Welcome to Killamarsh RAGE

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 17^th 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 Fields – 330 (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 13^th 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 20^th 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 13^th 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

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 17^th 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 Fields – 330

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, 20^th 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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

A planning application has been submitted to North East
Derbyshire District Council as follows:
Planning application 16/00254/OL – 12 Pitch Traveller
Site, off 21 Mansfield Road, High Moor, Killamarsh.
.

As the Chair of Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion (R.A.G.E.) I
object to this application for the following reasons:

.
1. The proposed site is located on Green Belt land and should be
judged as ‘inappropriate development’, which would be harmful to
the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt.

.

2. There is no evidence of a ‘specifically identified need’ for a
traveller site in this location in respect of this application. There is
already a traveller site just over a mile away from this location at
Halfway, and another one has been identified in the Local Plan of
Rotherham MBC for Kiveton Park, two or three miles way (from
my examination of their Local Plan, unless this has been
amended).

.
3. Green Belt boundaries should not be altered other than in
exceptional circumstances. This should be carried out via the
Local Plan for North East Derbyshire District Council. There was
no such alteration, or exceptional circumstances identified, in the
last draft plan for North East District Council, circulated for
comment last year.

.
4. The last North East Derbyshire District Council Local Plan was
withdrawn from consideration because it was feared that it would
not be found to be ‘sound’ upon examination. One of the issues
raised was that there should be a fundamental view of the Green
Belt surround Killamarsh (and other areas) to assess whether any
alterations to the Green Belt were required. Any pre-emptive
granting of planning permission for a site within the Green Belt
will negate the whole point of a fundamental review and may
compromise any future coherent plan.

.

Objections to the planning application can still be submitted
to North East Derbyshire District Council and I am happy for
the points raised in my objection to be used.

.

Paul Johnson
Chair
Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion (R.A.G.E.)

Local Plan

You will recall that I advised you during the last update that the Local Plan for North East Derbyshire was due to have been sent out for public consultation in September or October of this year.  Work on the Plan continues slowly and is currently scheduled for a further delay of about three months.  That date too is likely to be subject to a considerable delay, due to changed circumstances.

Having viewed Government guidance in respect of Local Plan preparation the North East Derbyshire District Council have concluded that their intended option of preparing our plan in two parts was not viable, and would have been judged ‘unsound’ by the Government Inspector.

They now intend to submit a single plan that will include the sites that they intend to designate for building development over the next five or six years.  This will bring about a Green Belt review, with Green Belt sites being designated for building development, much earlier than was planned for, or that we hoped for.

There is a problematic issue with the location of relevant available sites within North East Derbyshire, and with the ‘deliverability’ of those sites.

To put this absolutely clearly, most of the available housing development land is to the south of the county, whilst the most demand is in the north, east and west.  Due to the alleged Green Belt constraints in the north (us) and the west, Green Belt land will be taken for housing.  You will recall that, previously, the 1000 homes intended to be built in the north were to be accommodated on non-Green Belt land.  The forthcoming review may require an alteration to the current Settlement Development Limit which divides the built-up area of Killamarsh from the surrounding Green Belt.  Killamarsh has been developed right up to the Settlement Limit line, hence the allegation that further development is ‘constrained by the Green Belt’.

Another issue relates to ‘deliverability’.  Again, this means that the land is available to be built upon but developers do not want to build there – probably because the sites are not in areas where they believe they can maximise their profits, or even sell enough of the houses.  Due to this deliverability issue the north of the region was unlikely to achieve its housing target of 1000 homes before the target date – in fact, it was projected that less than 25% of this number would have been built.

The council will now work on an urgent Green Belt review and will prepare a single plan, due for publication in 12-18 months time.  It should be noted that if the Local Plan is not produced by ‘early 2017’ the Government will prepare a plan for them.  We will wait to be informed by either eventuality.

Other Issues

It seems that building on Green Belt land is not the only problem to be concerned about in the near future.

