Ashfield Core Strategy – Preferred Options – Ended : 32 Comments
Ashfield Core Strategy – Preferred Options – Ended
This preferred option document sets out policies that will direct the future development of Ashfield to 2026.
It contains:
- Background information about Ashfield
- Where we are now
- Ashfield social, economic and environmental characteristics
- Our ‘Vision’ for change
- The key issues facing Ashfield
- The Core Policies
- These are policies that will affect all of Ashfield, for example, employment, landscape, infrastructure and services.
- Area Based Policies
- These are policies designed to tackle issues relating to specific parts of Ashfield. This section is broken down further into Hucknall, Kirkby and Sutton and the Villages of Selston, Jacksdale and Underwood
- Implementation of the policies
- We would like your comments on the Spatial Vision, the Spatial Objectives and the Policies.
To help, the policy chapters are split into 6 parts:
- What you have already told us in previous consultations
- The proposed policy
- The Reasoned Justification; why we need the policy.
- How the policy links to the Core Strategy Objectives and Regional policy
- The evidence base
- Other options
The document uses a number of technical terms and acronyms – where these are not explained in the text itself they are explained in the glossary in Appendix 1.
It is important to read the whole document to understand all policies as they are interdependent. They must be read together in relation to their combined effect upon any development proposals. A number of issues, particularly relating to health and education, will crosscut a substantial number of policies within the Core Strategy.
When making comments, you should consider whether any alternative suggestions that you may be proposing would meet the Spatial Vision and Spatial Objectives set out in Section 2. Please remember to make clear which Policy or paragraph number you are commenting on and whether you are supporting or objecting. Please also refer to page numbers where appropriate.
All comments must be received no later than Monday 30th April 2010. The Council will be unable to accept any comments that are received after that date.
Where possible we prefer that comments are made electronically, as this is the quickest and easiest way of responding. In order to comment, you will first need to register. If you have registered for a previous consultation there is no need to register again. Once you are registered and logged in you will be able to comment on each page. When commenting please remember to select which Policy or paragraph number you are commenting on, and whether you are supporting or objecting, failure to do so may invalidate your comments. If you have any problems with the registration process or logging on to make comments please contact Gillian Bradley on 01623 457381.
Alternatively, there is a comment form for you to send back electronically or by post – if you do not have a copy, you can obtain one from the council’s offices or by visiting our website www.ashfielddc. gov.uk/ldf. Or you can email us at ldf@ashfield-dc.gov.uk or telephone us on 01623 457246. When commenting please use a separate sheet for each comment, marking each sheet with the paragraph or policy number to which you are referring.
Please be aware that your comments will be available for people to read and the Council will be putting a summary of the responses on the website. The comments will be used to help develop the Core Strategy futher for the pre-submission state.
The Council acknowledges that this Preferred Option document is lengthy. This is because the Council has to justify the policy approach it is taking and has to meet various “tests of soundness” as laid down by central government. Numerous references are therefore made as to how the council has arrived at its “Preferred Option”, including earlier public consultation, research studies and other evidence, and the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal.
32 Responses to "Ashfield Core Strategy – Preferred Options – Ended"
Matthew Bennett | oracle9i
March 19th, 2010 at 2:00 am
As a resident of the ashfield district. I am disgusted with the consultation with the residents that this barmy plan effects.
I suggest you go back to the drwaing board and actually consult the people it all these daft housing plans effects.
Steve Bolton | ADF13
March 24th, 2010 at 1:16 pm
East Midland Regional Assembly
Thank you for consulting the Regional Assembly on this very well presented and clearly expressed document. For your information we have sent comments on the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy Option for Consultation February 2010 document directly to Nottingham City Council.
The references to the overarching role of the RSS throughout your document are very welcome and clearly demonstrate that account has been taken of the planning policy framework provided at the Regional level. However, you will know that from 1 April 2010 the extant RSS (subject to the partial review), with the extant RES, will form the Regional Strategy until a replacement SRS is prepared by the Responsible Regional Authorities (the East Midlands Leader’s Board and emda – RRA’s)). Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, it is understood that after 1 April there will not be a formal requirement for LPA’s to request an opinion of general conformity with the Regional Strategy from the RRA’s but they will be continue to be statutory consultees in the preparation of Local Development Documents.
You may recall that we commented at your Spatial Growth Options document in November 2009. All of the points we raised at that time which referred to the East Midlands Regional Plan March 2009 (Regional Spatial strategy (RSS)) are still relevant and consequently we would like to refer you back to what we said at that time and not to repeat it here. You are also aware of the current position in the preparation of the partial review of the RSS.
