residents’ meeting

Residents’MeetingThursday 9th August 7.30pm

0

Killamarsh RAGE 9th August 2012

Executive Summary (1/2) The Spatial Portrait setting out what the District is like

and identifying three distinct sub-areas. The Vision setting out how the District should look in 20

years time. A set of Spatial Objectives outlining the main policy

directions in both the District as a whole and in each of the three sub-areas.

A new Local Housing Target to replace the target included in the East Midlands Regional Plan that is soon to be revoked. This includes the assessment of a number of housing growth scenarios for the three sub areas.


Executive Summary (2/2) The need for affordable housing in the light of the

results of the recent Housing Need Market and Affordability Study.

The need to carry out a targeted review of the Green Belt to allow more affordable homes to be provided and how this review might be undertaken.

A Settlement Hierarchy for the District taking into account the results of the Settlement Role and Function Study that gives each of the District’s settlements a score based on size and the availability of services.

Employment Issues in the District that have been highlighted in recent studies.


Spatial Portrait Spatial policy context of North East

Derbyshire:


Have we identified the key spatial issues in Figure 3?


Spatial Portrait - Challenges Taking the Spatial Portrait and the views

of local people into account, the Council has identified a number of key challenges for the District

Do you agree with the list of challenges for the District?


A Vision for the District Do you agree that the Local Plan should

cover the period up to 2031?


District Wide Objectives Do you agree with the objectives identified

for the District and Subareas? Has anything important been missed?


What else should the Key Diagram contain?

Emerging Key Diagram


Constrained North Is the methodology appropriate?


Preferred Housing Target Is the proposed housing target

reasonable, given the alternatives and local issues / circumstances?


Recommended Preferred Housing Target by Sub-area & District Total Should windfalls be in addition to the

housing target, or should the housing target make provision for them?


Relationship between Preferred Housing Target & SNPP Is it reasonable to challenge historic

migration trends that underpin the Sub-National Population Projections, to take account of changes in land supply and pressure on the Green Belt?


Net Affordable Housing Need by Sub-Area Should the Council aim to secure 30%

affordable units in development schemes? Should the Local Plan include District wide affordable housing percentages and thresholds or should they be area specific?


Case for a Targeted Review of the Green Belt Is a review of the Green Belt justified under

these local circumstances? Would the ‘exception’ approach work in

practice? What would be an ‘acceptable proportion’ of

social housing?


Proposed Methodology for a Green Belt Review Is the methodology for a review of the

Green Belt appropriate? Is it right to take a two-staged

approach?


Strategic Green Belt Review Are the general areas of Green Belt

identified for assessment appropriate?


Detailed Site Identification and Assessment Are the Green Belt boundary criteria

appropriate? Have we missed anything?


Settlement HierarchySettleme

ntPopulatio

n levelRetail and Community Services

Level

Employment Level

Sustainable Travel

level

Total Scor

e

Dronfield Very High Very High Very High Very High 20

Clay Cross

High Very High Very High Very High 19

Eckington High High High High 16

Killamarsh

High High High High 16


Settlement Hierarchy Do you agree with the Settlement

Hierarchy approach? Should the Settlement Hierarchy be

used to inform the pattern of growth in the District?

Where should the divisions between the ‘Order’ categories be drawn?


Employment Issues Should the Council seek to reduce out-

commuting and provide more jobs locally?

Where should new jobs be created?


Consultation Comments1. Should the Green Belt Review

show which of the areas under consideration is part of a Green Corridor?


Consultation Comments2. Can consideration of Green Belt

areas be undertaken without knowledge/ assessment of encroachment towards Killamarsh from adjacent authority areas (i.e. Chesterfield, Bolsover, South Yorkshire, Bassetlaw?)


Consultation Comments3. The County Infrastructure Plan

makes no provision for road improvements in the Killamarsh area. How can further significant development be considered when the roads are already severely congested?


Consultation Comments4. How can large developments of

affordable homes help the chronic unemployment of the area. Surely the occupants of affordable homes will have jobs, or be looking for jobs, rather than providing employment opportunities within their own company?


Consultation Comments5. A recent Cabinet Meeting of

NEDDC shows that there is to be an exchange of land with a Sheffield Housing Trust. Where is this?


Consultation Comments6. It has been stated that only 100%

affordable houses will be sought on released Green Belt land, without any public money being provided. How will this be viable for the developer?


Consultation Comments7. Despite the decision to require a minimum of

30% affordable homes in large developments a recent one in North East Derbyshire was passed with only 17% affordable, because it was not financially viable for the developer. Do any of the reassurances actually mean anything? Once Green Belt land is made available the developers will build on this prime, saleable land first. Is this whole charade designed to get New Homes Bonus money for NEDDC without consideration of the effects on communities?


Consultation Comments8. The New Aldi supermarket in

Killamarsh will merely replace an old one, and the six accompanying units are replacing other shops that were already there. How is this expected to regenerate Killamarsh?


Consultation Comments9. The majority of the Green Belt

areas surrounding Killamarsh have footpaths or Rights of Way over them. Should this not be a material consideration when reviewing the value of Green Belt areas?


Consultation Comments10. The Housing Study document shows

that natural movement, without in-migration would require 62 dwellings per annum to be built within the Constrained North. Why, then, is our target 365 affordable homes and 50 market homes? Who are the other 353 homes intended for? Is Killamarsh to become a ‘sink’ estate for Sheffield, so that they can maintain their ‘Green City’ credentials?


Consultation Comments11. When entering Killamarsh a visitor

would be unaware of its proud mining heritage. Why is this historical heritage not considered when assessing what are now attractive Green Belt sites?


Consultation Comments12. Why is the presence of native

trees, the presence of protected species of flora and fauna, and the biodiversity of sites not included in the Green Belt site analysis?

Killamarsh RAGE 9th August 2012Consultation CommentsForm

www.killamarsh-rage.co.uk

residents’ meeting

Documents

pmkillamarsh rage

new local housing target

net affordable housing

preferred housing targetis

recent housing need

local plan

key spatial issues

district wide objectivesdo