1 / 37

Residents’ Meeting

0. Residents’ Meeting. Thursday 9 th August 7.30pm. 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.

ruth-solomon
Download Presentation

Residents’ Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 0 Residents’Meeting Thursday 9th August 7.30pm

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. Spatial Portrait • Spatial policy context of North East Derbyshire:

  5. Have we identified the key spatial issues in Figure 3?

  6. 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?

  7. A Vision for the District • Do you agree that the Local Plan should cover the period up to 2031?

  8. District Wide Objectives • Do you agree with the objectives identified for the District and Subareas? • Has anything important been missed?

  9. Emerging Key Diagram • What else should the Key Diagram contain?

  10. Constrained North • Is the methodology appropriate?

  11. Preferred Housing Target • Is the proposed housing target reasonable, given the alternatives and local issues / circumstances?

  12. 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?

  13. 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?

  14. 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?

  15. 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?

  16. 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?

  17. Strategic Green Belt Review • Are the general areas of Green Belt identified for assessment appropriate?

  18. Detailed Site Identification and Assessment • Are the Green Belt boundary criteria appropriate? • Have we missed anything?

  19. Settlement Hierarchy

  20. 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?

  21. Employment Issues • Should the Council seek to reduce out-commuting and provide more jobs locally? • Where should new jobs be created?

  22. Consultation Comments • Should the Green Belt Review show which of the areas under consideration is part of a Green Corridor?

  23. Consultation Comments • 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?)

  24. Consultation Comments • 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?

  25. Consultation Comments • 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?

  26. Consultation Comments • A recent Cabinet Meeting of NEDDC shows that there is to be an exchange of land with a Sheffield Housing Trust. Where is this?

  27. Consultation Comments • 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?

  28. Consultation Comments • 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?

  29. Consultation Comments • 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?

  30. Consultation Comments • 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?

  31. Consultation Comments • 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?

  32. Consultation Comments • 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?

  33. Consultation Comments • 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?

  34. Consultation CommentsForm www.killamarsh-rage.co.uk

More Related