestyle in Killamarsh it does not help any objective aimed at healthy living.

There is no bank (except a limited facility at the Post Office and Co-op), no butcher, minimal bakery options and no fresh fish or seafood outlet. The greengrocer was forced out of business by a very limited, publicly funded option provided by the Parish Council
which has itself been supplanted by the Aldi supermarket.

The Aldi Supermarket, has replaced the former Kwiksave Supermarket. Although an excellent facility for local people it also attracts people from other local townships, exacerbating the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.

People who have the option also travel to Supermarkets in South Yorkshire for their retail needs. The situation is unlikely to alter significantly in the future. This will increase the need for vehicle journeys, not reduce them, as per District Objective 10.

There are no planned road improvements in the Infrastructure Plan and a bad traffic situation for Killamarsh will become significantly worse if more houses are built here, now, as planned, or if future development is concentrated in the areas with supposed good facilities.

This is a recipe for the demise of the village, not a renaissance.

Green Belt Review (SS10).

Paragraph 4.67 acknowledges that Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in
‘exceptional circumstances’ (paragraph 83, NPPF).

Paragraph 4.68 again refers to land values being driven up by high demand, but the BBC Business report previously referred to shows a significant ‘real terms’ drop of 22% in
Killamarsh West, where a major site of 330 dwellings is suggested, and 12% in Killamarsh
East, where a further 70 are proposed.

Case Law (Gallagher v Solihull BC, 2014) states that the preparation of a Local Plan is not
sufficient in itself to justify alterations to a Green Belt boundary. It is necessary to show:-
– Effective use of suitable brownfield and estate generation;
– The potential offered by under-used land (including surplus public sector land);
– That the optimisation of density of development has taken place;
– An exploration as to whether other authorities can help to meet some of the need of
the identified development requirement.

Once again, this asks a question about whether housing need has been objectively and
rationally decided. There are a number of issues that suggest that this need has been
overestimated and that other provision that should have been included in the appropriate
calculation have not been so included.

In paragraph 4.7 of the Housing Topic paper (2018), used within the evidence base,
NEDDC demonstrates that planning permissions for dwellings on major sites in level 1 and 2 settlements are included as part of the housing supply up to 17.1.18. However, major
sites in settlements 3 and 4 were only included up to 31.3.17, meaning that sites that gained planning permission between 31.3.17 and 17.1.18 have been excluded from the housing supply.

A 5% lapse rate, based on past trends, has been applied to the figures. Since 2014 records show that the lapse rate figure has been well below 5% (Paragraph 8 of the Five Year Housing Land Supply Statement, 2017).

In fact, Table 2.13 of the Housing Topic Paper (2018) shows that since 2012/13 the average lapse rate has been 2.13%. More up-to-date information may show a further diminution in the lapse rate. The LGA guidance suggests that lapse rates should be based on ‘historic data that sets out the number of permissions compared with completions on similar sized sites’, not on a ‘standard approach’, which the 5% calculation appears to be.

Equally, the figures shown for Strategic Sites exclude large numbers of potential dwellings
for various reasons:
– 660 dwellings at the Coalite site – because of the HS2 route (as yet unconfirmed)
affecting a small part of the estate;
– Chesterfield Road, Holmewood – 325 dwellings not deliverable, although an
additional 225 are assessed as deliverable on the site;
– The Avenue – 700 granted planning permission, but not another 400 potential ones
without current planning permission, despite the site being under construction
making the additional 400 potentially deliverable.

The figures also fail to include windfall sites granted planning permission since 31.3.17.

Yet another factor is the number of empty homes in North East Derbyshire. As at March,
2017, there were 731 such homes. In February, 2018, there were 941. The Council are
currently assisting in bringing 30 of these back into occupation.

Taking account of this excluded potential would completely obviate the need to build on any Green Belt land. It also contradicts the ‘extreme circumstances’ argument used to undertake a Green Belt review in the first instance.

A Local Plan submitted by County Durham was rejected by the Government Inspector
because it was unjustifiable for the planning authority to propose Green Belt development
because the decision to do so was made before evidence of exceptional circumstances was
provided. The same judgement should be applied to the NEDDC Plan because the
‘exceptional circumstances’ have not been evidenced.
——————————————————————————————————-

Chapter 5 – Living Communities

Killamarsh – Specific Sites (Paragraphs 5.32 – 5.40) (Policy SS2).

Paragraphs 5.32 – 5.34 inclusive deal with a major site at Westthorpe, Killamarsh. The site
is currently within the Green Belt and is expected to deliver 330 dwellings, the majority
within the first 10 years of the Plan.

This site is within the High Risk area because of historical mining work. There is anecdotal
evidence of house subsidence and sinkholes on the planned site.

The Sustainability Appraisal for this site raised a number of issues:-

– Significant increase in Greenhouse Gas emissions;
– Inefficient land use;
– Outside limits for GP and hospitals;
– Close to site of three Grade II listed buildings;
– It would alter the urban fringe and intrude into the countryside;
– Disturbance to local wildlife sites, potentially damage ancient hedgerows, trees and
biodiversity;
– In a mining high risk area.

This site is owned by Harworth Estates Limited, Part of the Harworth Group of companies.   The land passed to RJB Mining Ltd., which became UK Coal Limited which had Harworth Estates Limited under its corporate umbrella.

Other residents suffered the dust, dirt and inevitable disruption that the scale and nature of working coal mines entail. After the collieries closed subsequent reclamation projects
returned the land to its former rural appearance. These sites are now used as recreational
areas by walkers, dog walkers and those who enjoy the proliferation of species of flora and
fauna that abound in the fields.

It is interesting to note some comments made by RJB Mining (UK) Ltd. When they
obtained permission to open cast for coal on the Westthorpe and High Moor areas of
Killamarsh, and promised to restore the sites:

“….some of the lower quality land will be converted into woodland and wildlife habitats to
enhance the species diversity and recreational amenity of the area.”

“Steps will be taken to protect and preserve part of this site, and upon restoration create a
larger habitat than presently exists to enhance wildlife interest in the area.”

“The…. scheme is an opportunity to substantially enhance wildlife habitats and species
diversity. Advance planting, including the creation of a wetland habitat will extend beyond
the site boundary…”

As you will be aware, RJB Mining was the predecessor of UK Coal, which owns Harworth
Developments, and which now wants to build 330 houses (if they are to be believed) on this same land. To allow them to do so would be tantamount to an act of environmental criminality.

There are five footpaths (not four) crossing this proposed development site, passing through the created wildflower meadow. These are used by local residents to walk dogs or just to walk for health and recreation.

The road network around the site is totally unsuitable for the addition of large numbers of
additional people and vehicles.

The unique position of Killamarsh within the North East Derbyshire District needs to be
considered as well.

Situated on the far north eastern corner of the District it abuts Sheffield City, Rotherham
Borough, Bolsover District and Chesterfield Borough councils.

Due to this unique position Killamarsh is vulnerable to development in the four areas and,
to a lesser extent, to that within the Bassetlaw District and Eckington. Here is an example
of relevant development within those areas:-

– Clowne (Bolsover District) – 1,800 homes and an industrial estate;
– Sheffield City – 745 dwellings in directly adjoining areas;
– Bolsover (Bolsover District) – 500+ dwellings;
– Cresswell (Bolsover District) – 277 dwellings;
– Whitwell (Bolsover District) – 200 dwellings;
– Barlborough (Bolsover District) – 150 dwellings;
– Eckington (NEDDC) – 400 dwellings.

All of the named development will impact the roads around Killamarsh, with the most
likely to be affected being the unclassified Spinkhill Road/Station Road/The Avenue/Syday Lane being most impacted. This will be the main road used by residents of the proposed Westthorpe estate if travelling anywhere south of the District.

The Transport Evidence Base, 2017 shows that employment and Residential trip generation is estimated at 586 additional trips (a.m. – 1 hour only) and in the evening (1 hour only) 585 additional trips. The ‘rush’ periods extend to more than two hours each in both morning and evening.

The report places Killamarsh in 15th place in the Transport Sustainability table (out of 35),
with only Clay Cross of the Level 1 settlements being worse off at 18. However, Clay
Cross will benefit from the provision of significant money to ameliorate problems on their
main trunk route, the A61.