The Regional Assembly will be guided by the views of other key stakeholders on specific elements of the selected options but in general terms, having considered the contents of the document and the accompanying sustainability appraisal, our view is that the overall approach would generally accord with the vision, objectives and policies in the RSS if continued through into your proposed submission core strategy.
Alan Barlow | ADF320
March 25th, 2010 at 10:42 am
I need to keep green areas green. Restructure by removing old terraced housing, fill in vacant properties first.
Helen Burton | HJay
March 29th, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Whilst I appreciate the need for more housing, Brinsley is a village
of around 900 homes. People moved here because of the green
spaces. Building any more than 40-50 new homes would alter the
character of the village and spoil its surroundings.
Reasonable development would be acceptable but an increase of
more than 5% would cause tensions between residents and
developers/new residents.
I suggest a considered approach listening to residents views.
The consultation leaflet posted to us was very confusing
and ensured that residents were not able to understand
the process or the information. I would like to complain formally
about this.
Helen Burton | HJay
March 29th, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Why is this process so difficult? I do not wish to make a specific
comment on a particular page or paragraph as I do not understand
what is proposed even though I am well educated.
I wish only to state that unreasonable growth would be detrimental
to the lives of existing residents in Brinsley.
The consultation document is unclear to me and leads me to
believe that I am not meant to be able to object or comment.
The whole system is excluding the majority of people from
being a part of this process.
Matthew Bennett | oracle9i
March 30th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
HJay.
You are completly right. Ashfield DC is banking on confusing The local population so they can sneak this whole idea through.
I have been through nearky the whole document and there is a lot of repetition. I Know that Developing on some of the sites would actually be breaking current planning policy !
Rachael Bust | ADF32
April 1st, 2010 at 4:35 pm
The Coal Authority
Surface Coal Resources and Prior Extraction Although it is acknowledged that the Ashfield LDF does not cover minerals specifically as this is contained within the Nottinghamshire Minerals and Waste Development Framework you will be aware, the Ashfield area contains coal resources which are capable of extraction by surface mining operations. This information is available to Mineral Planning Authorities free of charge from The Coal Authority following signing a data sharing licence and has been given to Nottinghamshire County Council. Where such information may be of great value to LPAs, for example in helping them to determine mineral sterilisation issues associated with the choice of sustainable urban extensions, then such data may be able to be provided to the LPA in addition upon request. The Coal Authority is keen to ensure that coal resources are not unduly sterilised by new development. In instances where this may be the case, The Coal Authority would be seeking prior extraction of the coal. Prior extraction of coal also has the benefit of removing any potential land instability problems in the process. Contact details for individual operators that may be able to assist with coal extraction in advance of development can be obtained from the Confederation of Coal Producers’ website at http://www.coalpro.co.uk/members.shtml. As The Coal Authority owns the coal on behalf of the state, if a development is to intersect the ground then specific written permission of the Coal Authority may be required.
Claire Wood | woodymather
April 1st, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Why do none of these links work??
Claire Wood | woodymather
April 1st, 2010 at 6:53 pm
ADF320 – Old terraced housing is better than new builds – theyr’e built to last! They just need help with their effect on the environment due to no cavity walls/less insulation etc but as a working person you don’t get help with things like that .
Matthew Bennett | oracle9i
April 4th, 2010 at 12:49 am
Woodymather.
I agree, its cheaper, easier and more environmentally friendly to renocate original/old houses than to build brand new ones.
Also Hard working people are penalised by this Labour Goverment because you Work.
Nigel Roberts | Chrisdan18
April 7th, 2010 at 3:13 pm
KS2
Having reviewed the proposals for your housing growth strategy I would like to object strongly to the proposals for a number of reasons.
1) There are large areas locally that are brown field sites or in need of regeneration and no thought has gone in to developing these areas first
2) The proposals appear to be making it more attractive for a out of town developer to come along and develop the proposed sites
with the siting on green field areas as opposed to brown field sites.
3) Any large developer from outside the area would not offer any financial benefit to the local economy, they would have their own contractors (from out of the area) and materials wouuld be sourced from their existing providers ignoring local builders merchants (which could protect local jobs).
4) A study should be conducted in to the availability of infil sites within the area to identify opportunities that are available, these could be single or multiple plots up to 5 properties. The benefit of this proposal is that it would bring money into the local economy in a number of ways and would support local tradespeople. Multiple landowners would benefit by the proceeds from the sale of their land (rather than just a few large landowners). Local developers would benefit from opportunities this would create in the area as opposed to national firms that put nothing back. Local tradesman would have the opportunity to work on these sites again generating money in the local economy. With small developments it is highly likely that materials will be sourced locally again fueling the local economy.
