` Site Allocation Topic Paper

Glossopdale Area

High Peak Local Plan

1 1. Introduction

1.1 The purpose of this Topic Paper is to set out the process which the Council has gone through in evaluating and selecting sites for allocation in the Submission High Peak Local Plan. It brings together information relating to each site considered for allocation through the various stages of plan preparation and details the steps of each consultation and the decisions made regarding individual sites in order to demonstrate that the Council has undertaken a comprehensive and robust assessment and consultation on all suitable sites.

1.2 The Paper covers the following types of allocation: residential and industrial/business.

2. The Site Allocation Process

2.1 The Local Plan has undergone an extensive process of site selection and assessment during its preparation which has included public consultation at three key stages to help identify sufficient land capable of being delivered for residential development. The purpose of the consultations was to invite comments on a range of potential sites to inform the Council decision on which sites to allocate for residential development in the submission version of the Local Plan. The consultations provided details of a number of sites across the three sub areas which were either taken forwarded to the next stage or dropped depending on the outcome of the consultations and relevant information received at the time. The consultations also provided an opportunity for suggestions to be made for other sites which may not have been already considered.

2.2 The consultations undertaken leading up to the publication of the submission version of the Local Plan were:

• Issues and Options Stage - 13 September to 25 October 2012. • Preferred Options Stage - 27 th February to Wednesday 10 th April 2013. • Additional Changes Stage - 27 th December 2013 to 10 th February 2014

2.3 The site allocation process has also been informed by prior consultation with specific statutory bodies and organisations and workshops with Borough Council members.

2.4 Comments raised by the public and other stakeholders have been taken into account in appraising the sites and ultimately in arriving at the site allocations. Further details on the consultation process are set out in the Consultation Statements.

2 2.5 In addition, European and National legislation requires local planning authorities to undertake a Strategic Environmental Assessment Sustainability Appraisal, and Appropriate Assessment under the Habitat Regulations to inform the decision making and ensure that sustainability objectives have been addressed. (documents ref E1-11 & H 1-5)) This has formed an integral part of the site selection and allocation process including informing the consultation process.

2.6 High Peak Borough is located on the edge of the Peak District National Park and is an area of high landscape with the area value sharing many of the characteristics of the neighboring National Park. It contains areas designated for nature conservation/ biodiversity importance and the North West Derbyshire Green Belt covers the area surrounding towns and villages in Glossopdale and the northern part of the central area. The site allocation process had to take account of the sensitivity of the National Park, green belt, topography and historic and nature conservation designations. Diagram 1 illustrates some of these key constraints.

2.7 As well the Sustainability Appraisal and Appropriate Assessment the site allocation process has been informed by the following evidence based studies:

• Infrastructure Delivery Plan (documents ref G1-3) • Employment Land Studies and Strategies (documents ref MD 1-6) • Infrastructure Appraisals (documents ref MG 1-3) • Landscape Impact Assessment (documents ref MH 4-7) • Open Space, Sports & Recreation Strategies (documents ref MI 1-4) • Plan and Site Viability Studies (documents ref MJ 1-3) • Retail and Town Centre Study (documents ref MK 1-3) • Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (documents ref ML1- 4) • Strategic Housing Market Assessments & Housing Needs Studies (documents MM 1-5) • Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (document ref MN 1-6) • Transport Plans & Studies (document ref MQ 1-8)

3 Diagram 1 – The Site Allocation Process

4 3. The Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment

3.1 The starting point in deciding which sites could be included in the Local Plan for residential development was the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) (documents ref.ML 1-4). The SHLAA provides details of potential housing sites in High Peak and forms an important part of the evidence base for the Local Plan. It assessed sites against a range of factors including the suitability of location (including relationship with settlements and proximity to services) and site constraints including flood risk, biodiversity and conservation considerations, topography, risk of contamination/ground stability and access. Consideration was also given to developer interest and the planning history of the site. Additional sites were also suggested during the Local Plan consultations and these were also considered where it was felt they had development potential.

3.2 In order to determine which sites should go forward to be included in the Issues and Options consultation, consideration was given to sites in the SHLAA and suggestions at the member workshops.

3.3 Member workshops were held on 4 th and 11 th July 2012 which were open for all members to attend. These workshops considered a long list of potential housing sites to go forward to the consultation. These sites presented at the workshops were taken from the SHLAA and included all sites outside the built up area boundary and sites with a capacity greater than 20 within the built up area boundary. The purpose of the workshop was to explore if there were any factors that would suggest the site should not be developed and therefore should be removed from the list for consultation. The workshop also allowed for additional sites to be suggested. There were organised as three groups representing the three sub areas Glossopdale, Central and Buxton.

3.4 A list of the sites considered at the workshop is detailed below. The findings of the workshop were reported at the Council meeting on 26 July 2012 (document ref. O3) which approved the High Peak Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation and which sites would be included in the consultation.

Table 1 – Initial Member Workshops Assessment of SHLAA Sites

Location Workshop Comments Site to go forward for the Options consultation G29 Spring Rise Yes Simmondley CSGO1513 Pyegrove Site preferred to be retained for recreation No use.

5 Location Workshop Comments Site to go forward for the Options consultation G14 Yes Hope Street, Glossop G21 Yes Land off Dinting Road, Glossop G8 Yes Land off Woodhead Road, Glossop G9 Yes Land off Woodhead Road 1 G10 Yes Land off Woodhead Road 2 G11 Yes Land off Woodhead Road 3 G7 Yes Land off Woodhead Road ( Kingsmoor Fields) G19 Yes Dinting Road/Dinting Lane G30 Yes Land between Spring Rise and High Lane G17 Maps for public consultation to show only Yes Land off Cliffe Road, developable area of site. Glossop G22 Yes Plot 3, Dinting Road, Glossop G31 Maps for public consultation to show total Yes Charlestown Works, area with potential for new homes. Glossop G15 Yes York Street Depot G12 Yes Off Bute Street AS050 Yes Dinting Lane G6 Yes North Road Glossop G16 Yes WOODS MILL HIGH STREET EAST GLOSSOP G13 Yes Hawkeshead Mill, Hope Street

6 Location Workshop Comments Site to go forward for the Options consultation G18 Yes Bank Street, Glossop G5 There was a split decision on this site. Yes Adjacent to Park Members at one workshop approved it for Crescent consultation; Members at the second rejected it. However on the basis that more Members were present at the first workshop, and the reason for rejecting it was on grounds that it should be considered part of green belt - it has been included in this long list for consistency of approach. G25 Yes Land off Melandra Castle Road Site 2 G24 Site approved for consultation if the play area (Yes) Gamesley Recreation can be excluded from the area proposed for Land Cottage Lane development. G26 Yes Part of Gamesley Sidings. HP114 Chapel Lane Park should be retained as a No land at Chapel Lane, play area for children - as it is in an area Hadfield where such resources are in short supply. G2 Boundary of the site should be looked at Yes Paradise Street, Hadfield closely, there may be an opportunity to increase site size. Maps for public consultation to show location of allotments if possible. G4 Yes Temple Street G3 Maps for public consultation to show which Yes Roughfields parts of the site might be used for housing and where land might be kept for the school. G28 Yes Land off Glossop Road, Charlesworth G27 Yes Land Adjacent 40-46, Glossop Rd, Charlesworth SS002 Because of its importance to the local No Land Off Sexton community, it may be better to designate this Street/Church Street, land as Local Green Space. Land to the Tintwistle south of the site may be available instead. G1 Yes Arnfield Water Treatment Works Ferro Alloys Yes

G23 Yes Former railway museum, Dinting and surrounding land

7 4. Issues and Options Stage

4.1 The High Peak Local Plan Issues and Options consultation was carried out from 13 September – 25 October 2012. (document refs C1-C6) The consultation sought views on a number of key issues.

• High Peak housing requirements – how many new homes should be provided across High Peak up to the year 2028? (The plan period was subsequently changed to 2031) • Sub area housing requirements – how should new homes be distributed across the three sub areas? • Potential housing development sites – which of the site options should be identified in the new Local Plan for housing? • Land for industry and business should existing sites be retained? • Other development issues.

4.2 The Issues and Options consultation gave a preferred housing target of 270 new dwellings per year over the plan period. It also included alternative options of 300 and 330 new dwellings per year. Details of potential housing sites were included in the consultation.

4.3 The consultation also sought views on possible on land allocated for business or industrial in the saved Local Plan. This included land allocated for future business/employment use and land currently in use which had been assessed as not necessarily meeting the requirements for future industrial use.

4.4 A key element of the public consultation was to invite comments on a range of alternative sites which could potentially be developed over the plan period in order to inform to inform the Council’s future choice of site allocations and distribution across the sub areas. This required putting forward sufficient sites for comment which are capable of delivering more than the preferred option and gives the public alternative choices.

4.5 The decision as to which sites to carry forward from the Issues and Options consultation was made taking into account the comments received from the Options consultation, any additional information received and the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal (document ref. E7).

4.6 There was a high level of response to the consultation from the local community, developers/agents and other statutory bodies. These comments were reported to a member workshop on 29 th November 2012 where members considered which sites should be carried forward to the submission version of the Local Plan. New sites suggested in the consultation were also considered.

4.7 The Council meeting on 12th December 2012 (document ref. O4) considered the responses from the consultation findings of the workshop and approved the sites to form the basis of the Preferred Options

8 document. The final Preferred Options document was subsequently approved by Council on 28 th January 2013 for public consultation(document ref. O5)

4.8 Table 2 summarises the key issues and assessments from the Issues and Options consultation, the Sustainability Appraisal and the member workshop.