The same report includes a map showing where potential work may ease traffic flows in
Killamarsh. It refers to a number of pedestrian crossings being present, road width reduced by parking bays (the few that there are), a mini roundabout at Norwood and a bad bend on Upperthorpe Road. The map also refers to the river bridge on the B6058 (Sheffield Road).   It shows ‘the potential to remove footway to increase road width.’ This shows the folly of looking at maps after a quick drive through of an area. The removal of the footpath at this point would leave the bridge parapet vulnerable to a vehicle strike, thus damaging the bridge and closing the road. It could also allow a vehicle to fall into the river.

There have been two fairly recent fatal accidents near this bridge and the removal of the
footpath on the ‘offending’ corner would possibly add to these tragic incidents. In any
event, the removal of the footpath, which is very narrow at this point, would give about 18”
of additional room. Unfortunately vehicles still need that 18” to miss the bridge parapet
(Transport Evidence Base, 2017, figure 3.5).

The Transport Evidence Base also refers to Travel to Work Patterns (Figures 3.17 and
3.18). These show that North East Derbyshire is a significant net exporter of commuters.
The accuracy of the evidence currently is debatable as it was compiled using the 2011
Census. Significant building has continued in Killamarsh during the period 2011 to 2018.
It still continues.

There are only three access/egress routes in Killamarsh, the main one being the B 6058/A
618 Rotherham Road/Mansfield Road. The A618 Rotherham Road leads towards J31 of
the M1 motorway. The other route is the unclassified Spinkhill Road leading to J30 of the
M1 motorway. This latter route is used as a ‘rat run’ from Killamarsh to the M1
southbound and, due to satellite navigation directions, sees heavy goods vehicle traffic
along a totally unsuitable road.

The other main site in Killamarsh is at Rotherham Road. This has similar drawbacks to
Westthorpe. The sustainability appraisal finds similar issues, excluding proximity to Grade
II listed buildings but including the potential for air and light pollution from the proximate
Norwood Industrial Estate. In addition, a family living in a house beside the proposed
development site had to leave their home for 18 months so that subsidence damage could
be repaired.

Traffic leaving this site would need to enter the A 618 road.

The A 618 Rotherham Road is the only route to travel to the M1 northbound at J31. The
Rother Valley Country Park is located in the Rotherham Borough area, literally yards from
the boundary with Killamarsh/North East Derbyshire. Traffic is very heavy on this road at
peak times, and weekends in the Summer. This situation will be exacerbated as the
development of the Gulliver’s Valley theme park progresses after it successfully obtained
planning permission in March, 2017. This development includes three hotels and parking
spaces for 1,600 vehicles, when completed. The entrance is on Rotherham Road (A 618).
A large proportion of vehicles wishing to access this Park will travel through Killamarsh.

The B 6058 Sheffield Road is the major route out of Killamarsh into which all other traffic
wishing to traverse the centre of Killamarsh flows. At morning and evening rush periods
the road is heavily congested, a situation exacerbated by the narrowing of the road at a
longstanding road bridge over the River Rother. The angle of the bridge to the road means
that it is virtually one-way if a heavy goods vehicle, or a bus or other large vehicle, is trying
to pass in either direction.
—————————————————————————————————
Chapter 6 – Working Communities and Economic Development.

Certainly in the case of Killamarsh high employment growth targets would not be
achievable. Both identified sites within the village are not popular with developers without, in the case of the Westthorpe Business Park, being capable of any significant expansion.

In respect of the larger area of land promoted as a General Employment Area under Policy
WC3 (Land to the south of Norwood Industrial Estate) the situation is even worse.

Paragraph 6.28 states, “…satisfactory access cannot easily be achieved for the remainder of
the land (the 5.4 acres of protected employment land). The development of the site may
also impinge on education and recreational land”.

The Plan refers to Dronfield and Killamarsh as being the main focus for employment in the north. Given the facts above this seems a ludicrous assertion, particularly when the Plan shows that 500 net jobs have been lost in the 15 years prior to 2015. With not viable
employment sites to build into, or options identified, how is this going to happen?

This means that the significant growth planned for Killamarsh will not lead to increased
jobs for local people. Any one of the ‘new’ residents would have to look for work, or travel
to their established job, outside the village, with the majority commuting to outside areas
such as Sheffield, Rotherham, Chesterfield, Markham Vale etc. This is the ultimate of
unsustainability.

The proposed Sustainable Transport option is doomed to failure because of issues with the
topography of the area and the location of proposed sites at the periphery of the current
settlement limits (outside them, currently). The fact that the main site is situated as far as
possible from the village centre, with a significant hill to descend and climb, militate
against the use of a bicycle, or walking, unless the residents are very fit. The bus service is
diminishing through lack of current use.

Whilst the use of public transport is an option, if that option is not regular and guaranteed
the use of cars will prevail.

Background evidence papers support the view that the majority of new residents will
commute to work elsewhere. This includes the independent Sustainability Appraisal.
——————————————————————————————————-
Chapter 7 – Sustainable Places.

Paragraph 7.37 suggests that Killamarsh is “well served by public transport”. All the
evidence from local people, with actual knowledge of the locality, is to the contrary.

This chapter acknowledges a ’high demand for growth due to its (Killamarsh’s) close
proximity to Sheffield’. This was a factor in previous iterations of the Local Plan which
proposed a housing target that did not need to utilise any Green Belt land. However, it was
alleged by the District Council, that the then targets were not deliverable because ‘the
developers did not want to build there’. Who actually makes the Plan? Is it the Council or
developers?

Killamarsh has been overdeveloped throughout the 20th Century without a commensurate
growth, in fact, barely any growth, in infrastructure. This is true of the other towns in the
north of the District.

The strategy of placing at least 50% of new housing in the four main towns in the
settlement hierarchy assumes that there is unused capacity that can be easily met in the
event of massive new development. That is not the case. The services that are currently
there are full to capacity, more properly over their capacity currently, without additional
development. To say that there is a doctor’s surgery, a dentist, is fine but the important
issue is their spare capacity. They have none. The NHS dentist has not accepted new
patients for a considerable time and the waiting time for an appointment with a doctor or
for a referral service such as podiatry or physiotherapy is months rather than weeks.

Killamarsh has the least green space in the major towns. This is because all space within
the settlement limits has been built on or has development planned within it. Green spaces
and playing fields have been developed.

Because of this overdevelopment it is assumed that the inexorable growth in housing must
continue, therefore we must use the Green Belt.

Building at Westthorpe will destroy a wild flower meadow and various habitats, including
those of protected species, but the cunning ‘plan’ is to build a small green space to replace
the huge one that will have been taken. Five footpaths cross this proposed site, showing its
use by locals. Ancient hedgerows will be impacted. Two fine oak trees on this land were
felled by someone renting the land from Harworth Estates in the fairly recent past.

The Plan explains that the site will not be obtrusive because it is built beside existing
development so it will be unobtrusive. The argument that it will not close the gap between
Killamarsh and Spinkhill is proffered because of the presence of the Westthorpe Fields
Business Park.

When travelling from Spinkhill towards Killamarsh the Business Park is located in a
hollow in the ground. The new development will be on a hill leading away from the current
houses and intruding into the countryside. It cannot be anything else but obtrusive. It may
not close a mathematical map but it will close a visual one.

The Plan suggests amelioration for development in the form of a Park built on the east side
of Killamarsh and the forming of a greenway, abutting the Chesterfield Canal, when this is
repaired. All of these plans depend on S. 106 money, apart from the Canal refurbishment
which has other funding sources. The houses will be built in the first ten years of the Plan,
but the money from S. 106 agreements will not come forward until development is well
underway. This is definitely a case of ‘jam tomorrow.’

The town centre of Killamarsh is assessed as good. More than 5% of all shopping is
formed by food takeaway outlets. Twice this amount consists of hair and beauty treatment
outlets. However, we do have two pharmacies (within 50 metres of each other), two ecigarette outlets (opposite each other), two cash machines (within feet of each other) and
two funeral directors to cater for the needs of the increasingly ageing population. The rest
of the shopping unit contain some esoteric established businesses but many attempts to try ‘something different’ founder on the apparent need to visit the Meadowhall or Crystal
Peaks shopping centres.

Research from a previous iteration of the Plan shows that 80% of money spent on retail
products by Killamarsh inhabitants goes elsewhere than Killamarsh, predominantly to
Sheffield outlets. How is this sustainable and how does it improve the local economy and
job prospects?