By using infil plots existing road networks can be used , it is highly likely that services will already be in close proximity i.e. water,Gas, Electric reducing disruption to the local community.
This strategy would allow better integration of new people in to the area as opposed to introducing large settlements similar to those proposed.
5) Ashfield has a proven track record of poor performance with regard to community safety issues (2008 survey Ashfield ranked 348 out of 353 local authorities) Large residential development areas often suffer from increased crime levels, vandalism. graffiti and drug use and these spill over in to bordering areas. The area of sutton junction and coxmoor road does not suffer from these problems currently.
6)The plan is based around attracting new business into the area, yet most of the allocated land along the MAR route has not been taken up for commercial development. Furthermore what makes the authors of this proposal think Ashfield attractive to potential employers when the district is known for having a low educational base.(point 2.18, 2.21 of Development framework document)
7) How can a proposal for development be agreed prior to understanding the impact these proposals have on the local infastructure, roads etc.
The area around coxmoor road and sutton junction is a bottleneck at peak times already, without the addition of extra cars introduced by these proposals.
9) Councils priority to avoid flooding (3.1.7 development framework document) yet proposed site at back of Sutton Junction has long history of flooding issues, why exagerate these problems further?
10) Housing provision is to large, local study should take place to understand organic growth of Ashfield. Figure should not be imposed on district at National level.
11) Impact on proposed development does not consider significant impact on local environment and wildlife.
12) Existing facilities, Doctors Dentists, schools etc could not cope with increased demand they are struggling to cope now.
13) East midlands regional Plan has target of 9600 affordable housing units (reference section 3.10.6 development framework document) what proportion has Ashfield District council included in their proposed developments. Currently a high proportion of houses are already in Band A council tax (53% according to section 3.10.3 development framework document) against 26% nationally. For an area to thrive it needs a balance of property types and values otherwise has peoples aspirations develop they leave the area for better property.
14) A review should be conducted to understand current empty housing stock in the Ashfield area and this should be given consideration in any proposals for future housing prior to building new.
George Wyatt | the.wyatts@ntlworld.com
April 10th, 2010 at 6:58 am
I live in Hucknall and am concerned that you say this is a consultation. I am concerned as plans are already drawn up and will go ahead whatever people think this is not really consultation at all. 11,200 homes need jobs, shops and leisure facilities it states, but no mention of the need for Doctors Dentists schools etc. Also Hucknall is already grid locked at rush hour times. it is impossible to leave Hucknall by the routes of the Three Ponds, Badger Box, Papplewick Lane and Papplewick junction with the A60, and the Bulwell end of the bypass without long delays. And in the same breath the council are talking about reducing the carbon emissions in the area. How can you reduce carbon emissions if all these new house are to be built. Hucknall has for many years now been dumping ground for plans that would neither benefit the town of Hucknall, nor the people of hucknall. If anybody has any doubts about the futility of objections or suggestions for the consultaion, one only has to look at the Wigwam Lane project which despite a covenant that precluded the right to build on this space, was totatlly ignored. Also the impact is worsened by the plans by Broxtowe to continue the building on Rolls Royce with their own plans to build right across from Rolls Royce to Moorgreen. This will sverely impact on Hucknall too. Hucknall is surrounded by Green spaces and this will be completely eroded by these plans. This will have a severe impact on the environment with the loss of trees, wildlife etc.
impossible to leave hucknall without lond delays by the routes of The
Carol Vincent | carol vincent
April 10th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Jacksdale Christian Centre
This is the first I have heard about this strategy. I think the general public should have more information given to them.
Carol Vincent | carol vincent
April 10th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Jacksdale Christian Centre
When we look at changes to the area, especially the villages, don’t you think that this will impact on village life? If people want to live in larger towns and cities, then they would do so, but to have extra housing thrown at them is going to change the countryside forever; it will also bring in extra traffic and then the council will have to think about how to handle the enforcement of traffic and safety on and around the village roads. Please do not destroy something that is very British in our village life.
SEAN TOWNSLEY | ST81
April 11th, 2010 at 10:13 pm
I have to say that I am opposed to the stategy for many of the same points that KS2 has raised. Ashfield can not cope with its current number of residents in terms of policing etc.
Jean Johnson | Johnson Jean
April 12th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
PAGE 5, PARAGRAPH3, POLICY NUMBER KS2.