9 Table 2– Issues and Options Stage Assessment of Sites

Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 G1 Arnfield Public response 291 comments This brownfield site is currently used Site to be included in No . This site was not taken Water 41 objections, 50 neutral, 194 support mainly in as a water treatment works and there the Preferred forward as a preferred option – as Treatment favour of the site. is potential contamination. The site Options Consultation the owners subsequently Works scores primarily neutral impacts withdrew support for Statutory bodies/stakeholders around access to facilities and development. Highways : services. The site is located within the Access satisfactory. need comment from HA as village boundary. A628 is a trunk road Score: 29 out of 51. Education : development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate S106 education contribution. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. English Heritage: May affect setting/ partially within Conservation Area G2 Paradise Public response 244 comments This site has scored mainly positive Site to be included in Yes. This site was taken forward Street 57 objections,43 neutral, 144 support and neutral assessments. A the Preferred as a preferred option. Well Hadfield brownfield site located within the Options Consultation related to existing development Statutory bodies/stakeholders boundary of Hadfield and well located and no overriding constraints to Highways: for local services and good bus routes development. Satisfactory access can be achieved provided in the larger settlement of Glossop. Paradise Street is upgraded Score: 43 out of 51. Education: This level of housing could be accommodated, but no more than this. G3 Public response 369 comments This large greenfield site is located Site not to be No. Concern regarding potential Roughfields 278 objections, 47 neutral, 44 support adjacent to Hadfield boundary. The included in the landscape impact and, loss of

10 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Hadfield Would remove gap between Padfield and site currently consists of on site play Preferred Options recreation facilities consultation Hadfield, loss of views,, loss of peace and quiet, facilities that would need to be Consultation feedback, this site was not taken loss of children’s play area, loss of playing retained or replaced in respect of any forward as a preferred option. pitches/recreation area, too large for one place , development. Part of the site is to be Greenfield, National Park, traffic retained for future education use. The site is in close proximity to the Statutory bodies/stakeholders National Park boundary, however the Highways: site itself has no know features of Satisfactory access can be achieved. Need to conservation value. improve pedestrian facilities on Padfield Main Score: 27 out of 51. Road Education: This level of housing could be accommodated, but no more than this. G4 Temple Public response 344 comments The site scores mainly neutral and Site not to be No . Landowner does not support Street 269 objections, 46 neutral, 29 support negative assessments, based mainly included in the development of this site, was not Padfield detrimental to Padfield Conservation area, on issues around loss of landscape Preferred Options taken forward as a preferred application refused in 1974, character and impact on the Consultation option. identity of village destroyed, flora and fauna settlement of Padfield. Score: 24 out affected, no infrastructure, close to National Park, of 51 . trees destroyed, Greenfield, school full.

Statutory bodies/stakeholders Highways: Satisfactory access can be achieved pedestrian facilities limited Education: Housing development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate S106 education contribution. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre-

11 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 application. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. G5 Adjacent Public response 195 comments This greenfield site scores largely Site not to be No Potential adverse landscape to Park 124 objections, 62 neutral, 9 support negative assessments, principally included in the impact, highway issues, and Crescent currently grazing land, must preserve local from the loss of greenfield land and Preferred Options consultation feedback, this site Glossop landscape, greenfield so should not be development outside the built up area Consultation was not taken forward as a considered for development, boundary to the greenbelt. The site's preferred option. drainage problems, protect green lung between prominent visual location could have Hadfield and Glossop protect amenity land. potential landscape character impacts. The site is relatively distant Statutory bodies/stakeholders from the town centre with poor Highways: access. Can achieve a satisfactory access Park Crescent Score: 29 out of 51. is a rural lane with little or no footway provision Education: Housing development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate S106 education contribution. DCC Archaeology: May have negative impacts on setting of designated heritage assets; Scheduled monument, Conservation Area, Registered park; would require archaeological evaluation pre application DCC Planning & Infrastructure Concern over visual prominence and sensitive location overrides development potential English Heritage Adjacent to Conservation area and Grade II listed Park. On hillside so likely to impact on these assets. Possible wider impacts on Castle Hil l. English Heritage would raise concern over

12 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 allocation for housing. G6 North Public response 254 comments This greenfield site scores largely Concern regarding Yes . This site was taken forward Road 196 objections, 43 neutral, 15 support. negative assessments, principally allocation of whole of as a preferred option. Glossop Currently grazing land, must preserve local from the loss of greenfield land and the site. Suggested landscape, maintain gap between Padfield and development outside the built up area development on Glossop, greenfield so should not be considered boundary to the greenbelt. The site's lower part only. Site for development, will destroy visible countryside prominent visual location could have to be included in the amenity, traffic in Padfield potential landscape character Preferred Options impacts. The site is relatively Consultation Statutory bodies/stakeholders distant from the town centre with poor Highways: access. The site includes a reservoir Can achieve a satisfactory access need additional and mature trees. Recommends pedestrian facility development takes place on the lower Education: part of the site only. Development of this scale can be supported Score: 29 out of 51 . DCC Archaeology: May have negative impacts on setting of designated heritage assets - Scheduled monument, Conservation Area, Registered Park. Would require archaeological evaluation pre- application. English Heritage Adjacent to Conservation area and Grade II listed Park. On hillside so likely to impact on these assets. Possible wider impacts on Castle Hill. English Heritage would raise concern over allocation for housing. Maybe scope in southern part of the site. G7 Land off Public response 236 comments This site has a range of neutral Site not to be No . This site was not taken Woodhead 153 objections, 64 neutral, 19 support scorings. The negative impacts come included in the forward as a preferred option as it Road Private ownership by 5 residents from development into the countryside Preferred Options is not considered available for (Kingsmoor remove from plan, greenfield so should not be and loss of greenfield land. The site Consultation development.

13 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Fields) considered for development ,children play on scores positively on its ability to Glossop field. contribute fauna inc bats, access onto Woodhead Road to affordable housing provision and constrained reasonable distance from the town centre. Statutory bodies/stakeholders Score: 32 out of 51. Highways: Can achieve a satisfactory access : pedestrian facilities limited Education: Housing development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate S106 education contribution. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. DCC Planning & Infrastructure Concern over visual prominance and sensitive location overrides development potential. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association Spoil attractive access into Glossop. Access onto busy Woodhead Road Local residents have said site has been bought by properties on Kingsmoor Fields to protect it from development G8 Land off Public response 230 comments Development on this large greenfield Site to be included in Yes . This site was taken forward Woodhead 164 objections, 46 neutral, 20 support site would have principally negative or the Preferred as a preferred option. It was Road greenfield so should not be considered for neutral impacts. Development would Options Consultation considered the potential impact

14 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Glossop development conservation area, landowner be of strategic concern to the National on heritage assets and wider unaware Park Authority and would constitute landscape could be mitigated and Developer interest. Representation from John encroachment up to the boundary. there was scope for further Rose Associates to state site is deliverable and The site is relatively distant from town discussions with the DCC that G8, 9, 10 and 11 together could deliver 100 centre facilities and would increase Education to see if the school dwellings car use into the town centre. capacity issues could be Statutory bodies/stakeholders Score: 26 out of 51. resolved.. Highways: Can achieve a satisfactory access would need to use adjoining land G9 no footway or bus stop in proximity of site Education: This school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. DCC Planning & Infrastructure Concern over visual prominence and sensitive location overrides development potential. Peak District National Park Considered to potentially be of strategic concern to the National Park, by virtue of their encroachment to the designated boundary, thus

15 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 reducing the natural setting currently afforded to the National Park. English Heritage Adj to Old Glossop Conservation Area. Adj to listed Laneside Farm. Given topography would raise concern over allocation for housing. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association Attractive open countryside, borders Green belt. Wildlife. Contrary to Design and Place making strategy G9 Land off Public response 228 comments Development on this greenfield site Site to be included in Yes . This site was taken forward Woodhead 155 objections, 49 neutral, 14 support would have principally negative or the Preferred as a preferred option, It was Road greenfield so should not be considered for neutral impacts. Options Consultation considered the potential impact Glossop (1) development, conservation area part of registered Development would be of strategic on heritage assets and wider agricultural holding, access issues concern to the National Park Authority landscape could be mitigated and Developer interest. Representation from John and would constitute there was scope for further Rose Associates to state site is deliverable and encroachment up to the boundary. discussions with the DCC that G8, 9, 10 and 11 together could deliver 100 The site is relatively distant from town Education to see if the school dwellings centre facilities and capacity issues could be would increase car use into the town resolved. Statutory bodies/stakeholders centre. The site has potential to be Highways developed with adjacent Can achieve a satisfactory access sites. Education: Score: 28 out of 51. This school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but

16 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. DCC Planning & Infrastructure Concern over visual prominance and sensitive location overrides development potential. Peak District National Park Considered to potentially be of strategic concern to the National Park, by virtue of their encroachment to the designated boundary, thus reducing the natural setting currently afforded to the National Park. English Heritage Adj to Old Glossop Conservation Area. Given topography would raise concern over allocation for housing. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association Attractive open countryside, borders Green belt. Wildlife. Contrary to Design and Place making strategy G10 Land Public response 227 comments Development on this greenfield site Site to be included in Yes . This site was taken forward