However, the District Council appears content with this situation and for Killamarsh to be a mere satellite and dormitory town for Sheffield and Chesterfield. This cannot be right.
To conclude, the Sustainability Appraisal scoring matrix, shown at Table 5.1 of the
Sustainability Appraisal Report, shows an adverse impact for the Westthorpe site in respect of Climate Change mitigation, Natural Resources, Health, Cultural Heritage, Landscape and Biodiversity.

The Rotherham Road site shows similar scores, but excluding Cultural Heritage whilst
including Pollution.
——————————————————————————————————-
Chapter 8 – Sustainable Development and Communities.

Paragraph 8.8 relates to trees, woodland and hedgerows are acknowledged as important for both recreational use and amenity value, whilst helping to reduce noise and atmospheric pollution.

The environmental value of flora within open spaces, due to its absorption of CO2, is well
known (Sustainability Appraisal, Feb 2018, paragraph 6.54.2). The ability of the landscape
to absorb excess water slowly, helping to avoid flooding, is also well known (Paragraph
6.55.2 SA, 2018 report) The landscape character of Wooded Farmland, upon which the
two Killamarsh Green Belt proposed sites are located, would contribute to SA Objective 9.
That value will be compromised and may exacerbate flooding along Green Lane – a
location prone to flooding during heavy and prolonged rainfall – if development were to
take place at Westthorpe.

SA Objective 3 states that Public Rights of Way will be protected from development unless
a suitable alternative route can be sought. There are five footpaths crossing the proposed
Westthorpe site. Re-routing will be difficult on a site containing 330 new dwellings. This
will diminish the amenity value for local residents, discouraging the important physical
activity of walking (SA Objective 8).

In terms of ecology Box 6.1 of the SA Appraisal, 2018, describes the cumulative impacts
on biodiversity, flora and fauna. The effects of development at Westthorpe and, to a lesser
extent, Rotherham Road, Killamarsh are perfectly described.

‘The cumulative effects of development proposed in the Local Plan is anticipated to result in further loss and fragmentation of habitats and an increase in barriers to the movement of species. This is anticipated to particularly be the case for wildflower-rich grassland…hedgerow…field margins…and the flora and fauna species they support.’

‘The overall impact will potentially be one which disrupts the District’s ecological network and diminishes the important ecological services they provide.’

‘The cumulative impact of all sitesin combination would be likely to constitute a significant loss of important arable field margin and hedgerow habitats.’

Both Killamarsh Green Belt sites, particularly the Westthorpe one will be impacted by such development. The SA Report, 2018 refers to the cumulative impact of all sites proposed in the Draft Publication Local Plan, but it could easily be referring to the cumulative effect of excess development within Killamarsh during the latter half of the 20th Century which continues to the present day.

Paragraph 6.35.3 of the SA, 2018, refers to the deficiency in green space and children’s
play space in Killamarsh. It talks about the protection of green space within the settlement
limits but the comment could equally relate to the large, open, publically used Green Belt
space at Westthorpe, crossed by five public footpaths, upon which large-scale development
is proposed.

Paragraph 3.8.24 refers to a local wildlife site at the former Westthorpe Colliery. The
development at Westthorpe, 100 metres to the north east, has the ‘potential to impact’ this
designated local wildlife site.

The sustainability of these sites, at the very periphery of Killamarsh has many other
sustainability implications that have been covered in associated submissions.

The site at Rotherham Road will be impacted by possible air pollution from the Norwood
Industrial Estate. Current residents will be similarly impacted by the additional traffic
movements from the proposed site and from traffic movement to and from the planapproved site for the Gulliver’s Valley theme park which, when operating fully, will
provide 244 rooms in 3 hotels and 1,600 visitor car parking spaces. The entrance to this
site will be approximately 1 mile away from the Rotherham Road proposed site.

The east side of Killamarsh has the poorest air quality due to its proximity to the M1
motorway. Whilst not currently an air management area the air quality has been judged to
be amongst the poorest in the District. Since the last review of air quality a Biomass energy
plant has been opened in the Sheffield City area, but adjacent to the NE Derbyshire
boundary to the west of Killamarsh. This plant burns waste, pre-used wood.

Burning wood emits a similar range and level of pollutants as burning coal. Pollutants
include nitrogen dioxide (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and small particulates (PM10 and
PM2.5). Burning chemically treated waste wood involves those pollutants but also can
include heavy metals, dioxins and furans. Other emissions will depend on the chemicals
used to treat the wood.

World Health Organisation research indicates that:-
– Air pollution is strongly linked to heart disease and strokes;
– Long-term exposure to NO2 is linked to reduced lung function and increased
bronchitis in children with asthma;
– Short-term exposure to NO2 is linked to the inflammation of airways;
– NO2 is an important source of fine particulates (PM2.5);
– NO2 is a source of ground-level ozone, which is linked to breathing problems,
asthma attacks, reduced lung function and heart/lung disease;
– Long-term exposure to small particulates (PM10 and PM2.5) is linked to respiratory
and heart disease, and to lung cancer. There are no safe levels of exposure to
PM2.5.
– Dioxins and furans are highly toxic and persist long-term in the environment. They
can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system,
cause cancer and interfere with hormones. Air emissions of dioxins can be inhaled
but they can also pollute the food chain.

It is interesting to note that the Sheffield City Council has built two of these plants, one
located as close to its border with Rotherham as is possible, with the other being as close to North East Derbyshire, and Killamarsh, as is possible. I wonder why?

NO and NO2 are emitted from Biomass plants but by far the largest source of such
pollutants, and particulates, is from petrol and diesel vehicle movement.

Sheffield Road (B 6058) is by far the busiest road in Killamarsh. Delays on this road at
peak times can be extensive, very often from 20 minutes to an hour, creating a perfect
storm of pollutants for those living close to the road. This is currently unacceptable, but
will be more so if the planned development is allowed to be built.
——————————————————————————————————-
Section 9 – Infrastructure and Delivery.

Many previous comments throughout my responses deal with infrastructure issues. I will
not repeat them.

The Infrastructure and Delivery Plan Report, 2017, states that ‘much of the infrastructure needed to support the growth in the Local Plan is capable of successful delivery through the current S 106 regime’ (Paragraph 9.13 of the Draft Publication Local Plan, 2018).

Once again, the residents of Killamarsh, and other areas in the north of the District, will be
waiting for infrastructure development until many new dwellings have been built. Sitespecific issues will be dealt with in the planning stage, so .the newly-arrived residents will be fine. The current residents will just have to cope with the massive disruption that
building the two large proposed sites in Killamarsh will bring. This is totally unfair.

The building of a children’s park in the east of Killamarsh is welcome, but long overdue.
Similarly the new western Greenway will be a welcome addition to enhance the meagre
recreational opportunities available within Killamarsh. The Infrastructure Plan indicates (in table 81)

However, the draft Plan contains a note of caution that a cynical person (where developers
are concerned, I am one such cynic) might be concerned about.

Paragraph 9.15 states, “Given the viability assessment found relatively tight margins of development viability across significant parts of the district it is considered that the flexibility afforded through the S 106 regime is of particular benefit to the successful delivery of development in the district.” The viability get-out clause rears its head yet
again.

Paragraph 9.20 appears to give a measure of comfort in stating, In cases where
essential/critical site specific infrastructure and mitigation cannot be secured because of viability concerns and the infrastructure is an essential prerequisite to enable the development to proceed, schemes will not be supported.

Paragraph 9.18 says where the viability of a development is in question a ‘site specific
financial evaluation’ will be undertaken to the Council’s satisfaction at the earliest stage in the application process.  Paragraph 9.19 goes further in saying ‘where a scheme is agreed to be unviable or marginal the Council will review…..the timing or phasing of payments to assist the financial viability of the scheme’.

I suggest that the highly paid lawyers employed by rich developers will have a wonderful
time arguing about the definition of the underlined phrases. Essentially, local people will
have the mess, disruption and chaos, over at least a ten year period, without any substantial guarantee of the small mitigation areas promised in terms of green infrastructure. Even then the mitigation will not make up for the Green Belt land lost.

Within the NEDDC infrastructure Plan and that of the Derbyshire County Council there is
no acknowledged need to enhance the road system around Killamarsh, despite the
acknowledged out-commuting by current and future residents of Killamarsh. Local people
are fully aware of the problems on the B 6105 Sheffield Road and the A618 Rotherham
Road, but apparently those carrying out The Transport Study are not.

A recent extension to the Killamarsh doctor’s surgery is, a short time later, proving
inadequate due to the continual building in Killamarsh and the ability of patients to register with a doctor outside their own practice area. This will not improve.