Fracking

The Government has offered 27 plots, each of 10 square kilometres for bids by companies interested in hydraulic fracturing, better known as ‘fracking’, in a bid to develop the production of oil and natural gas.  We, in Killamarsh, are within one of the areas for which bids have been invited.  Various websites outline the benefits and problems associates with fracking, and I advise you to look up the information.  I will inform you when further specific information is available.  The 27 areas currently being auctioned are not judged to be environmentally sensitive.  A further 132 ‘plots’, many to the south and west of us, will be auctioned off when environmental issues have been researched further.

Solar Farm

A solar farm is planned on County Council-owned land near to the old Westthorpe Colliery.  There are mixed views on the value of such ‘farms’, with environmental impact being dictated by the location and design of them.  We need to keep our collective eyes on this issue.

HS2

The last major difficulty involves HS2 which, although it is the most distant in terms of timescale, will perhaps have the most dramatic impact on Killamarsh, in terms of disruption and devastation.

All of these matters need to be carefully monitored so that the final outcomes benefit Killamarsh residents, and not greedy developers or soulless Government officials.

As soon as we have specific information about any relevant issue we will call a public meeting to which you will all be invited.

Killamarsh Town Centre Plan

Many of you will have noticed an article in the last NE Derbyshire magazine that referred to the forthcoming formulation of a ‘town centre plan’ for Killamarsh (and Dronfield).  Public consultation within the local communities concerned will run from Saturday 5^th to Wednesday 16^th of September, 2015.  I do not know the exact dates for Killamarsh, but will publicise them when known.  In view of the acknowledged lack of open spaces within Killamarsh it is well worth those who believe we should have some structured leisure facilities, incorporating the ‘new’ canal route, the Pennine Way and connecting footpaths and wildflower meadows, making that view known.  If you have any suggestions for any of our Green Belt areas, please let us know.  We will support any suitable and appropriate ‘leisure pursuit’ plan.

As always, let us know if you hear or see anything that might present problems in the local Green Belt areas.

Paul Johnson,

Chair of RAGE

LOCAL PLAN RESPONSE, 2015.

I would like to thank all the local people who attended the last RAGE public meeting on Tuesday, 17^th March, 2015, at the Nethergreen Club.  I said then that I was in the process of preparing my personal response and that I would place this on the website for anyone to view if they so wished.

I do not, and cannot, reply on behalf of RAGE.  Each person has their own views; these are mine.  In any event the District Council look at not just the content of responses but the amount of them.  This is important to show the strength of local feeling.

My personal response is detailed and needs to be viewed against the identified sections of the draft Local Plan Part 1.  The full Local Plan Part 1, and the associated Evidence Base used by the authors of the plan, has been uploaded onto our website for your information and perusal.

If you do not have time to look at all the documentation you may wish to give your views on any, or all, of the following areas:

 The Local Plan does not contain any wider infrastructure plans that will benefit the North of the District.  Why is this?