My husband and I have lived in our house for 28 years. When we were househunting all those years ago, we knew exacly where we wanted to be and even what side of the street we wanted to be on. Back then we had young children and their safety, security and enjoyment of the home was paramount. We were lucky enough to get what we wanted. Now there is the potential of it being ruined forever if the proposed build goes ahead AT THE BOTTOM OF OUR GARDEN!! We now have a new generation of young children, who is going to consider them if this prposed build goes ahead. Some of our neighbours have lived there since the houses were built. I doubt any of them thought that the council would ever build on farmland. One of our neighbours commented years ago that the only way he would leave there was “feet first”. I wonder if he still feels that way?
Rob Matthews | Rob Matthews
April 14th, 2010 at 9:40 pm
I believe that you have deliberately attempted to stifle the views the public by directing us to the most pathetic website i have ever visited.
Why does the preferred option comment form not downlod correctly?
Why does this comment box appear in a small area at the botom of the screen?
Would you like to explain why you are trying to deprive us of our democratic rights?
I am against the local development framework in every way possible.
Ian James | Jamesy
April 22nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
we need to keep Green belt land green belt land, let’s regenerate the area not make more houses in the countryside and destroy habitats
C Clarke | ADF480
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:58 am
We have recently appraised your above mentioned document and have a number of serious concerns with regard to its content, some of which , are listed below:
1. Contaminated sites
2. Danger of greater flooding.
3. Traffic grid lock
4. Bringing crime to the area.
5. Density of housing.
6. Infrastructure issues.
7. Environmental damage.
Your document takes none of the above into account. These matters must be dealt with before you seek public approval for this badly thought out scheme.
Sandra Singleton | ADF502
April 27th, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I consider the overall concept to be acceptable with a few points as follows
1. Ensure any developer is pinned down to your side of the contract not like the garden Road ( Hucknall) development.
2. Ensure services and infrastrcuture are in place before building the houses i.e. not leaving new development without a doctors dentist transport. lots of people do not have cars!!! green space and child facilities etc.
3. That any 106 money is used solely to support Hucknall and not filtered off to Sutton and Kikrby as we seem to be having the brunt of the house building.
4. Sort the inner relief road out as quickly as possible to encourage businesses into Hucknall. The money is still not in the bank – so far it is only a verbal deal we need positive action on this.
David Singleton | ADF503
April 27th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Having been to many meetings to discuss the proposed changes to Hucknall , in principle i agree with proposed changes but in view of local press and media in general , regrads to the failure of the funding to be present in the bank and the suspect possiblity pf flooding if the inner by- pass goes through and a basic infrastructure in place I feel at this stage it would be prudent to suspend any further consuktations etc until the forth coming election is completed and the party has been chosen, for time to digest changes if any from the incumbent party.
Keith Stringfellow | ADF511
April 28th, 2010 at 11:32 am
Sutton Junction Residents Association
Alan Cater | ADF512
April 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
Neighbour
John Woolley | ADF527
May 4th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Council Offices
Peter & Joan Olko | ADF283
May 12th, 2010 at 10:30 am
Page 2 , paragraph 4.
Climate change affects all, your statements give too much leeway and are not precise in that table 3 shows;
For residential development the phasing over 3 years period is 20%; 23.5%; 27% & 100% from 2016. Similarly for no-residential are far worse. The rates of improvement is 10%, 10%, 10%, 100%.
Additionally the wording “%low/zero carbon contributions” signifies no boundaries. What is low- 20% or 30%? Set your figures now rather than fudge the issue. Are you afraid of making a decision on the upper limits?
The continued technological advances in these periods along with increasing knowledge gained by builders should be used to drive a higher % of requirements and prevent a major step change from 2015 to 2016. Failure to do this will have a two fold impact:
1) It will encourage builders in the pursuit of profit, to build low quality buildings only fit for the current climate in advance of 2016.
2) We and our children will be reaping your poor decisions regarding setting realistic targets.
It is also interesting to note that once afain ADC use cop out clauses in that;
All developments over 500 dwellings may be required to meet enhanced levels of reduction in CO2 emissions prior to 2016 subject to availability.
YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED KEY ISSUES. I suggest that the table be revised to show the following step changes.
Residential:
Current 2010 – 20%
2010-2013: 30%
2013-2016: 55%
2016: 100%
increase per period
Current 2010: 0%
2010-2013: 10%
2013-2016: 25%
2016: 45%
Non-residential
Current 2010: 10%
2010-2013: 30%
2013-2016: 60%
2016: 100%
increase per period
Current 2010: 0%
2010-2013: 20%
2013-2016: 30%
2016: 40%
This is a more stepped change linked to technology and builders improvements, leading to better building stock, more fit for purpose and at the same time protecting the environment.