17 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 off 130 objections, 65 neutral, 32 support would have principally negative or the Preferred as a preferred option, It was Woodhead greenfield so should not be considered for neutral impacts. Development would Options Consultation considered the potential impact Road development, conservation area, registered be of strategic concern to the National on heritage assets and wider Glossop (2) agricultural holding, access issues Park Authority and would constitute landscape could be mitigated and Developer interest. Representation from John encroachment up to the boundary. there was scope for further Rose Associates to state site is deliverable and The site is relatively distant from town discussions with the DCC that G8, 9, 10 and 11 together could deliver 100 centre facilities and would increase Education to see if the school dwellings car use into the town centre. The site capacity issues could be has potential to be developed with resolved. Statutory bodies/stakeholders adjacent sites. The site has access Highways ; constraints. Access possible from land to the north, access Score: 28 out of 51. from adjoining land not public highway Education: This school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. DCC Planning & Infrastructure Concern over visual prominence and sensitive location overrides development potential. Peak District National Park Considered to potentially be of strategic concern

18 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 to the National Park, by virtue of their encroachment to the designated boundary, thus reducing the natural setting currently afforded to the National Park. English Heritage Impact on setting of Grade2 listed Roman Catholic Church Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association Attractive open countryside, borders Green belt. Wildlife. Contrary to Design and Place making strategy G11 Land Public response 219 comments Development on this greenfield site Site not to be No . Concern regarding impact of off 131 objections, 65 neutral, 23 support would have principally negative or included in the development in the Conservation Woodhead greenfield so should not be considered for neutral impacts. Development would Preferred Options Area, this in addition to the Road development conservation area, part of registered be of strategic concern to the National Consultation consultation feedback, lead to Glossop (3) agricultural holding, access issues Park Authority and would constitute this site not being taken forward Developer interest. Representation from John encroachment up to the boundary. as a preferred option. There was Rose Associates to state site is deliverable and The site is relatively distant from town a potential issue with school that G8, 9, 10 and 11 together could deliver 100 centre facilities and would increase capacity which would have dwellings car use into the town centre. The site required further discussions with has potential to be developed with DCC to see if it could be Statutory bodies/stakeholders adjacent sites. The site is wholly resolved. Highways within the Old Glossop Conservation Can achieve a satisfactory access. Thorpe St Area and adverse impacts could narrow with no pedestrian facilities or turning arise from any development. facility. is one way and emerging visibility is Score: 28 out of 51. adequate Education:

19 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 This school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. DCC Archaeology: Entirely within Conservation Area- may have major negative impact. Would need archaeological survey pre-application. DCC Planning & Infrastructure Concern over visual prominence and sensitive location overrides development potential. Peak District National Park Considered to potentially be of strategic concern to the National Park, by virtue of their encroachment to the designated boundary, thus reducing the natural setting currently afforded to the National Park. English Heritage Impact on setting of Grade2 listed Roman Catholic Church. Within Old Glossop Conservation Area and due to topography may impact on setting of listed buildings. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association

20 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Attractive open countryside, borders Green belt. Wildlife. Contrary to Design and Place making strategy G12 Land Public response 215 comments This predominantly greenfield site is Site not to be No . Concern regarding the off Bute 117 objections, 57 neutral, 41 support located within the settlement included in the impact on the National Park, Street Old greenfield so should not be considered for boundary on the edge of Old Glossop. Preferred Options consultation feedback this site Glossop development, flood risk, Blackshaw Clough Negative impacts come from Consultation was not taken forward as a ecologically important woodland present on site and preferred option. There was a Statutory bodies/stakeholders considerable flooding potential issue with school Highways risk. capacity which would have Can achieve a satisfactory access Score: 29 out of 51. required further discussions with public highway fronting appears only to serve rear DCC to see if it could be of hospital resolved. Education: This school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. DCC Planning & Infrastructure The site acts as a green wedge in the valley bottom below a series of reservoirs adjacent to the PDNP. It is considered highly sensitive to any form of development.

21 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Peak District National Park This is largely a green field site, 70%, it currently offers a green wedge out into the countryside of the National Park, and is likely to be prominent when seen from certain vantage points within the National Park, this site is therefore considered to be of strategic concern to the National Park. Environment Agency We can advise that the Land at Bute Street (Option G12) has a previous history of flooding and the ‘comment’ given on page 30 is incorrect as the south of the site is shown to be located within Flood Zone 3. The previous flooding is known from a site specific consultation where it has been shown that a minor watercourse is the source that does not have a flood zone produced at that scale. This site may need to be sequentially allocated as part of the Sustainability Appraisal and refined flooding information produced to ensure that that all potential flood risk issues to the site are clearly identified. The Flood Risk Assessment, specific to this site may provide a useful starting point. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association Concerns over loss of greenfield site, impact on wildlife, flood risk and character of Old Glossop. G13 Public response 291 comments This previously developed land Site to be included in Yes Brownfield site within the Hawkshead 62 objections, 48 neutral, 181 support includes the Hawkshead Mill (HER the Preferred built up area boundary impact on

22 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Mill Old High level of support 13322) of high built heritage value. Options Consultation heritage assets can be mitigated, Glossop The site is within the built up area considered there was scope for Statutory bodies/stakeholders boundary and positive impacts are further discussions with the DCC Highways provided by its proximity to town Education to see if the school Can achieve a satisfactory access. need footway centre facilities and development of capacity issues could be fronting Hope St brownfield land. resolved. This site was taken Education: Score: 32 out of 51. forward as a preferred option. This school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. Archaeology: Archaeological desk based assessment/buildings appraisal needed pre-application; further work could be conditioned. English Heritage Mill building should be assessed and if appropriate retained. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association Too many homes. Traffic impact G14 Hope Public response 207 comments Predominantly greenfield site, well Site to be included in Yes . Greenfield site within the Street Old 101 objections, 59 neutral, 47 support related to other residential the Preferred built up area boundary. This site

23 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Glossop Greenfield site development, and within the Options Consultation was taken forward as a preferred settlement boundary, though the site option.. Considered there was Statutory bodies/stakeholders has limited access. Neutral impacts scope for further discussions with Highways . arise from its proximity to the the DCC Education to see if the Issues with providing access may need additional conservation area and potential school capacity issues could be land, recent application showing access through impacts on its setting. Score: 42 out resolved. Firth Rixon to Shepley St of 51. Education: This school was brought onto a single site recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. DCC Archaeology: No archaeological issues. Amy have negative impact on Conservation area. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Residents Association Made comments on planning application. G15 York Public response 290 comments Brownfield site, well located in Site to be included in Yes. Brownfield site within the Street Depot 41 objections, 36 neutral, 213 support Glossop town with access to town the Preferred built up area boundary, Glossop centre facilities. Potential Options Consultation considered there was scope for Statutory bodies/stakeholders contamination could limit opportunities further discussions with the DCC Highways to deliver affordable homes on site. Education to see if the school

24 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Can achieve a satisfactory access Score: 40 out of 51. capacity issues could be Education: resolved. This site was taken This school was brought onto a single site forward as a preferred option. recently. There is some capacity for expansion but by no more than two classrooms with an appropriate S106 education contribution, but other facilities like car parking would be a significant problem. Whilst it is possible technically to do it, the Local Authority would favour location of this level of housing development elsewhere within Glossop if possible. DCC Archaeology: No archaeological issues. Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G16 Woods Public response 288 comments Large prominent brownfield site well Site to be included in Yes Brownfield site in built up Mill High 37 objections, 43 neutral, 208 support located in Glossop. Positive impacts the Preferred area boundary. Heritage features Street east Mainly in support come from development of brownfield Options Consultation potential for regeneration. Taken Glossop land and good access to town centre forward as a preferred option. Statutory bodies/stakeholders facilities and services. Negative Highways / Neutral impacts come from the site Would need additional work to provide access. being wholly in the conservation area Education: and potential impact to high value built Development can be supported with appropriate heritage. Development could provide s106 opportunity to conserve and enhance DCC Archaeology: an important strategic site. Negative Archaeological desk based assessment/buildings impacts include potential flooding appraisal needed pre-application ( loss of mill adjacent to Glossop Brook and buildings unacceptable within Conservation Area) contamination and high conservation

25 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Environment Agency value could limit opportunity to provide Site in flood zone 3 will need to be sequentially on site affordable housing. allocated as part of the Sustainability Appraisal Score: 28 out of 51 . English Heritage . Within Glossop conservation area and contains the grade II listed Howard Town House. Development of the site requires careful consideration of the historic environment attributes, however we do not object to the principle of allocating of the site, Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G17 Land Public response 209 comments This predominantly greenfield site Site not to be No On the basis of the SA score off Cliffe 87 objections, 89 neutral, 33 support score positively based on its central included in the relating to biodiversity and Road greenfield so should not be considered for location and good access to town Preferred Options consultation feedback in relation Glossop development, includes part of garden of centre facilities. Negative impacts Consultation to the potential prominence of properties on Bank St which should be removed include loss of greenfield land and any development, this site has loss of UK BAP habitat and species not been taken forward as a Statutory bodies/stakeholders rich grasslands and impact on preferred option. Highways biodiversity. Can achieve a satisfactory access Score: 29 out of 51. Education: Development can be supported with appropriate s106 DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. English Heritage Possible Setting issues