There is a plan to utilise Children’s Centres to enhance Early Years educational provision,
which is excellent, but the funding mechanism and timescale are both shown as ‘unknown’
in the Infrastructure Study and Delivery Plan, 2018 (ISDP), Table 76.

The Killamarsh Leisure Centre is shown as an important facility for Killamarsh which
should be maintained ‘to ensure ongoing availability to the general public.’ The delivery mechanism and funding are show as unknown again. The Killamarsh Leisure Centre is different to similar Centres in Eckington and Dronfield. The latter two are District Council-owned, while the former is owned by the Parish Council. In the absence of
external funding the only source of money are the council tax payers of Killamarsh (Table
79 ISDP).

The Killamarsh Leisure Centre is a loss-making entity, as evidenced by the ever-increasing
Parish precept for Killamarsh, making the Council tax payable by Killamarsh residents the
most expensive in North East Derbyshire. There is no sign of any change to this situation
as the pattern shows an inexorable rise. Is this fair? Killamarsh Council tax payers would
say no.

Killamarsh deserves the family play area to the east and the new western greenway, to
supplement the Chesterfield canal restoration, because of historic overdevelopment without infrastructure enhancement. Its residents should not have to suffer more unwelcome  development to fund it. This should be funded by the District Council through the non-ring fenced New Homes Bonus and affordable Homes bonus in acknowledgement of the previous planning damage done to Killamarsh (Table 81 ISDP).

At least the initial stages of the Chesterfield canal restoration are funded and properly
planned. This restoration will be a bonus and will give a boost to almost non-existent
tourism in Killamarsh (Table 81 ISDP).

The Derbyshire County Council Infrastructure Plan, 2013, contains nothing in terms of
infrastructure enhancement for Killamarsh except the restoration of the Chesterfield canal
through Killamarsh. The DCC is a partner, with other Councils and agencies, in this
scheme, so this commitment is not exactly a revelation or a game-changer.

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on NEDDC – LOCAL PLAN. PBLICATION DRAFT 2018

RAGE MEETING ~ FRIDAY 16th MARCH

Please note there will be a meeting at 7.30pm on Friday 16th March hosted by MP Lee Rowley & RAGE to discuss the latest NEDDC & Local Plan and the proposals for 450 new houses for Killamarsh over the next 15 years.

 

Please come along and make your views known.

 

Paul Johnson, Chairman RAGE

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on RAGE MEETING ~ FRIDAY 16th MARCH

Local Plan UPDATE October 2017

Local Plan Update – October 2017.

There will be a(nother) delay in the publication of the final draft of the Local Plan for
North East Derbyshire. It was due to be considered by the NEDDC Cabinet in
October so that it could be put out for local consultation in November, 2017.

I checked on the agenda for the October meeting of the cabinet and consideration of
the new Plan was not on there. I have contacted the relevant officer and found that
the publication has been delayed ‘for a few weeks’ because of an apparent intention
by the government to introduce a new, or amended, National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) in January, 2018. It was felt by senior Cabinet members that
there was a risk of any Plan being found to be ‘unsound’ if it had not considered what
was in the new or amended NPPF, so the new Plan will not be published yet.
I will let you know any further updates.

One bit of other news concerns the fact that NEDDC now has a legally-required five
year housing supply. Previously, we did not have this facility.
Whilst this may not be the most exciting news you have heard this year it is quite
important.

The law states that where an Authority does not have an up-to-date Local Plan, and
where there is not a five year supply of housing (confirmed with developers and
landowners) then the authority should grant permission on applications anywhere in
the authority area that are judged as ‘sustainable’(a quite complicated legal
definition).

This will give temporary security to all of our Green Belt land, although we will still
be vulnerable to any application for small developments of 100% affordable homes –
as in the case of the Fanny Avenue application.

As soon as we know what is happening I will be back in touch.

Paul Johnson
Chair of RAGE.

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on Local Plan UPDATE October 2017

Local Plan UPDATE September 2017

Update on Local Plan Issues.

In view of the concern expressed over test drilling work at Westhorpe Fields I thought it might be appropriate to provide an update on what will happen in the future over the Local Plan development.

Fanny Avenue Planning Application.

Firstly, it is appropriate to consider why the Fanny Avenue application was passed, even though it related to Green Belt (GB) land.

The application was for 26 affordable homes, which can be social rental, private rental, or shared ownership, to be built on Green Belt land adjacent to Fanny Avenue.  All can be occupied by anyone fulfilling the criteria, not just those in need in Killamarsh.

Affordable homes is the magic phrase in relation to planning applications anywhere.  The whole issue of affordability is complicated, but does not necessarily mean that reasonable, cheap houses will be available for everyone to buy.  There is a view, based upon alleged extensive research, that more than 460 affordable homes are needed within North East Derbyshire every year until 2033.  This figure is ridiculous, unrealistic and unachievable, but the Council will grab any application proposed exclusively for affordable homes very quickly, as was the case in respect of Fanny Avenue.

Unfortunately, the lack of a settled Local Plan means that any application, even on land within the GB, judged to be ‘sustainable’ (a legal definition), will be passed, providing that it fits the ‘exception’ rules (see next paragraph).  All of the ‘sustainability’ requirements are laid out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) document.  This is the definitive rule book on planning applications.

The rules in respect of Green Belt mean that no ‘inappropriate’ development should take place, but there are exceptions, one of which is for small, sustainable developments of affordable housing for local need.  Despite valiant efforts by some local residents, and RAGE members, the Planning Committee passed the plan.  Whilst all who contributed to the challenge to this application were disappointed with the result it was not unexpected, despite very valid arguments against it, because it ticked all the legal boxes.

Westthorpe Fields.

I am aware that many people are concerned about the drilling operations taking place on Westthorpe Fields.  There is nothing we can do about this at present because the owner of the fields, Harworth Estates, are entitled to carry out any legal work they want to on that ground.

It is possible that Harworth Estates, or their developer, will put in a planning application based on the vulnerability created by the current lack of a Local Plan, but it is unlikely.  The land will still be part of the Green Belt until the local plan is passed and specific areas are removed from the Green Belt.  If they do put in an application the current law would suggest that it would be refused as ‘inappropriate’ development.  They are probably preparing to put in a planning application immediately after the Local Plan has been passed.

Local Plan Timetable.

The relevant timetable from now on is as follows:

  1. The final draft of the Local Plan will be presented to the NEDDC Cabinet in late October, 2017, and then passed for final public consultation in November, 2017. It is very important that everyone comments on this final draft because only comments made in respect of the final draft will be passed to the Government Inspector, who will decide whether the Plan should be passed.  Comments made in respect of previous drafts will not be counted.  We will have a meeting as soon as I have read and understood the final draft Plan.

 

  1. The final Plan will be sent to the Secretary of State, who will appoint a Government Inspector in February, 2018, so that the Plan can receive his/her consideration. There will be a public hearing (dates unknown) in respect of the Plan and anyone can raise relevant issues with the Inspector.  When we get to this stage we will have a further meeting to outline the rules and protocol for such comments to the Government Inspector, and to ensure there is no duplication of challenges (this is frowned upon).

 

  1. The finalised Local Plan, which says how much development can take place, and where, will be adopted around November, 2018.

 

  1. Any planning application based on the Plan will then go through the normal process with the NEDDC Planning Committee, and will have to pass the ‘sustainability’ test. We will have the opportunity to put forward objections in respect of each individual planning application in Killamarsh.  However, the Green Belt issue will no longer be relevant to those applications where the specific areas of land have been removed from the Green Belt.  However, you will recall that the Council themselves have identified areas of concern in respect of each of the areas identified to be removed from the Green Belt.  Road safety, access and previous mining activity being chief amongst those areas of concern.

The decision in respect of Fanny Avenue was a huge disappointment, but is not the end of the fight. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end.  It is merely the end of the beginning.  We need to keep fighting against these ridiculous proposals.

If anyone wishes to raise any questions about the process, or anything I have written, then please email secretary@ killamarsh-rage.co.uk and I will help if I can.

As I have said, as soon as we receive the final draft of the Local Plan, which should include infrastructure requirements, we will hold a meeting to explain what the issues are.

As I have explained at previous meetings, we cannot take any positive action until we receive a copy of the Plan or a specific planning application, i.e. something that we can react to.  Meanwhile, we continue to collect evidence and prepare to fight.