I ask that paragraph 4 be changed to:
“All developments of over 200 dwellings will be subject to meet the above levels in CO2 emissions prior to 2016, irrespective of viability.”
This will force developers to bring forward, usign existing technology, the innovative ideas which are required to drive Ashfield committments to (as in page 3, para 1.1) – “seek to protect the environment and well being of local communities” and give us housing stock to be proud of which people in the future can sell easily and afford to run easily.
C Hodgkinson | ADF119
May 12th, 2010 at 11:20 am
Library Event
John Cudworth | ADF560
May 13th, 2010 at 9:49 am
KDCS
The indication throughout seem to join K in A and S in A together as one in a lots of cases.
People of both KinA and S in A would like both town to keep their seperate identities.
John Cudworth | ADF560
May 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am
KDCS
Housing – No real indication has been made to look at the complete renovation of stock. To bring this up to date would save in the use of new land and total cost . This has been proved to be effective. over 26 years and things will change and in future tghis kind of policy will probably become more feasible.
John Cudworth | ADF560
May 13th, 2010 at 9:55 am
KDCS
In all of the development there is no means build in to change plans that have been made and in tijme have proved not to be as time has moved on. A lot of things can change in half a century . I believe a strategy should be built in allowing for change and alterations.
Steve Harley | adf569
May 13th, 2010 at 4:20 pm
emda is supportive of the approach to align the core strategies of the Councils of Ashfield, Broxtowe, Erewash, Gedling, Nottingham City and Rushcliffe. It is noted that the strategic elements of this consultation document have been agreed by the Greater Nottingham Joint Planning Advisory Board, in relation to Hucknall’s role within the Greater Nottingham HMA. Similarly, in relation to the remainder of the District, the joined up approach to planning within the Northern sub-region is also welcomed. Your Council should note that emda has responded separately to the Greater Nottingham Aligned Core Strategy Option for Consultation.
From 1 April 2010, the RES, together with the Regional Spatial Strategy (March 2009), forms the Interim Regional Strategy for the East Midlands, until it is replaced by a new Single Regional Strategy in due course. Policy 18 of the RSS seeks to encourage and foster the regional economy through the delivery of the RES. It is therefore important that Local Development Frameworks provide the local spatial policy context within which the sustainable economic growth of the region can be delivered.
Introduction
Michael Burrows | ADF130
May 14th, 2010 at 10:16 am
Savills
These comments have been informed with reference to Central Government policy expressed in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3 (Housing)1 PPS11 (Regional Spatial Strategies), PPS12 (Local Spatial Planning) and the Planning Inspectorate guidance on examining Development Plan Documents.
Our client is keen to support the role of Sutton-in-Ashfield as a Sub-Regional Centre and supports the release of deliverable Greenfield sites in order to meet short term housing requirements. It is our client’s intention to support the release of land off Fisher Close, Sutton-in-Ashfield for residential development during the LDF process.
Between 2006 and 2026 the East Midlands Regional Plan requires a minimum of 11,200 new homes to be provided for in Ashtield at an annual average of 560. Taking into account completions between 2006 and 2009 and planning permissions in place, there was a 5.4 year supply in place across the District in April 2009.
Of the 11,200 total requirement, 7,600 are to be provided in the Rest of Ashfield (that part of the District excluding Hucknall) at an annual average of 380. In this part of the District only a 4.3 year supply was in place in April 2009.
Nick Sanford | ADF579
May 17th, 2010 at 9:03 am
Woodland Trust
The vision of the Woodland Trust, the UK’s leading woodland conservation charity, is a UK rich in native woods and trees, enjoyed and valued by everyone. The Trust has over 200, 000 members and manages 1, 000 sites across the UK.
We have referred back to the comments which we submitted at the time of your previous Core Strategy Preferred Option consultation in 2007 and we are pleased to see that a number of the comments which we raised then have been taken into account.
In particular, we welcome the inclusion of a strategic objective on climate change and also a policy on this subject. We also are pleased to see that the value of a well linked network of green infrastructure in facilitating both mitigation of and adaption to the impact of climate change is referred to in Policy CP4 on Green Infrastructure, Biodiversity, Parks and Open Spaces.
Ancient Woodland and Ancient Tree Protection
Our main outstanding concern about the Core Strategy is the lack of recognition of the need to give absolute protection to irreplaceable semi-natural habitats, such as ancient woodland and ancient/veteran trees, despite this being required in Policy 30 of the East Midlands Regional Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy):
“”Ancient semi-natural woodlands, veteran trees and other woodlands of acknowledged national and regional importance should be strongly protected in local development frameworks.”