26 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G18 Bank Public response 202 comments Predominantly greenfield site, partly in Site to be included in Yes This site was taken forward Street 82 objections, 93 neutral, 27 support flood zone two. The site scores the Preferred as a preferred option. Glossop greenfield so should not be considered for positively on its access to town centre Options Consultation Considered access issues can be development facilities and public transport. overcome Statutory bodies/stakeholders Score: 36 out of 51. Highways Issues with providing satisfactory access to the site. Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. English Heritage Possible Setting issues Natural England Within 1Km of Shire Hill Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G19 Dinting Public response 223 comments Greenfield site with woodland on part Site to be included in Yes This site was taken forward Road/Dintin 128 objections, 57 neutral,38 support of site and biodiversity of important the Preferred as a preferred option Considered g Lane access constraints, shouldn't access from local value. The site scores positively Options Consultation access issues can be overcome Ashleigh Ave, school time congestion, in terms of proximity to town centre greenfield so should not be considered for facilities, however access constraints development do exist. The site suffers from highway constraints particularly at Statutory bodies/stakeholders peak times with nearby school. Highways Score: 36 out of 51. Would need additional land for housing, footway

27 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 on Dinting Road, public rights of way, gradient issues Education: Housing development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate S106 education contribution. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. English Heritage Potential for non designated archaeology Network Rail The developer would need to contact the Network Rail to agree details of development Natural England Within Dinting Vale Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G20 Dinting Public response 226 comments Greenfield site with limited access - Site to be included in Yes . This site was taken forward Lane 131 objections, 62 neutral, 33 support where development would make a the Preferred as a preferred option. On basis of Glossop greenfield so should not be considered for disproportionate impact on the current Options Consultation no overriding constraints to development, access constraints highway network and congestion. Current access development. Score: 31 out of 51. issues. Possible Statutory bodies/stakeholders SA recommends further investigations access to the rear of Highways relating to traffic management. Tesco which could Can achieve a satisfactory access then open up access Education: to G23. Needs Housing development on this scale can be further investigation supported with an appropriate S106 education contribution. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre-

28 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 application. English Heritage Potential for non designated archaeology Natural England Within Dinting Vale Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G21 Land Public response 219 comments Greenfield site with limited access. Yes . This site was taken forward off Dinting 122 objections,58 neutral, 39 support The site includes medium as a preferred option. On basis of Road greenfield so should not be considered for archaeological value and no overriding constraints to Glossop development, access constraints development risks adverse impacts. development. Score: 29 out of 51 . Statutory bodies/stakeholders Highways Can achieve a satisfactory access Education: Housing development on this scale can be supported with an appropriate S106 education contribution. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey Natural England Within Dinting Vale Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G22 Plot 3 Public response 206 comments The site is close to Dinting train No The site was not identified as Dinting 86 objections, 75 neutral, 35 support station, but relatively distant from a preferred housing allocation Road, greenfield so should not be considered for other facilities and services, leading to because of its small scale Glossop development, access constraints a negative impact from increase in car use. The site contains biodiversity of Statutory bodies/stakeholders local value and development would Highways result in loss of species of medium

29 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Can achieve a satisfactory access ecological value. The site would not Education: deliver an affordable housing Development of this scale can be supported contribution. DCC Archaeology: Score: 25 out of 51. No archaeological issues. Natural England Within Dinting Vale Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Site: G23 Public response 232 comments Predominantly greenfield site with Yes This site has been taken Former 90 objections,62 neutral,80 support some archaeological potential and forward as a preferred option. Railway greenfield so should not be considered for historic value. The site is relatively Museum, development, access constraints distant from services and facilities but Dinting with good public transport links. The Statutory bodies/stakeholders site was considered for inclusion in Highways the 'strategic gap' between Glossop Issues with providing satisfactory access and Hadfield. Education: Score: 29 out of 51 . Development of this scale can be supported . DCC Archaeology: Archaeological desk based assessment/buildings appraisal needed pre application; further work could be conditioned. English Heritage Potential for non designated archaeology Natural England Within Dinting Vale Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Site: G24 Public response 242 comments Greenfield site located in Gamesley, Site not to be No Potential access issues, loss Land to the 111 objections, 59 neutral, 72 support benefits from good public transport included in the of recreation space and rear of Trees, used by residents as garden and for links and some local services but Preferred Options consultation feedback

30 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Cottage recreation, congestion on Cottage lane, impact on would increase car use to Glossop Consultation in relation to the existing use of Lane, wildlife, greenfield so should not be considered for centre for facilities and services. The the land, this site was not taken Gamesley development, loss of privacy, legal issues, traffic, site is currently used as recreation forward as a preferred option. in Carpenters Detailed emergency planning zone space by residents and is adjacent to a designated recreation ground Statutory bodies/stakeholders and play ground. The site suffers from Highways access constraints. Issues with providing satisfactory access Score: 32 out of 51. Education: Development can be supported with appropriate s106. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application- possibly including evaluation. English Heritage Potential for non designated archaeology Natural England Within Dinting Vale Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Site: G25 Public response 261 comments The site would contribute to increased Site to be included in Yes . This site was taken forward Land off 97 objections, 49 neutral, 116 support car use, there are local convenience the Preferred as a preferred option. No Melandra stores in Gamesley but a lack of wider Options Consultation overriding constraints to Castle Statutory bodies/stakeholders services and facilities. The site is well development. Road, Highways serviced by public transport. Gamesley Can achieve a satisfactory access Score: 30 out of 51. Education: Development can be supported with appropriate s106 DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application- possibly including evaluation.

31 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 English Heritage Potential for non designated archaeology Natural England Within Dinting Vale Ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. Site: G26 Public response 256 comments The site would contribute to increased Site to be included in Yes . This site was taken forward Land 79 objections, 42 neutral, 135 support car use, there are local convenience the Preferred as a preferred option. No adjacent to stores in Gamesley but a lack of wider Options Consultation overriding constraints to Gamesley Statutory bodies/stakeholders services and facilities. The site is well development. slidings Highways serviced by public transport. The site Can achieve a satisfactory access is greenfield and adjacent to the built Education: up area boundary with access Development of this scale can be supported constraints. subject to S106 contribution Score:30 out of 51. DCC Archaeology: Archaeological survey could be conditioned. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. G27 Land Public response 339 comments, This greenfield site in the village of Site not to be No . Potential access/traffic issues adjacent to 249 objections, 17 neutral 19 support increase in Charlesworth is partially within the included in the impact on Conservation Area, 40-46 traffic, existing traffic congestion in the area, conservation area; development risks Preferred Options consultation feedback regarding Glossop impact on Conservation Area, contamination, an adverse impact on its setting. Consultation traffic congestion/access site was Road drainage and wildlife. There are limited local services and not taken forward as a preferred Charleswort the site is relatively distant from town option. h Statutory bodies/stakeholders centre facilities. Score: 25 out of 51. Highway: issues with providing a satisfactory access to the site. Education: Development of this scale can be supported. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre-application

32 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Town/Parish Council : Strongly object. English Heritage: May affect setting/ partially within Conservation Area G28 Land Public response 335 comments Greenfield site in the village of Site not to be No . Potential access/traffic issues off Glossop 241 objections,68 neutral, 26 support. traffic Charlesworth. Limited local services included in the impact on Conservation Area, Road increase, rat run to Charlesworth, Conservation and relatively distant from town centre Preferred Options consultation feedback regarding Charleswort Area drainage. facilities. Consultation traffic congestion/access site was h Score: 25 out of 51. not taken forward as a preferred Statutory bodies/stakeholders option. Highways : issues with providing a satisfactory access to the site Education: Development of this scale can be supported. DCC Archaeology: Would need archaeological survey pre- application. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. Town/Parish Council: Strongly object. Site: G29 Public response 222 comments Greenfield site adjacent to the built up Site not to be No . Potential access/traffic issues Spring Rise, 108 objections, 60 neutral, 54 support area boundary. The site is currently included in the impact on Conservation Area, Simmondley traffic congestion, rat run to Charlesworth, used as recreation space and lies Preferred Options consultation feedback regarding greenfield so should not be considered for partly within the conservation area. Consultation was not taken forward as a development, Simmondley Pre school petition of Score: 20 out of 51. preferred option. 47 signatures- child safeguarding, loss of use of current outdoor play space, road safety, health and safety during building

Statutory bodies/stakeholders

33 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Highways : significant issues with providing a satisfactory access to the site Education: Development of this scale can be supported DCC Archaeology: Archaeological survey could be conditioned. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. Site: G30 Public response 224 comments Greenfield site adjacent to the built up Site not to be No . Potential access/traffic issues Land 113 objections, 62 neutral, 49 support area boundary, site has capacity to included in the impact on Conservation Area, between traffic congestion, rat run to Charlesworth, deliver new affordable homes in Preferred Options consultation feedback regarding Spring Rise greenfield so should not be considered for Simmondley. The site is currently Consultation traffic. Was not taken forward as and High development, Simmondley Pre school petition of used as recreation space, which a preferred option. Lane, 47 signatures- child safeguarding, loss of use of would be lost. Simmondley current outdoor play space, road safety, health Score 26 out of 51 and safety during building

Statutory bodies/stakeholders Highways : significant issues with providing a satisfactory access to the site Education: Development of this scale can be supported DCC Archaeology: Archaeological survey could be conditioned. May have negative impact on Conservation Area. Site: G31 Public response 286 comments Large prominent brownfield site well Site to be included in Yes Mill site in the built up area Charlestown 42 objections, 39 neutral, 203 support located in Glossop. Positive impacts the Preferred boundary potential for Works, come from development of brownfield Options Consultation regeneration This site was taken Glossop Statutory bodies/stakeholders land and good access to town centre forward as a preferred option. Highways facilities and services. Negative Can achieve a satisfactory access / Neutral impacts come from potential

34 Sites Key Issues from the Issues and Options Sustainability Appraisal Report Workshop Site carried to Preferred Glossopdal Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred Comments Options Consultation e Options February 2013 Education: impact to high value built heritage. Housing development on this scale can be Development could provide supported with an appropriate S106 education opportunity to conserve and enhance contribution. an important industrial heritage site. DCC Archaeology: Negative impacts include potential Archaeological desk based assessment/buildings flooding. Contamination and high appraisal needed pre application; further work conservation value could limit could be conditioned. Opportunity for reuse of opportunity to provide on site historic industrial structures. affordable housing. English Heritage Score: 35 out of 51. Significance of buildings should be assessed and SA recommends further retained if necessary investigations relating to potential impacts on European nature conservation sites (SAC and SPA). Additional site suggested during the Options consultation Adderley N/a Not assessed in this SA as it was not Possible access Yes Place a site included in the Options constraints. Needs Glossop consultation. further investigation.