Unless people in Killamarsh, particularly those living in the north and east of Killamarsh, want to live in a building site, for the next ten years at least, they need to do something.  If not, don’t complain about what happens.  Remember, for all Killamarsh residents, we are talking about 613 new dwellings, 2,500 people and 1,200 cars.  You will not be able to park, move at ‘rush’ periods, get a doctors/dentist appointment or get a place in a local school without great difficulty.  Think of the disruption caused by recent small-scale building projects and road works.  Those to come will make these seem like a pleasant memory.  This is because we are seen as having good infrastructure!!!

If you are a Parish Councillor or a District Councillor reading this, we badly need your help as well.

Paul Johnson,   Chair of RAGE.

 

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on Local Plan UPDATE September 2017

LOCAL PLAN RESPONSE TO NEDDC APRIL 2017

RESPONSE TO NORTH EAST DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL

DRAFT LOCAL PLAN 2011-2033.

I understand the need for significant numbers of homes to be built in North East Derbyshire (NED), based on government targets and the objective ‘guesswork’ of the Housing Market Needs Assessment, I have serious reservations about the viability of the aspects relating to Killamarsh.  I will describe these reservations within discrete areas, although some of them merge into each other.

Green Belt Review.

I accept that the Green Belt review was undertaken in an objective manner, using the criteria for the establishment and retention of Green Belts in England.  However, the selection criteria utilised in the areas reviewed, resulting in specific areas being chosen, leaves me less happy.

No apparent cognizance was taken of the value placed on these areas by the local community, or of the use being made of them by the local population.  The presence of numerous footpaths in an area was apparently ignored, as were the geographical and topographical locations.

Killamarsh is in a unique position within the NE Derbyshire district (NEDDC).  Its location in the very north east portion of the district leads to many other pressures.  Killamarsh is on the border of the Sheffield, Rotherham, Bolsover and Chesterfield districts, thus being susceptible to changes and development within those localities.  This has left Killamarsh more vulnerable than other areas to excessive development.

For example, during the course of the Plan, Sheffield plans to build 745 homes very close to its border with Killamarsh.  Approximately 1,200 will be built in the Clowne area, 500+ in Bolsover, 270 in Renishaw, 563 in Eckington, 277 in Cresswell, 200 in Whitwell and 150 in Barlborough.  All of the above development will have a significant impact on the roads of Killamarsh, without considering the 618 dwellings planned to be built in Killamarsh itself.  Other significant pressures upon the road network will be discussed later.

The only people supportive of such development either have a vested financial interest in building homes, or are young people who are understandably looking for a home for themselves.

Your first draft plan provided homes towards the south of the District.  This would have provided sufficient for planned need.  However, developers did not want to build there as there was, in their opinion, no requirement.  They wanted to build on the edge of Sheffield/Rotherham on easy-to-access Green Belt land.  So, it is not that available land is not there – merely that no-one wants to build on it.  It would have been much easier to plan additional infrastructure needs from a ‘clean sheet’ rather than attempting to remediate an already ‘broken’ road network.

The assertion that ‘because about 50% of the population live in the north of the district, then 50% of any new development should be placed there’ defies logic and common sense.  The appropriateness and suitability for development, in terms of sustainability and potential hazards, of the areas chosen should have been a major consideration

This leads me to the question of infrastructure.

Infrastructure Issues.

The village of Killamarsh expanded significantly with the opening of numerous mines and open cast sites during the 19th and 20th Century.  The infrastructure of the village has changed little since the large scale development of the mid 1900’s.  There are three main access and ingress routes to Killamarsh; Sheffield Road/Mansfield Road, Rotherham Road and Spinkhill Road.  All are totally inadequate for current usage, with gridlock during ‘rush’ periods.

Sheffield Road is narrowed by on-street parking on the approach to the main shopping area from either direction.  There are two road bridges on the immediate approach to the village, bordered by a footpath, which causes traffic to slow or stop in the event of their meeting a larger vehicle travelling in the opposite direction.

Rotherham Road has been narrowed by the addition of traffic calming measures, with on-street parking narrowing the available roadway even more.  Currently the Rother Valley Country Park creates significant delays in spring and summer months through queuing traffic waiting to gain entrance.  This will only be exacerbated by the Gulliver’s Valley development further along the same road.

Spinkhill Road is already a ‘rat-run’ from J30 of the M1 motorway.  It is a 50mph speed limit, totally inappropriately, used by horses and riders and many cyclists.  There is no footpath for the pedestrians that use this area.  The carriageway narrows significantly in a dip in the road, overhung by trees where large lorries, diverted along this road by satellite navigation systems, cannot pass.  Those same lorries arrive at a T junction, on a hill, with only a very limited and interrupted view of traffic approaching from either Hut Lane or Upperthorpe Road.  This is particularly important in spring and summer when foliage, hedges and roadside weeds are at their optimum.  In the infrequent event of snow and ice this junction is chaotic.  Drivers arriving at the junction from Hut Lane intending to turn left, frequently, almost invariably, drift to the opposite side of the road due to their excessive speed.  Traffic on Upperthorpe Road/Hut Lane invariably travels at an excessive speed.  There are few accidents reported because the ones that occur on Spinkhill Road involve single vehicles crashing where the driver has lost control.

Because of the historical factors described any minor road or utility work on any of these three access/egress routes creates chaos.

Parking within the village centre is described in the draft Plan as ‘good, with much of it free’.  That depends upon your own viewpoint and the reality of the situation.  The three main parking areas are privately owned or controlled, as signs around them indicate.  This leaves parking at the whim of the individuals or organisations concerned.

The main parking area is within the Community Campus area.  A sign within the parking area states ‘Patrons Only’.  Mr. White owns the parking area, leading from Bridge Street, behind the main shopping area off Sheffield Road, with the entrance clearly being marked as ‘Private’.  The Aldi supermarket controls the parking area outside its premises, recently being successful in an application to reduce the permitted parking time there.  This leaves about 20 parking spaces within the village that are truly open to any resident, albeit for a limited time.

Killamarsh is described as a secondary town within the draft Plan.  Its strategic and social infrastructure is apparently felt to be sufficient to cope with significant additional development.  This may appear to be appropriate when based on a desk-top study, or a whistle-stop tour of the village, but the reality for those living in Killamarsh is different.

Killamarsh has 10% of its shops as food takeaways – twice the national average.  It has a plethora of beauty shops (nail, hair and other such shops), again more than 10% of available outlets.

There are two pharmacies within metres of each other and two e-cigarette outlets, again proximate to each other.  Whilst there are two supermarkets the Co-operative is in significant danger from the presence of the Aldi supermarket.  The Post office is in constant danger of closure.  The doctors’ surgery has come under significantly increased pressure and it is now difficult to get an appointment within a week.  The dental practice has not taken new clients for some time.  Other, more esoteric, outlets cater for specific and specialist needs.  The vast majority of retail outlets are clustered in the Bridge Street/Sheffield Road area, which has significant parking pressures, as described.  Outlying areas of Killamarsh are served by single, small general stores.  There is no bank and the two cash machines are within 10 metres of each other.

Nevertheless, shoppers living on the outskirts need to travel into the village centre to shop.  Public transport services have recently been curtailed.  The topographic problems (hills etc.) mean that those who cannot walk into the village – and Killamarsh has an ageing population – have to drive in.  As previously described, parking is a serious problem within the village.  There is an obvious disregard for parking restrictions, with a propensity to park illegally and dangerously near to the takeaway outlets, the post office and the supermarkets.  The lack of any significant or cohesive enforcement action only encourages such transgressions.

At least we have two funeral directors’ who can deal with any tragic consequences.

To these already significant issues the Plan wishes to add a further 618 dwellings, bringing with them approximately 1,200 cars and 2,400 people – adding almost 25% to Killamarsh’s already overpopulated streets.

Your own figures show that about 43% of those in employment within the northern area of NED out-commute to Sheffield, Chesterfield, Rotherham and Bolsover.  There is no reason to think that the building and occupation of 618 additional dwellings will reduce that figure.  More likely it will increase the percentage from Killamarsh.

This militates against the sustainability of the settlement – an issue to which I will refer later.

I have examined the Derbyshire Infrastructure Plan (DIP) for any sign of hope that the current road congestion might be eased.  Their plan holds no hope.

The only major works planned relate to the A61/A617 corridor, which also has a crucial need for improvement.  There is nothing to relieve the pressures on the road networks of Eckington and Killamarsh.

