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was in the new or amended NPPF, so the new Plan will not be published yet.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

HOW TO OBJECT TO A PLANNING APPLICATION

Anyone has a right to object to a submitted planning application. There are a number
of issues that should be considered before doing so.

Every objection of supportive comment should show the Planning Application
number of the relevant application. The response should show the name and postal
address of the writer, even if the comment is made by email.

Certain locations, such as Conservation areas or land within the Green Belt, require
the planning authority to exercise stricter control over any development or alteration
taking place within them. Green Belt land precludes ‘inappropriate development’
from taking place within its boundaries. It does, however, allow such things as small
developments of affordable homes and traveller sites, particularly if there is evidence
of an unmet need that cannot be accommodated elsewhere, or there is a particularly
pressing identified need. Many other conditions will also have to be met.

Material Planning Considerations.

These are the only issues that the Planning Authority or Planning Committee will
consider when making their decision on a planning application. They include:

  • Loss of light or ‘overshadowing’
    Loss of visual amenity (note, this does NOT INCLUDE loss of view)
    The ‘amenity’ can be defined as the ‘pleasantness or attractiveness of a place’
    Adequacy of parking/loading/turning
    Highway safety
    Traffic generation
    Use or storage of hazardous materials
    Unpleasant smells
    Loss of trees
    Effects on listed buildings or a conservation area
    Layout/density of buildings
    Design and appearance of buildings, or material used in construction
    Landscaping
    Road access
    Planning policies – local, regional, national or strategic
    Government circulars or orders
    Disabled access
    Proposals in the Local Development Plan
    Previous planning decisions
    Nature conservation
    Archaeology
    Specific use of solar panels.

.

Matters that will not be taken into account by the Local Planning Authority include:

  • Loss of property value
    Private disputes between neighbours
    Loss of a view
    Impact of construction work or competition between companies
    Restrictive covenants
    Ownership disputes over rights of way
    Fence lines
    Personal moral comments or views about the applicant

.

Whilst anyone may wish to supply a personal/historical perspective to their comments
it is unlikely to be considered relevant unless the issue falls within one of the Material
Planning Considerations.

.
There are many websites containing advice on how to challenge a planning
application. If you put ‘Material Planning Consideration’ into your search engine a
variety of documents will give much food for thought, including sample letters of
objection from the CPRE site.

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