Table 3 Business/Industrial sites in the Issues and Options Consultation

Site Proposal in Issues and Options consultation Site carried forward to Preferred Options consultation Waterside Hadfield Undeveloped site currently allocated for future use keep or remove employment Yes Primary Employment Zone allocation Bridge Mills Tintwistle Undeveloped site currently allocated for future use keep or remove employment No has planning permission allocation Land off Wren Nest Road Glossop Undeveloped site currently allocated for future use keep or remove employment Yes Employment land allocation Undeveloped site currently allocated allocation for future use Land off Glossop Road Gamesley Undeveloped site currently allocated for future use keep or remove employment No has permission for residential use.

35 Site Proposal in Issues and Options consultation Site carried forward to Preferred Options consultation (planning permission for residential allocation Undeveloped site currently allocated for future use Ferro Alloys Glossop What type of developemtn should be supported at Ferro Alloys Yes business/industrial and limited residential

36 4.9 The sites below were suggested during the Issues and Options consultation but were not considered suitable for designating as additional housing sites either due to their size, location or development constraints or they were already sites to be included in the preferred options consultation.

• Ferro alloys • Partington nursing home retirement flats • Woods hospital retirement flats • Waterside ( behind Beesons) • Logwood Mill ( Lancashire Chemicals) • Kierners Mill, Coombes Lane, Chisworth • Land off New Road Hadfield • Land off Graphite Way • Land off A57 Woolley Bridge behind Hillside • Land East of Shaw Lane • Lambgates • Land off Dinting Road • Extension to Charlesworth, Glossop Road • Extension to Simmondley, off Storth Meadow Road • Adderley Place Simmondley Lane • Land between Brooklands Drive and Nursing Home off Turnlee Road, Glossop. • Triangle site at Dinting lane • Land at Glossop Road Gamesley

5. Preferred Options Stage

5.1 The Preferred Options consultation was carried out from 27 th February to Wednesday 10 th April 2013 (document refs B1-4). The consultation sought views on:

• Housing requirements – the number of new homes to be provided across High Peak up to the year 2028? • Sub area housing requirements – How many new homes will be distributed across each sub area? • Potential housing/employment development sites – Sites identified for housing/employment development • Other development issues • Proposed planning policies

5.2 It was accompanied by Sustainability Appraisal which informed the document (document ref. E7)

5.3 The Preferred Options document indicated annual housing requirement of 270 dwellings and identified a number of sites in order to meet this target. Whereas the Issues and Options consultation had included a long list of sites, these were reduced in the Preferred Options stage to those which were considered most suitable for development. The total

37 capacity of the sites identified exceeded that need to meet the target in each sub area in order to provide for flexibility as it was considered further investigations into the development potential of sites may reduce the capacity.

5.4 The responses to the consultation were considered at a member workshop on 27 November 2013 and at a Council meeting on 18th December 2013 (document ref. O7) which approved changes to the housing requirement and sites to be carried forward to the High Peak Local Plan submission version. The decisions regarding which sites to carry forward were informed by the consultations responses and the findings of a number of studies which updated the evidence base.

5.5 Updated Evidence Base The Council commissioned a number of additional studies as part of the evidence base to ensure the Local Plan was sound and was taking account of adequate and up to date evidence. Key to the decisions regarding site allocations were the findings of the following studies

5.6 Strategic Housing Market Assessment (technical note November 2013 final report April 2014) (document ref. MM) The Council, along with Staffordshire Moorlands District Council, commissioned Nathaniel Litchfield and Partners to carry out a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SMHA) to provide evidence on the assessed need for housing in the Borough. The Interim findings from the Study were reported to the member workshops and Council meeting. These showed that the objectively assessed need for housing in the Plan Area was likely to be between 416 - 455 dwellings per year. This was significantly higher than the Preferred Options figure of 270 dwellings per year. The NPPF stresses the need for Local Plans to meet objectively assessed need and it was considered in view of the new evidence in the SHMA that the 270 annual requirement could no longer be supported and that the Council should seek to increase development of housing sites subject to capacity.

5.7 Local Plan Viability Study (draft report November 2013 final report April 2014 (document ref. MJ3)) The Council commissioned Keppie Massie to carry out a viability study of the Local Plan. The purpose of the study to establish the economic viability, deliverability and reasonability implications of the emerging Local Plan - including potential housing and employment site allocations - taking account of affordable housing requirements and other developer contributions, as well as site specific factors such as infrastructure requirements and any flood risk. It provided site assessments or site typologies for the sites being considered for residential allocation in the Local Plan.

5.8 Landscape Impact Assessment December 2013 (document ref. MH4-6) The purpose of this study, which was carried out by Wardell Armstrong LLP, was to identify landscape impacts of potential housing and employment site allocations in the countryside and to help identify any

38 further potential housing sites on the edge of settlements that may in landscape terms be suitable for development. It also included a review of the green belt surrounding main settlements to help establish the scope for further development in the green belt

5.9 To establish what would be a deliverable housing target for the borough taking into account both the need to meet objectively assessed need alongside the constraints on growth presented by the green belt, landscape character and infrastructure, the Council re-assessed the potential for housing sites taking into account:

• the responses to the Preferred Options consultations • the updated evidence base • sites from the Issues and Options consultation which had not been carried forward. • new sites suggested during the preferred options consultation

5.10 It was considered that by including the additional sites from the Issues and Options consultation, the new sites suggested and taking into account capacity for small sites within the built up area boundaries that there was sufficient land to deliver a maximum annual requirement of 360 dwellings per year.

5.11 Table 4 summarises the key issues and assessment from the preferred options consultation, evidence base findings, the Sustainability Appraisal and the member workshop.

5.12 Table 5 identifies the sites from the Issues and Options consultation which were not carried forward to the Preferred Option consultation but were considered to have development potential. It was considered that other sites which not carried forward from the Issues and Options consultation had significant constraints to development and the reasons there were not carried forward were still relevant:

39 Table 4 – Preferred Options Stage Assessment of Sites Glossopdale

Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 G2 Public response 12 objections, 2 other, 6 This site has scored Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation . Paradise support mainly positive and Not assessed included in This site was taken forward, Street neutral assessments. A Landscape Impact Study the the Landscape Impact Hadfield Statutory bodies/stakeholders brownfield site located Sloping, enclosed, ruderal submission Study findings and well Highways: within the boundary of grassland adjacent to version related to existing Satisfactory access can be achieved Hadfield and well located residential properties within the Local Plan development and no provided Paradise Street is upgraded for local services and settlement boundary. Medium overriding constraints to Education: good bus routes in the visual prominence, visible from development.. This level of housing could be larger settlement of The National Park with low accommodated Glossop. impact on the setting of the Glossopdale Action for Allotments : Score: 43 out of 51. National Park due to the Development should include provision of prominence of adjacent built allotments development and partial screening by woodland to the north west. Development should be in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Vegetation to the north west should be retained in order to reduce visual prominence and strengthen settlement edge.