The section of the Plan dealing with ‘Infrastructure and Delivery’ refers to numerous potential sources of funding to aid infrastructure delivery plans, one of which includes Section 106 agreements for developer contributions.  These do not fill me with much hope.  The former means entering a lottery for funding with many others having a similar need, and the latter relates, in reality, to site-specific problems created by the specific development.  The problems of Killamarsh are historic, strategic and immense.

I understand that the October version of the Plan will provide a comprehensive infrastructure plan.  If this is not shown to be clearly funded, without needing to dip into a variety of funding pots in a hopeful or aspirational way, it will be without value.

The amount of capital expenditure needed to fund a comprehensive programme of changes to the inadequate road network around Killamarsh would be mind-blowingly expensive as well as chaotic in terms of implementation.  On-street parking outside the village centre is a necessity due to older-style housing with no internal or off-road parking facilities.

Basically, the road network is currently massively overstretched and cannot accommodate ANY more development, a view supported by the Parish Council of Killamarsh during a recent objection they made to a planning application.

Consideration of infrastructure improvements cannot be based on ‘might be’ and ‘potential’.  We all know of developments where S106 agreements have been formed before the developer concerned has reneged (via liquidation/insolvency/bankruptcy etc.), leaving the locality with unwanted development without the mitigation of infrastructure improvement.  The current mantra of ‘viability’ will no doubt be quoted long and often in order to reduce or obviate any S.106 liabilities.  This is not scaremongering, more a realistic assessment based on reality and experience.

When one filters the soon-to-be-built Gulliver’s Valley, which is an extension to the current Rother Valley Park, and the disruption emanating from the HS2 project, which will cut across the eastern edge of Killamarsh, paralleling the M1 motorway, the additional traffic will become horrendous.  Two landowners in this same quadrant of Killamarsh have been approached to allow drilling for shale gas to take place on their land.  This would be the final straw for current residents, providing an impending perfect storm of chaotic proportions.

I appreciate that all areas of North East Derbyshire are vulnerable to predatory developers in the absence of a Local Plan.  However, that should not mean that the residents of Killamarsh should be abandoned to a minimum of ten years of utter chaos from housing development, followed by further decades of disruption caused by national and regional infrastructure projects, without obvious benefit for local Killamarsh residents.

Selected Sites in Killamarsh.

The most significant site in Killamarsh is located at Westthorpe Fields, off Green Lane in Killamarsh.  The Plan refers to this area being ‘high risk’ due to previous mining work.  Houses in this immediate locality have been subject to subsidence damage and a farmer working in the field fell into a sinkhole on the site whilst driving his tractor over it.  This area is directly proximate to one of the largest collieries of the many located in this immediate area.

Green Lane, which previous plans have shown to be a main access/egress route, is a narrow road with significant on-street parking, hindering traffic movement and making the carriageway a virtual one-way route.  One of the main employment sites of Killamarsh is located along this road, meaning that large goods vehicles constantly use the road system.  Green Lane winds through a housing estate, again on narrow roads, before exiting onto Upperthorpe Road at a dangerous junction.  Views in either direction are extremely limited.

Upperthorpe Road has been show on previous plans to be an additional access/egress route from this proposed site.  Again, this is a poor road for use by heavy traffic because of on-street parking, blind bends, concealed junctions and adverse cambers.  It is also subject to flooding in times of heavy rainfall.

As one travels towards the shopping centre of Killamarsh the carriageway on High Street is again effectively one way due to on-street parking – an issue that continues all the way to the village centre.

Green Lane and Upperthorpe Road will be adversely affected by the sites off Manor Road and Boiley Lane, both of which will feed into the same road system, as will the site at Ashley Lane, although this latter site already has planning permission for a number of homes.

All the sites mentioned (except Boiley Lane) are partially located within High Risk former mining areas.  Disturbing the settled ground within these sites will likely lead to the emission of methane gas and CO2, further degrading air quality in Killamarsh.

The sites at Rotherham Road, Primrose Road and Barber’s Lane will all feed onto Sheffield Road to worsen an already hopeless traffic congestion situation, with each site having ancillary negative issues.

Air Quality.

Your last draft Plan in 2015 showed that the air quality in certain areas of NE Derbyshire was poor in two localities, due to emissions from vehicles travelling along the M1 motorway.  The eastern side of Killamarsh was one of those areas, although I accept it was not sufficient to make it an Air Quality Management issue.  However, since your last survey many adverse changes have occurred.

The M1 motorway, at the location at issue, now has four lanes rather than the previous three.

The HS 2 project, on the latest plan version, will pass less than a mile from the eastern side of Killamarsh.

Four of the sites within the Plan are on the central/eastern side of Killamarsh, bringing massive extra traffic movement, and therefore additional emissions of CO2 and particulate matter.

Increased traffic to and from Gulliver’s Valley, when completed, will be immense.

There must be some gas escapes if development work commences on the High Risk sites allocated for such development.

The single biggest concern relates to a building not actually in NE Derbyshire.  I refer to the Biomass Energy Plant located at Holbrook, right on the border with Killamarsh, by the very kind Sheffield City Council.  Whilst this is classed as ‘green’ energy research has shown that there are significant concerns in relation to such plants.

The plant will burn pre-used wood, which presents its own challenges.

Burning wood emits a similar range and level of pollutants as burning coal, with variations within the level of individual pollutants.  The largest volume of air pollutants includes nitrogen (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) small particulates (PM10 and PM 2.5).  The use if virgin wood as fuel also emits various pollutants, too numerous to mention.

Burning chemically treated waste wood involves the same range of pollutants, but includes heavy metals, dioxins and furans.  Other emissions will depend upon the chemicals used to treat the wood.

Researched experience (World Health Organisation) indicates that:

  • Air pollution is strongly linked to heart disease and strokes, less so to lung disease and cancer,
  • Long-term exposure to NO2 is linked to reduced lung functions and increased bronchitis in children with asthma,
  • Short-term exposure to NO2 is linked to the inflammation of airways,
  • NO2 is an important source of fine particulates (PM2.5),
  • NO2 is a source of ground-level ozone, which is linked to breathing problems, asthma attacks, reduced lung function and heart/lung disease,
  • Long-term exposure to small particulates (PM10) is linked to respiratory and heart disease, and to lung cancer.  There are no safe levels of exposure to PM2.5,
  • High levels of SO2 affect the respiratory system and lung function,
  • Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) are carcinogenic,
  • Dioxins and Furans are highly toxic and persist long-term in the environment.  They can cause reproductive and developmental problems, damage the immune system, cause cancer and interfere with hormones.  Air emissions of dioxins can be inhaled but they can also pollute the food chain.

Other pollutants emitted by biomass stations can cause similar health issues.

It is interesting to note that Sheffield have built their two plants, with their £200 million pounds of funding, in Blackburn Meadows, on the edge of Rotherham, and at Holbrook, on the edge of NE Derbyshire.  Perhaps they feel this is part of their duty to co-operate!

NO and NO2 are emitted from biomass plants, but by far the largest source of such pollution is from petrol and diesel vehicles.

To add to the already high levels of pollution emanating from the M1 motorway your plan intends to add almost 25% more people and vehicles to the ‘mix’.

This is unfair, unreasonable and eminently dangerous.  Many people, particularly the older generation, have historical lung problems through exposure during their work in local mines.  Young children should not be exposed to increased levels of pollution.

I am aware that your statistics will say that there will be less than four people per dwelling and fewer cars that two per home, but the reality of Killamarsh is that my estimate is the reality – hence much on-street parking.

Sustainability.

he whole essence of the NEDDC Local Plan is sustainable development.  This, in my view, is impossible to achieve within the terms of the draft Plan.

The topography of Killamarsh, particularly in relation to the recommended development sites, counters any claim to sustainability.  Most of the sites, and all of the larger sites, are located on top of steep inclines.

The local public transport providers have recently reduced their services to the west and east of Killamarsh, making travel by car inevitable.  Buses passing my own home are either completely empty or occupied by less than a handful of people.  The reality is that people prefer to travel by car.  Attempts to suggest otherwise are ridiculous, and no attempt to force people to adopt inconvenient, infrequent and ineffective public transport systems will work.  Even the links to the Supertram network at Halfway will necessitate travel by car.

Shopping trips would be impossible either on foot or by bicycle.  In any event, with almost half of the current working population commuting to either Sheffield (predominantly), Rotherham or Chesterfield, this will doubtless be mirrored in any new development.  Many people need to be mobile at work, necessitating the use of a vehicle.  They then do their shopping during lunchtimes in the towns and cities where they work or call at Morrisons or the popular Aldi store on their way home.  This will only get worse.