• How can Killamarsh, and Eckington for that matter, be shown as having a declining population, yet still need lots of affordable houses for ‘local’ need?
• Has there been any independent verification of the Housing Need Assessment?  It appears to have been based on income/house prices during the recession.
• NEDDC has admitted to accommodating the housing need for Sheffield.  Is all the additional housing needed for an overspill from Sheffield?
• Killamarsh infrastructure is poor and totally inadequate to cope with the development that has taken place over the last century.  The three main exit/entry routes are extremely congested during commuting periods and there are historic road problems on each route in and out of Killamarsh.  What will the plan provide to alleviate this?
• The shopping variety is poor, with an over-reliance on takeaways and beauty salons.  There is no butcher, baker, fishmonger, greengrocer, bank, etc.  The doctors’ surgery is full to capacity and there is a long waiting list for acceptance onto the Dental Practice list.  How is this adequate for the current population, never mind others coming in?
• The vast majority of spending takes place outside Killamarsh.  The Plan says that the intention is to use vacant shops and the Community Campus to regenerate Killamarsh.  This is laughable.  Clay Cross and Eckington have a Town Centre Regeneration Plan in place.  Why hasn’t Killamarsh got such a plan, despite this being a significant challenge?
• Public parking availability within Killamarsh is totally inadequate, not ‘good’ as the Plan suggests.  How will this be improved?
• The Green Belt Functionality Study suggests that three areas around Killamarsh, and one at High Moor, are vulnerable to the building of significant numbers of affordable homes.  No account has yet been taken, during desk top studies, or short visits by strangers, of the locally important assets to residents.  I want to register my protest at their potential use.  They contain many rights of way and give green space and open views in a town that has very few such spaces and views within its settlement limits.
• Why have developers been allowed to have 2,825 unimplemented planning permissions in our District?  Are they waiting for ‘better’ sites where they can make more money?  Something should be done about this disgraceful situation, particularly as the alternative is to build on the Green Belt.
• How soon can the 1,000 empty homes within the NE Derbyshire and Bolsover Districts be brought into use.  This should be a priority, before any building on the Green Belt takes place.
• Killamarsh apparently has a ‘balanced’ housing stock.  The building of significant amounts of affordable homes will destroy that balance – one of the few balanced stock areas within the District.  This balance should not be damaged.
• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says that ‘limited affordable housing for local need’ can take place on Green Belt land.  What constitutes ‘limited’?  We need to have a maximum figure that will be allowed and never exceeded.
• The Local Plan Part 1 outlines that 100% of affordable houses on site will be the starting point for negotiation.  Due to the profit margin developers will want to build as few affordable homes as possible.  There should be a very high minimum percentage required that will not be breached, somewhere in the 80-90% range.
• The Chesterfield Canal and the Cuckoo Way should be the focal points for a coherent leisure facility to the West of Killamarsh, providing a comprehensive range of healthy, outdoor leisure pursuits.

I hope these issues will give you something to think about, and to comment on.  Please include any of your own, of course.

Please encourage your friends and neighbours to respond to this consultation.  As I said at the start of this message, the District Council will take note of the number of responses to assess the strength of feeling within communities.  We have this one chance – let us take it.  Let us do our best to preserve our green spaces, before it’s too late.

If you need to discuss anything with me, please give me a call on 07900-682123.

Your comments need to be received by the North East Derbyshire District Council by the 26^th March, 2015.

Responses should be made by email to local.plan@ne-derbyshire.gov.uk.  Comments by post should be addressed to ‘Planning Policy Team, North East Derbyshire District Council, Council House, Saltergate, Chesterfield, Derbyshire, S40 1LF.

 If you got to NEDDC Local Plan on the website you will be able to make your comments using the interactive response form there.

Paul Johnson,   Chair of R.A.G.E.

Click Below for a SPECIMEN response letter, please feel free to copy & personalise to suit your own thoughts and objections

Local Plan Response 2015

Please use the following link to go to NEDDC Local Plan Documentation 

Local Plan 2011 – 2031

I have received information that Coda Planning, on behalf of Harworth Estates, have submitted an ‘Environmental/Traffic’ report to, I believe, the Planning Department at NEDDC.  I have also been informed that NEDDC Consultants have prepared a report for Members about the process of either turning Green Belt into Building Land, or assessing Green Belt areas for their appropriateness to be used for building affordable homes.  Neither report is yet in the public domain, although there is a suggestion that the latter document will be available after it has been seen by Members at the end of the month.  I do not know whether this latter report defines the strategy for the Green Belt review, or the actual sites.  I will keep my eyes on the usual NEDDC sources of information.  Whilst the information is not precise it shows that matters may be coming to a head.

Could I ask everyone to keep their eyes and ears open for appropriate rumours or activity in respect of the Westthorpe area please.

Paul Johnson
Chair
R.A.G.E.
(Residents Against Greenbelt Erosion)