G6 North Public response This greenfield site Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation . Road 66 objections, 4 other, 3 support. scores largely negative Not assessed included in This site was taken forward Glossop Landscape and wildlife impact. Traffic assessments, principally Landscape Impact Study the

40 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 congestion from the loss of greenfield Open, semi-improved submission Statutory bodies/stakeholders land and development grassland/woodland in an version Highways: outside the built up area elevated position adjacent to Local Plan Can achieve a satisfactory access need boundary to the existing residential properties additional pedestrian facility greenbelt. The site's on the edge of the settlement. Natural England : prominent visual location Visually prominent. Scored poorly within the SA due to could have potential landscape impacts upon the setting of the landscape character National Park and their unsustainable impacts. The site is locations, yet is being progressed as relatively preferred options due to their deliverability distant from the town English Heritage centre with poor access. Have concerns with site allocation. The site The site includes a is adjacent to a conservation area and a reservoir and mature grade II registered park and garden. ,site is trees. Recommends highly visible. Possible implications on the development takes place setting of the Castlehill Wood Scheduled on the lower part of the Monument. site only. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : Score: 29 out of 51 . Potential impact on semi-natural grassland and common toad population as well as pond. Potential to fragment habitats and reduce sustainability of biodiversity locally G8 Land Public response Development on this Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation . off 44 objections, 4 other, 3 support large greenfield site G8 & G10 The main constraint included in This site was taken forward. Woodhead Impact on local area. Too much would have principally to development of these sites is the It was considered the Road development in one area, infrastructure negative or neutral achieving a satisfactory access submission potential impact on heritage Glossop issues, possible flooding, traffic congestion, impacts. Development from the highway. This is most version assets and wider landscape character of the area. Should be would be of strategic likely to be achieved if the Local Plan could be mitigated and

41 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 developed for affordable housing, looks a concern to the National development of the sites is there was scope for further perfect site (G10) Park Authority and would taken forward in conjunction discussions with the DCC Statutory bodies/stakeholders constitute encroachment with the adjacent site (G9). Education to see if the Highways: up to the boundary. The There would appear to be no school capacity issues Can achieve a satisfactory access would site is relatively distant other significant constraints to could be resolved. Viability need to use adjoining land G9 from town centre facilities development and there is a Assessment found no no footway or bus stop in proximity of site and realistic prospect that the site significant constraints to Education: would increase car use could be delivered for development if sites G8, G9 Duke of Norfolk Primary School This school into the town centre. development in the short term & G10 are developed as is on a very limited site with no options for Score: 26 out of 51. in conjunction with the adjacent one. growth. The approved planning applications sites G9 and G10. can be accommodated as per our Development of the sites are responses, but further expansion would be viable however affordable very difficult. Secondary School This school housing provision at 30% does could accommodate this level of growth. lead to more marginal results in Planning & Infrastructure : These are certain instances when visually prominent and in sensitive combined with requirements for locations, and as such, could have an CIL and/or Code Level 4. adverse impact on the surrounding Landscape Impact Study landscape which may need to be mitigated. Sloping enclosed, improved Peak District National Park : Considered to grassland outside of settlement. potentially be of strategic concern to the G10 is screened by existing National Park,by virtue of their properties and topography. G8 encroachment to the designated boundary, and G9 have landscape impact. thus reducing the natural setting Vegetation should be currently afforded to the National Park. maintained and development English Heritage : G8 & G10. Raise concern should be in keeping with at the allocation of this site for housing due adjacent Conservation Area. to topography and the proximity to designated heritage assets including the

42 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Old Glossop Conservation Area and a grade II listed building. Scored low in SA but still taken forward. Natural England : G8, G9, G10. Scored poorly within the SA due to landscape impacts upon the setting of the National Park and their unsustainable locations, yet is being progressed as preferred options due to their deliverability. Adverse ecological effects in G8 should be avoided/mitigated.

G9 Land Public response Development on this Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation . off 33 Objections, 3 other, 5 support greenfield site would Not assessed included in This site was taken forward Woodhead Impact on local area. Too much have principally negative Landscape Impact Study the It was considered the Road development in one area, or neutral impacts. Sloping enclosed, improved submission potential impact on heritage Glossop infrastructure issues, possible flooding, Development would be of grassland outside of settlement. version assets and wider landscape (1) traffic congestion, character of the area. strategic concern to the G10 is screened by existing Local Plan could be mitigated and Should be developed for affordable National Park Authority properties and topography. G8 there was scope for further housing, looks a perfect site (G10) and would constitute and G9 have landscape impact. discussions with the DCC Statutory bodies/stakeholders encroachment up to the Vegetation should be Education to see if the Highways: boundary. The site is maintained and development school capacity issues Can achieve a satisfactory access would relatively distant from should be in keeping with could be resolved. Viability need to use adjoining land G9 town centre facilities and adjacent Conservation Area Assessment found no no footway or bus stop in proximity of site would increase car use significant constraints to Education: into the town centre. The development if sites G8, G9 Duke of Norfolk Primary School This school site has potential to be & G10 are developed as is on a very limited site with no options for developed with adjacent one. growth. The approved planning applications sites.

43 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 can be accommodated as per our Score: 28 out of 51. responses, but further expansion would be very difficult. Secondary School This school could accommodate this level of growth. Planning & Infrastructure : These are visually prominent and in sensitive locations, and as such, could have an adverse impact on the surrounding landscape which may need to be mitigated. Peak District National Park : Considered to potentially be of strategic concern to the National Park,by virtue of their encroachment to the designated boundary, thus reducing the natural setting currently afforded to the National Park. English Heritage : G8 & G10. Raise concern at the allocation of this site for housing due to topography and the proximity to designated heritage assets including the Old Glossop Conservation Area and a grade II listed building. Scored low in SA but still taken forward. Natural England : G8, G9, G10. Scored poorly within the SA due to landscape impacts upon the setting of the National Park and their unsustainable locations, yet is being progressed as preferred options due to their deliverability. Adverse ecological effects in G8 should be avoided/mitigated.

44 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013

G10 Land Public response Development on this Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation . off 9 Objections, 5 other,5 support greenfield site would G8 & G10 The main constraint included in This site was taken forward, Woodhead 2 Impact on local area. Too much have principally negative to development of these sites is the It was considered the Road development in one area, or neutral impacts. achieving a satisfactory access submission potential impact on heritage Glossop infrastructure issues, possible flooding, Development would be of from the highway. This is most version assets and wider landscape (2) traffic congestion, character of the area. strategic concern to the likely to be achieved if the Local Plan could be mitigated and Should be developed for affordable National Park Authority development of the sites is there was scope for further housing, looks a perfect site (G10) and would constitute taken forward in conjunction discussions with the DCC encroachment up to the with the adjacent site (G9). Education to see if the Statutory bodies/stakeholders boundary. The site is There would appear to be no school capacity issues Highways: relatively distant from other significant constraints to could be resolved. Viability Can achieve a satisfactory access would town centre facilities and development and there is a Assessment found no need to use adjoining land G9 would increase car use realistic prospect that the site significant constraints to no footway or bus stop in proximity of site into the town centre. The could be delivered for development if sites G8, G9 Education: site has potential to be development in the short term & G10 are developed as Duke of Norfolk Primary School This school developed with adjacent in conjunction with the adjacent one. Landscape Study is on a very limited site with no options for sites. The site has access sites G9 and G10. found no significant growth. The approved planning applications constraints. Development of the sites are landscape impact as site is can be accommodated as per our Score: 28 out of 51. viable however affordable screened by existing responses, but further expansion would be housing provision at 30% does development and very difficult. Secondary School This school lead to more marginal results in topography. could accommodate this level of growth. certain instances when Planning & Infrastructure : These are combined with requirements for visually prominent and in sensitive CIL and/or Code locations, and as such, could have an Level 4. adverse impact on the surrounding Landscape Impact Study landscape which may need to be mitigated. Sloping enclosed, improved Peak District National Park : Considered to grassland outside of settlement.

45 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 potentially be of strategic concern to the G10 is screened by existing National Park,by virtue of their properties and topography. G8 encroachment to the designated boundary, and G9 have landscape impact. thus reducing the natural setting Vegetation should be currently afforded to the National Park. maintained and development English Heritage : G8 & G10. Raise concern should be in keeping with at the allocation of this site for housing due adjacent Conservation Area. to topography and the proximity to designated heritage assets including the Old Glossop Conservation Area and a grade II listed building. Scored low in SA but still taken forward. Natural England : G8, G9, G10. Scored poorly within the SA due to landscape impacts upon the setting of the National Park and their unsustainable locations, yet is being progressed as preferred options due to their deliverability. Adverse ecological effects in G8 should be avoided/mitigated.

G13 Public response This previously Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation. Hawkshea 15 objections, 5 other, 16 support developed land includes There are no apparent included in This site was taken forward. d Mill Old Use of brownfield land, factory is derelict the Hawkshead Mill (HER constraints to development and the Brownfield site within the Glossop and an eyesore. Plan 13322) of high built there is a realistic prospect that submission built up area boundary includes house and factory currently in use. heritage value. The site is the site could be delivered for version impact on heritage assets Too many houses in Glossop. within the built up area development in the short term. Local Plan can be mitigated, boundary and positive Development of the site is considered there was Statutory bodies/stakeholders impacts are provided by viable however affordable scope for further

46 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Highways . its proximity to town housing provision at 30% and in discussions with the DCC Issues with providing access may need centre facilities and some instances 20% does Education to see if the additional land, recent application showing development of create issues for viability school capacity issues access through Firth Rixon to Shepley St brownfield land. particularly in combination with could be resolved. Viability Education : Score: 32 out of 51. the cost of achieving Code Assessment and Duke of Norfolk Primary School This school Level 4 and also payment of Landscape Impact Study is on a very limited site with no options for CIL. found no significant growth. The approved planning applications Landscape Impact Study Mill constraints to development can be accommodated as per our buildings and brewery on responses, but further expansion would be sloping land at the settlement very difficult. Secondary School This school edge. Views of the site from could accommodate this level of growth. The National Park. Existing English Heritage development within the site has This site contains the former Hawskhead medium visual prominence and Mill – parts of which date from the mid19th an impact on the setting of the century. The heritage value is recognised in National Park. Development the SA. We are therefore concerned that no would not adversely alter this details are given in relation to the retention impact subject to being in of these buildings where they are of historic keeping with the character of significance. Natural England: Within 1km of the nearby Conservation Area. Shire Hill ancient woodland. Seek Vegetation planting should reassurance that there would be no adverse be used to screen development impact from the National Park and reduce visual prominence. G14 Hope Predominantly greenfield Site not to No Site was not taken Street Old site, well related to other be taken forward as it has planning Glossop residential development, forward permission for residential and within the settlement granted development. boundary, though the site planning

47 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 has limited access. permission Neutral impacts arise from its proximity to the conservation area and potential impacts on its setting. Score: 42 out of 51.