 

With the work on HS2 and Gulliver’s Valley, together with the other issues I have highlighted, residents of Killamarsh will be living a nightmare.

 

Developers may promise to build new retirement homes, new shops, new doctor’s surgeries etc., as Harworth Estates have already suggested, but someone else has to pay for them to be staffed and operated.  Buildings are easy to build but not to operate effectively or profitably.

The current doctors’ surgery is overrun, the dentist cannot take new clients (and has not done so for some time) and the schools will have significant financial pressures in the immediate future (as the chair of a school governing body I am painfully aware of these pressures).  Developer contributions will not fill funding gaps.

Unless significant amounts of money miraculously appear the whole Killamarsh project is doomed to failure – not for the developers, who will happily cash in on properties with excellent locations and views, but for the existing residents.

If this is sustainability, it is not my idea of it.

If this is an unwelcome picture of doom, I apologise.  However, residents in 2033 will find it to have been accurate.

Killamarsh 2035.

The vision of the future Killamarsh, as espoused by Opun Designs, East Midlands, is an excellent one, and one to which I have happily contributed.

Once again this hopes for funding from a variety of sources, including developers, and is aspirational in terms of financial backing rather than realistic.  No organisation appears to have the power to steer the project – unlike Eckington where there was a funded steering group for their town centre development.

The only light at the end of a very dark tunnel is the restoration of the Canal.  This would be a welcome addition to the meagre leisure opportunities within Killamarsh, and would right a horrendous planning mistake which allowed the canal route to be built over.

The green corridors will provide much-needed, healthy leisure routes within Killamarsh, but these will only partially compensate for the loss of Green Belt land, currently used for leisure activities, if the Plan goes ahead.

 

Paul Johnson,

Chair of RAGE

(Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion).

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on LOCAL PLAN RESPONSE TO NEDDC APRIL 2017

IMPORTANT !!! A MESSAGE FROM RAGE – MEETING 13TH MARCH

IMPORTANT !!  A MESSAGE FROM RAGE

(Resident’s Against Greenbelt Erosion)

North East Derbyshire District Council (NEDDC)

Local Plan (now – 2033)

The Cabinet of North East District Council considered the draft Local Plan on 17th February, 2017.  The whole of the Local Plan, and accompanying documents, can be seen on the NEDDC website.

The planners have decided that 50% of the new growth for the District will go to the three main towns in the north of the region;  Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh.  This is their idea of ‘balance’, because 50% of the housing is already present in these three towns.  All three are judged to have a ‘good infrastructure’.  You will all have your own views on the adequacy of our infrastructure!  This measure includes the road network, public services and parking.

In respect of Killamarsh this will involve the construction of 618 new homes (yes, six hundred and eighteen!) over the period of the plan, with many of them being built over the next ten years (the majority being built in the first five).

The locations are:

Westthorpe Fields330 (between Upperthorpe Road and Green Lane)

Upperthorpe Road – 100 (left of, and adjoining Manor Road Estate)

Rotherham Road – 70

East of Barber’s Lane – 60

Primrose Lane – 30

Ashley Lane – 14

Boiley Lane – 14

The vast majority of the development is due to take place on Green Belt land or, more properly, on land which the Council intend to remove from the Green Belt.

It is also intended to build 270 dwellings in Renishaw, and 745 in Halfway, Mosborough and Owlthorpe, in addition to significant development in Clowne and Bolsover.

RAGE will hold a public meeting at 7.00 pm on Monday the 13th March, 2017 in the Parish Suite, Killamarsh Leisure Centre, to pass on information with which people can form their own views before attending the North East Derbyshire District Council consultation meeting on the 20th March, 2017 (4.30pm – 7.30pm)

Even if your locality is not affected by the specific building sites you will be troubled by construction and other traffic, and by the pressure on already stretched public services.  The people in areas directly concerned with the development can expect dirt, noise, congested roads, road works and travel delays for the next 10 years, as can most of the residents in Killamarsh.

If you are one of those who thinks it will never happen – it already is!

If you are happy with this – do nothing.  If you are concerned – come to our meeting on Monday 13th of March.

Paul Johnson,

Chair of Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion (RAGE)

You can contact us by email on secretary@killamarsh-rage.co.uk

telephone us on 0114 2484812 or visit our website at 

www.killamarsh-rage.co.uk

We can also be found on Facebook

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on IMPORTANT !!! A MESSAGE FROM RAGE – MEETING 13TH MARCH

URGENT FROM THE CHAIR OF R.A.G.E.

The following is an initial document from Paul Johnson, Chair of R.A.G.E. on the NEDDC Local Plan, which will bring 618 new houses to Killamarsh.

North East Derbyshire District Council (NEDDC) Local Plan (now – 2033)

The Cabinet of NEDDC considered the draft Local Plan on 17th February, 2017.  The whole of the Local Plan, and accompanying documents, can be seen on the NEDDC website.

The planners have decided that 50% of the new growth for the District will go to the three main towns in the north of the region;  Dronfield, Eckington and Killamarsh.  This is their idea of ‘balance’, because 50% of the housing is already present in these three towns.  All three are judged to have a ‘good infrastructure’.  You will all have your views on the adequacy of our infrastructure!  This measure includes the road network, public surfaces and parking.

In respect of Killamarsh this will involve the construction of 618 new homes (yes, six hundred and eighteen!) over the period of the plan, with most of them being built over the next ten years (the majority being built in the first five).

The locations are:

Westthorpe Fields330

Upperthorpe Road (left of, and adjoining the Manor Estate) – 100

Rotherham Road – 70

East of Barber’s Lane – 60

Primrose Road – 30

Ashley Lane – 14

Boiley Lane – 14.

The vast majority of the development is due to take place on Green Belt land.

I am waiting for further documents and maps to be published after which R.A.G.E. will hold a meeting for discussions with interested residents.

NEDDC will hold a public consultation on their proposals at the Killamarsh Leisure Centre, Parish Rooms, between 4.30pm and 7.30pm on Monday, 20th March, 2017.

Even if your locality is not affected by the specific building sites you will be troubled by construction and other traffic, and by the pressure on already stretched public services.  The people in areas directly concerned with the development can expect dirt, noise, congested roads, road works and travel delays for the next 10 years.  If you are happy with this – do nothing.

Paul Johnson,

Chair of Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion (RAGE).

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on URGENT FROM THE CHAIR OF R.A.G.E.

HOW TO COMMENT ON A PLANNING APPLICATION

HOW TO COMMENT ON A PLANNING APPLICATION.

There are two ways to comment on a Planning Application to North East Derbyshire District Council.

The easiest one is to comment online.  Put ‘neddc planning’ into your search engine and look for ‘how to comment on a planning application’.  You need to accept the ‘terms and conditions’ and to register, giving your personal details.  Anonymous messages will not be accepted.  Type in what you want to say or what you wish to comment upon.  Make sure you have shown the specific reference number – in this case, application number 16/01302/FL- and type your comments or attach any document you may have prepared.

For anyone who wishes to comment in writing they should quote the application reference number and their name and address, write what they wish to say (as discussed on the specific areas that can be objected to) and post it to:

North East Derbyshire District Council,

Development Management Support Officer,

2013 Mill Lane,

Wingerworth,

Chesterfield,

Derbyshire,

S42 6NG.

 

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on HOW TO COMMENT ON A PLANNING APPLICATION

COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLANNING APPLICATION 16/01302FL

Comments and objections to

Planning Application 16/01302/FL

26 Dwellings, comprising 1 and 2 bedroom bungalows and

3 and 4 bedroom houses, 100% affordable homes.

Land off Fanny Avenue, Killamarsh – Applicant Ms. Marie Wilson.

 

Dear Sirs,

I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:

  • This land is within a Green Belt area surrounding Killamarsh and the development is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would be harmful to the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt,
  • Although the application is for ‘affordable homes’ – an application that can be judged to be ‘appropriate development’ in Green Belt areas, I suggest that it should not be so judged because it does not fulfil the criteria for such a judgement.
  • This is not ‘limited infilling in villages’ or ‘limited affordable homes for local community needs’.  The application itself shows that this is ‘major development’,
  • The Design, Access Planning and Heritage Statement (DAPHS), which accompanies the application, suggests that this development would ’infill the Manor Road, Fanny Avenue/Dumbleton Road development to its south, following the pattern of development that has been historically established’.  This development is not ‘infilling’.  It is within the Green Belt and outside the Killamarsh Settlement Limits.  There is no ‘historical pattern of development’ here at all.  This would be a complete intrusion into the countryside,
  • The application talks about the construction of 1 and 2 bedroom bungalows and 3 and 4 bedroom houses.  The site plan shows only 1 and 2 bedroom houses with 2 and 3 bedroom houses.  Where are the four bedroom houses to go?  Will the application for these houses go in afterwards, if this application is granted?
  • The Maps displayed on the Phase I and Phase II Geotechnical Study indicate that a much larger area than that which is the subject of this planning application has been examined.  This leads very reasonably to the belief that this application is the ‘sweetener’ to a subsequent, much larger, proposal.  Previous research has shown that in the last available SHLAA applications KIL 1702 and KIL 1703 appear to cover the area shown in the perhaps incorrectly included maps showing a much larger examination area.  That would lead to 152 additional homes, if subsequent applications were accepted,
  • The application site plan shows parking for 52 vehicles and bedrooms for 108 people.  This significantly exceeds the number of people living on Fanny Avenue and would provide traffic congestion on this small estate road.
  • On- road parking that currently exists will exacerbate access and egress to the proposed site and will increase potential danger from traffic and an increase in CO2 and particulates, thereby exacerbating the higher levels of these due to the site’s proximity to the M1 motorway,
  • Fanny Avenue exits onto Manor Road, which itself leads to Úpperthorpe Road.  The current exit from Manor Road is on a partial bend with views limited by hedgerows.  The exit is close to the start/end of a 50 mph limit carriageway with many bends and adverse cambers.  This will provide danger to more vehicles exiting Manor Road,
  • The Geotechnical Study shows the reality of the site which drops sharply from the top of the proposed site to its boundary with Upperthorpe Road.  This gets steeper the more one travels along Upperthorpe Road towards Hut Lane.  In this area the road surface is frequently flooded during heavy rainfall, making the road all but impassable near to the junction of Upperthorpe Road and Spinkhill Road.  To site what is described as an ‘attenuation pond’, designed to take care of groundwater from the site, near to this well-used road is, in my view, the height of folly.  In heavy rain there is a clear danger of the attenuation pond being either breached or overtopped, leading to additional flooding on the road with a very clear risk of homes below the pond being flooded.  The land continues to descend quite sharply for a few hundred yards,
  • The Geotechnical Study refers to the last subsidence claim occurring in 1998.  There is evidence from houses on Manor Road and Fanny Avenue to show that ground movement is still taking place here, leading to damaged tiles and cracks in house walls.  Rykneld Homes should have evidence of remedial work carried out in response to this,
  • The proposed development site is bordered on two sides by ‘Development High Risk’ areas which, presumably, have been so designated for valid reasons.

For the stated reasons I ask that this application be denied.

 

Paul Johnson,

Rose Cottage,

1 Spinkhill Road,

Killamarsh,

Sheffield,

S21 1EH

 

Addendum.

There is an important issue for those living next to, or very close to, the proposed development.  This concerns the loss of amenity to the area.

Whilst you cannot complain about the loss of a view, or a reduction in the value of your house (don’t mention either of these!) an objection can be raised if the size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adve3rse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing impact.

The current occupants of Fanny Avenue and Manor Road have a reasonable expectation of a level of amenity from living beside open fields.  The proposed development will result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbour’s residential amenity.  In addition the development would harm the habitats of many species of wildlife currently living in the area of the proposed development (then give examples of the birds, animals etc. that are seen to live and visit the site – as produced at last nights meeting). 

Remember, your comment/objection needs to be about what you feel, not what someone else has put.  It needs to be your personal views.

 

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS TO PLANNING APPLICATION 16/01302FL

Land off Fanny Avenue – Comments & Objections

Comments and objections to
Planning Application 16/01302/FL

26 Dwellings, comprising 1 and 2 bedroom bungalows and
3 and 4 bedroom houses, 100% affordable homes.

Land off Fanny Avenue, Killamarsh – Applicant Ms. Marie Wilson.

Dear Sirs,

I wish to object to the above planning application for the following reasons:

• This land is within a Green Belt area surrounding Killamarsh and the development is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would be harmful to the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt,
• Although the application is for ‘affordable homes’ – an application that can be judged to be ‘appropriate development’ in Green Belt areas, I suggest that it should not be so judged because it does not fulfil the criteria for such a judgement.
• This is not ‘limited infilling in villages’ or ‘limited affordable homes for local community needs’. The application itself shows that this is ‘major development’,
• The Design, Access Planning and Heritage Statement (DAPHS), which accompanies the application, suggests that this development would ’infill the Manor Road, Fanny Avenue/Dumbleton Road development to its south, following the pattern of development that has been historically established’. This development is not ‘infilling’. It is within the Green Belt and outside the Killamarsh Settlement Limits. There is no ‘historical pattern of development’ here at all. This would be a complete intrusion into the countryside,
• The application talks about the construction of 1 and 2 bedroom bungalows and 3 and 4 bedroom houses. The site plan shows only 1 and 2 bedroom houses with 2 and 3 bedroom houses. Where are the four bedroom houses to go? Will the application for these houses go in afterwards, if this application is granted?
• The Maps displayed on the Phase I and Phase II Geotechnical Study indicate that a much larger area than that which is the subject of this planning application has been examined. This leads very reasonably to the belief that this application is the ‘sweetener’ to a subsequent, much larger, proposal. Previous research has shown that in the last available SHLAA applications KIL 1702 and KIL 1703 appear to cover the area shown in the perhaps incorrectly included maps showing a much larger examination area. That would lead to 152 additional homes, if subsequent applications were accepted,
• The application site plan shows parking for 52 vehicles and bedrooms for 108 people. This significantly exceeds the number of people living on Fanny Avenue and would provide traffic congestion on this small estate road.
• On- road parking that currently exists will exacerbate access and egress to the proposed site and will increase potential danger from traffic and an increase in CO2 and particulates, thereby exacerbating the higher levels of these due to the site’s proximity to the M1 motorway,
• Fanny Avenue exits onto Manor Road, which itself leads to Úpperthorpe Road. The current exit from Manor Road is on a partial bend with views limited by hedgerows. The exit is close to the start/end of a 50 mph limit carriageway with many bends and adverse cambers. This will provide danger to more vehicles exiting Manor Road,
• The Geotechnical Study shows the reality of the site which drops sharply from the top of the proposed site to its boundary with Upperthorpe Road. This gets steeper the more one travels along Upperthorpe Road towards Hut Lane. In this area the road surface is frequently flooded during heavy rainfall, making the road all but impassable near to the junction of Upperthorpe Road and Spinkhill Road. To site what is described as an ‘attenuation pond’, designed to take care of groundwater from the site, near to this well-used road is, in my view, the height of folly. In heavy rain there is a clear danger of the attenuation pond being either breached or overtopped, leading to additional flooding on the road with a very clear risk of homes below the pond being flooded. The land continues to descend quite sharply for a few hundred yards,
• The Geotechnical Study refers to the last subsidence claim occurring in 1998. There is evidence from houses on Manor Road and Fanny Avenue to show that ground movement is still taking place here, leading to damaged tiles and cracks in house walls. Rykneld Homes should have evidence of remedial work carried out in response to this,
• The proposed development site is bordered on two sides by ‘Development High Risk’ areas which, presumably, have been so designated for valid reasons.

For the stated reasons I ask that this application be denied.

Paul Johnson,

Rose Cottage,
1 Spinkhill Road,
Killamarsh,
Sheffield,
S21 1EH

Addendum.

There is an important issue for those living next to, or very close to, the proposed development. This concerns the loss of amenity to the area.

Whilst you cannot complain about the loss of a view, or a reduction in the value of your house (don’t mention either of these!) an objection can be raised if the size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adve3rse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing impact.

The current occupants of Fanny Avenue and Manor Road have a reasonable expectation of a level of amenity from living beside open fields. The proposed development will result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbour’s residential amenity. In addition the development would harm the habitats of many species of wildlife currently living in the area of the proposed development (then give examples of the birds, animals etc. that are seen to live and visit the site – as produced at last nights meeting).

Remember, your comment/objection needs to be about what you feel, not what someone else has put. It needs to be your personal views.

Posted in K-RAGE Posts | Comments Off on Land off Fanny Avenue – Comments & Objections