G15 York Brownfield site, well Site not to No Site was not taken Street located in Glossop town be taken forward as it has planning Depot with access to town forward permission for residential Glossop centre facilities. Potential granted development. contamination could limit planning opportunities to deliver permission affordable homes on site. Score: 40 out of 51. G16 Public response Large prominent Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation Woods 16 objections, 3 neutral, 22 support brownfield site well Not assessed. included in Brownfield site in built up Mill High Brownfield site, currently an eyesore, located in Glossop. Landscape Impact Study Flat, the area boundary. Heritage Street east adjacent to the town centre, should be Positive impacts come enclosed site containing a submission features potential for Glossop affordable housing. Traffic congestion. No from development of derelict mill and associated version regeneration. Landscape retail or commercial or it will damage the brownfield land and good buildings within the existing Local Plan Study considered site of High street. Should be comprehensively access to town centre urban area. Well screened by low visual prominence and developed and Glossop Brook protected. facilities and services. topography and surrounding there opportunities for Negative properties with low visual improvement in the town Statutory bodies/stakeholders / Neutral impacts come prominence and impact on the centre. Considered there Highways from the site being wholly setting of The National Park. was scope for further Would need additional work to provide in the conservation area Opportunities for improvement discussions with the DCC access. and potential impact to of town centre. Development Education to see if the

48 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Education : high value built heritage. should be in keeping with the school capacity issues St James Primary School The site of this Development could character of the Conservation could be resolved. school is very limited and expansion to provide opportunity to Area. accommodate any of these numbers would conserve and enhance an be problematic. Secondary School This important strategic site. school could accommodate this level of Negative impacts include growth. potential flooding Archaeology : adjacent to Glossop Because of the historic built heritage and Brook and contamination industrial archaeology on the site an and high conservation archaeological desk-based assessment and value could limit buildings appraisal should be required as opportunity to provide on part of any application (regardless of site affordable housing. whether significant demolition is proposed). Score: 28 out of 51 . English Heritage : . Development of the site requires careful consideration of the historic environment attributes, we do not object to the principle of allocating of the site We welcome reference within the policy to the retention of Woods Mill and Eastern Mill. We again refer you to NPPF paragraph 135 in relation to loss of non-designated heritage assets. We also consider that a further bullet point relating to the setting of the Howard Town House is also required in relation to new development proposals. Environment Agency : The housing options site referenced G16 is shown to be at high risk (flood zone 3) of

49 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 flooding from the Glossop Brook and has been affected by flooding. This site will need to be sequentially allocated as part of the Sustainability Appraisal and refined flooding information produced to ensure that all potential flood risk issues to the site are clearly identified. Natural England: Within 1km of Shire Hill ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G18 Bank Public response Predominantly greenfield Viability Assessment Site to be Yes Built up area Street 16 objections 5 other, 12 support site, partly in flood zone Not assessed. included in boundary extension Site Glossop Adjacent to the built up area boundary and two. The site scores Landscape Impact Study the not to be allocated in the suitable for small scale development. positively on its access to Steeply sloping, enclosed site submission Plan, but built up area Impact on countryside and conservation town centre facilities and comprising a mix of ruderal version boundary extended to area, step. Landowner of part of the site not public transport. grassland and woodland. Well Local Plan include site, so it can willing to allow development. Score: 36 out of 51. screened by topography and as an contribute to the small sites existing properties with low extension allowance. Capacity too Highways visual prominence and impact of built up small for residential Issues with providing satisfactory access to on the setting of The National area allocation. Greenfield site, the site. Park. Development should be in boundary. sloping well related the Education : keeping with the character of existing built up area. St James School. The site of this school is the Conservation Area. Recognised that there were very limited and expansion to accommodate Existing vegetation should be access and some any of these numbers would be retained where possible in landownership constraints problematic. Secondary School This school order to reduce visual could accommodate this level of growth. prominence.

50 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 English Heritage: Maybe setting issues with Glossop Conservation Area and the listed Howard Town Mill which need to be addressed. Natural England: Within 1km of Shire Hill ancient woodland. Seek reassurance that there would be no adverse impact from increased recreational use. G19 Public response Greenfield site with Viability Assessment 4 Site to be Yes housing allocation Dinting 43 objections, 4 other,4 support woodland on part of site There may be some issues in included in This site was taken forward Road/Dinti Within the strategic gap. Public right of way and biodiversity of relation to site access and the as a preferred option.. ng Lane springs steep slope, close to railway, important local value. The gradient, however assuming submission Considered access issues access issues. site scores positively in that these can be overcome version can be overcome and there terms of proximity to town there is a realistic prospect that Local Plan was scope for further Statutory bodies/stakeholders centre facilities, however the site can be delivered in the discussions with the DCC Highways access constraints do short or medium term. Education to see if the Would need additional land for housing, exist. The site suffers Development of the site is school capacity issues footway on Dinting Road, public rights of from highway constraints viable and could support could be resolved.. Viability way, gradient issues particularly at peak times payment of CIL and 30% Assessment and Education : with nearby school. affordable housing provision Landscape Impact Study Dinting Primary School The site of this Score: 36 out of 51. albeit this may make found no significant school is very limited and expansion to development more marginal at constraints to development accommodate any of these numbers would Code Level 4 and on the be problematic. Secondary School This basis of social rent. school could accommodate this level of Landscape Impact Study growth. Sloping, semi-enclosed, semi- English Heritage: improved grassland. Long Have the potential for non designated distance views from The archaeology. National Park with medium

51 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Natural England : visual prominence. However, In accordance with the NPPF mitigation the impact on the setting of The hierarchy (paragraph 118), the Council National Park is limited should consider mitigation measures to due to the proximity and avoid significant effects of allocating option location of the surrounding G19 upon the identified biodiversity which is development. Vegetation of local value. should be retained and Network Rail : strengthened in order to reduce The developer would need to contact the visual prominence. Network Rail G20 Public response Greenfield site with Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation Dinting 25 objections, 3 other, 4 support limited access - where There may be some issues in included in Viability Assessment and Lane No safe access/egress restricted. Resident development would make relation to site access, widening the Landscape Impact Study Glossop wildlife. Strategic green space. Traffic a disproportionate impact of Dinting Lane and the A57 submission found no significant congestion. Flood plain. Current residents on the current highway junction however assuming that version constraints to development wellbeing. Noise and light pollution network and congestion. these can be overcome there is Local Plan Considered there was Score: 31 out of 51. a realistic prospect that the site scope for further Statutory bodies/stakeholders SA recommends further can be delivered in the short to discussions with the DCC Highways investigations relating to medium term. Development of Education to see if the Can achieve a satisfactory access traffic management. the site is viable and could school capacity issues Education : support payment of CIL and could be resolved and with Dinting Primary School The site of this however delivery of 30% Network Rail to overcome school is very limited and expansion to affordable housing provision their objections. accommodate any of these numbers would may be more difficult to achieve . be problematic. Secondary School This in combination with CIL and school could accommodate this level of higher levels of Code. growth. Landscape Impact Study English Heritage: Sloping, semi-enclosed, Have the potential for non designated improved grassland. Partial

52 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 archaeology. screening by vegetation, Network Rail: medium visual prominence from Network Rail would object to any planning the south. Impact on the setting application / development that increased the of The National Park is limited type and volume of traffic over Dinting Lane due to the proximity and Level Crossing. location of the surrounding development. Vegetation should be retained and strengthened in order to reduce visual prominence. G21 Land Public response Greenfield site with Viability Assessment Site to be Yes Built up area off Dinting 25 objections, 3 other, 4 support limited access. The site The site can be delivered in the included in boundary extension. Road Restricted dangerous access/egress. includes medium short term either as a single site the Site not to be allocated in Glossop Wildlife threat. Strategic gap. Light and archaeological value and or possibly in conjunction with submission the Plan, but built up area noise pollution. Utilities oversubscribed. development risks G19 or G20. Development of version boundary extended to Traffic congestion. Current residents safety. adverse impacts. the site is viable and could Local Plan include site, so it can General area over subscribed. Score: 29 out of 51 . support payment of CIL and as an contribute to the small sites : 20% affordable extension allowance. Capacity too Statutory bodies/stakeholders housing provision. of built up small residential allocation. Highways Landscape Impact Study area Boundary extension also to Can achieve a satisfactory access Sloping, semi-enclosed, semi- boundary. take Issues and Options Education : improved grassland. Partial site G22. Viability Dinting Primary School capacity The site of screening by vegetation Assessment and this school is very limited and expansion to surrounding the site, medium Landscape Impact Study accommodate any of these numbers would visual prominence from the found no significant be problematic. Secondary School This south. Impact on the setting of constraints to development school could The National Park is limited due accommodate this level of growth. to the proximity and location of Network Rail: the surrounding development.

53 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Network Rail would object to any planning Vegetation should be retained application / development that increased the and strengthened in order to type and volume of traffic over Dinting Lane reduce visual prominence. Level Crossing. Site: G23 Public response Predominantly greenfield Viability Assessment 69 Site to be Yes housing allocation Former 30 objections,2 other, 7 support site with some The development of this site is included in This site has been taken Railway Access issues, contamination, should be archaeological potential likely to be reliant upon another the forward. Viability Museum, strategic gap. and historic value. The site (G20) first coming forward submission Assessment found potential Dinting site is relatively distant for development. Given the version issues with viability and the Statutory bodies/stakeholders from services and access constraints and Local Plan provision of affordable Highways facilities but with good significant contamination it is housing. Landscape Impact Issues with providing satisfactory access public transport links. The likely that any development of Study found no significant Education : site was considered for this site is only likely to occur constraints to development. Dinting Primary School The site of this inclusion in the 'strategic late in the plan period. It was recognised that the school is very limited and expansion to gap' between Glossop Development of the site is site had some constraints accommodate any of these numbers would and Hadfield. viable for market housing and it would need to be problematic. Secondary School This Score: 29 out of 51 . however affordable housing developed after the school could accommodate this level of . provision at 30% and in some adjoining sites and was growth. instance 20% does create therefore in the late phase Archaeology : Because the historic railway issues for viability particularly in in the Plan. Considered infrastructure and industrial archaeology on combination with CIL and Code there was scope for further the site is likely to be lost through Level 4. discussions with the DCC redevelopment, an archaeological desk- Landscape Impact Study Education to see if the based assessment and buildings Semi-enclosed, woodland with school capacity issues appraisal should be required as part of any ruderal vegetation and varied could be resolved. application topography. Well screened by English Heritage: vegetation and topography Have the potential for non designated which limits visual prominence archaeology.70 and impact on the setting of

54 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Network Rail : Network Rail would object to The National Park and the any planning application / development that adjacent Green Belt. Existing increasedthe type and volume of traffic over vegetation on the perimeter Dinting Lane Level Crossing. should be retained and strengthened in order to maintain the low visual prominence of the site and prevent coalescence between the settlements of Hadfield and Glossop. Historical features within the site should also be retained and restored. Site could be extended to include open grassland to the south. However this is more visually prominent but is affected by industrial development to the south Site: G25 Public response The site would contribute Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation Land off 35 objections, 4 other , 6 support to increased car use, The site is located within a included in There are no overriding Melandra Only green space in Gamesley, play area there are local Local Authority Housing Estate the constraints to development. Castle for children, traffic convenience stores in which may limit the values that submission Viability Assessment and Road, issues. Gamesley was designated with Gamesley but a lack of can be achieved for the new version Landscape Impact Study Gamesley green areas around it. Will increase wider services and housing. We anticipate that as Local Plan found no significant different tenure and facilities. The site is well a result the site may also be constraints to development provide affordable housing. serviced by public less attractive to developers. As transport. a result although there are no Statutory bodies/stakeholders Score: 30 out of 51. apparent obstacles to delivery

55 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Highways of this site, market sentiment Can achieve a satisfactory access may impact on the timescale for Education : this. Nevertheless there is a Gamesley Primary School This school could realistic prospect that this accommodate this level of development site could be delivered for with some S106 contributions. Secondary development in the short to School. This school could accommodate medium term. Development of this level of growth. the site is viable however English Heritage: achieving higher levels of Have the potential for non designated affordable housing provision archaeology does create issues for viability particularly in combination with the cost of achieving Code Level 4 and also payment of CIL. Landscape Impact Study Flat, enclosed, improved grassland including informal open space adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential properties. Well screened by vegetation and existing properties, low visual prominence and impact on the setting of The National Park. Site could be extended to include all Open Countryside to the west which is enclosed by vegetation.

56 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Site: G26 Public response The site would contribute Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation Land 26 objections, 4 other, 8 support to increased car use, There are no apparent physical included in There are no overriding adjacent Site is countryside, traffic congestion, there are local issues in relation to the the constraints to development. to infrastructure close to convenience stores in development of the site. The submission Viability Assessment and Gamesley already approved housing, greenfield site. Gamesley but a lack of results of the viability testing version Landscape Impact Study slidings wider services and indicate that the site is viable Local Plan found no significant Statutory bodies/stakeholders facilities. The site is well however affordable housing constraints to development Highways serviced by public provision at 30%does create Can achieve a satisfactory access transport. The site is some issues for viability in Education : greenfield and adjacent to combination with the payment Gamesley Primary School This school could the built up area of CIL and Code Level 4.The accommodate this level of development boundary with access timescale for delivery of this site with some S106 contributions. Secondary constraints. may be dependent on the School. This school could accommodate Score:30 out of 51. redevelopment of the adjacent this level of growth. industrial buildings and also to Landscape : This is close to Gamesley a degree market sentiment as Sidings, a proposed LNR, and is a house builders are likely to view Secondary Sensitivity Gamesely as less desirable site in the AMES report. than other areas of English Heritage Glossopdale. Has the potential for non designated Landscape Impact Study ( archaeology. Flat, semi-enclosed, improved grassland adjacent to existing residential properties on the settlement edge. Medium visual prominence when seen from The National Park to the south. However, the development would have a low impact on the setting of The National Park

57 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 due to background of residential development and presence of adjacent derelict factory. Site could be extended to include derelict factory, which could provide opportunities to improve the setting of the area and strengthen the settlement boundary. Existing vegetation should be retained and strengthened inorder to reduce visual prominence and strengthen the settlement edge. Site: G31 Public response Large prominent Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation Charlesto 5 objections, 3 other, 16 support brownfield site well Not assessed. included in Mill site in the built up area wn Works, Brownfield, derelict eyesore, needs located in Glossop. Landscape Impact Study the boundary potential for Glossop development, part of the site should remain Positive impacts come Flat/sloping, enclosed industrial submission regeneration. Landscape in employment from development of area. Well enclosed by version Impact Study found use brownfield land and good vegetation with low visual Local Plan development would provide Statutory bodies/stakeholders access to town centre prominence and impact on the opportunities to improve the Highways facilities and services. setting of The National Park. area and approach into Can achieve a satisfactory access Negative / Neutral Woodland within and adjacent Glossop. Considered there Education : impacts come from to the site should be retained in was scope for further St James Primary School The site of this potential impact to high order to maintain low visual discussions with the DCC school is very limited and expansion to value built heritage. prominence. Opportunities to Education to see if the accommodate any of these numbers would Development could improve the setting of the area school capacity issues be problematic. Secondary School This provide opportunity to and the approach into the could be resolved. school could accommodate this level of conserve and enhance an settlement from the south could growth. important industrial be explored.

58 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Archaeology Because of the historic built heritage site. Negative heritage and industrial archaeology on the impacts include potential site an archaeological desk-based flooding. Contamination assessment and buildings appraisal should and high conservation be required as part of any value could limit application. opportunity to provide on English Heritage: site affordable housing. Site includes buildings of high heritage Score: 35 out of 51. value. Not clear if development will involve SA recommends further reuse or demolition of buildings This site investigations relating to could present an opportunity if the buildings potential impacts on are conserved and appropriate adapted. We European nature would wish to see the allocation further conservation sites (SAC evidenced and justified prior to this stage. and SPA). 78 Adderley Public response Sloping, semi-enclosed, Viability Assessment Site to be Yes housing allocation Place 55 objections 4 other 6 support semi-improved grassland There are issues in relation to included in . It was considered that Glossop Traffic congestion on A57, difficult access to and woodland adjacent to creating a satisfactory site the there potential to provide site, close to school, contamination, loss of existing residential access and this together with submission access to the site from the green buffer, effect on wildlife, should be properties and woodland. congestion on A57 will version A57. Landscape Impact local green space, gas pipeline, public Derbyshire Wildlife Trust constrain development of the Local Plan Study found the site is well rights of way. consider that there is site. A traffic impact screened with low visual potential for protected assessment will be crucial to prominence. Considered Statutory bodies/stakeholders species to be present and the delivery of the site. there was scope for further DCC Planning and Infrastructure : consider the site to be Assuming these issues can be discussions with the DCC Is adjacent to the Gamesley Sidings LWS part of the High Peak's overcome there is a realistic Education to see if the and is a Secondary Sensitivity site in the ecological network - a prospect that this site could be school capacity issues AMES report. It is therefore suggested that buffer zone between the delivered for development in could be resolved. a buffer zone is established between the site and Gamesley the short to medium term. Recognised that

59 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 site and the adjacent Local Wildlife Site Sidings Local Wildlife Site Development of the site is consideration needs to be LWS). Public footpath HP12/50 crosses the should be considered. viable however affordable given to the biodiversity site and should be safeguarded. Any The site contains the housing provision at 30% does issues. improvement should include upgrading the likely route of a Roman create issues for viability section along Adderley Road, a proposed Road - archaeological particularly in combination with multi-user link from Glossop Road onto evaluation should the cost of achieving Code Pennine Bridleway/ Trans Pennine Trail, be required. The site Level 4 and also payment and the proposed Greenway on the specific FRA should of CIL. northern side of Glossop Brook. address how Landscape Impact Study Archaeology : development will Well screened by existing The site contains the likely route of a accommodate the properties and woodland, low Roman road and archaeological evaluation presence of deep culverts visual prominence. Woodland should therefore be required as part of any through the site and the should be retained in order to application. management of any maintain low visual prominence. Education overland surface water Site split between Simmondley Primary flood routes which would School and Dinting. Simmondley can occur should the culverts accommodate this level of growth. Dinting become blocked. Primary School This school is on a very Services and facilities in limited site with no options for growth. The Glossop can be accessed approved planning applications can be readily, a bus stop is accommodated as per our responses, but within 5 minutes walk and further expansion would be very difficult. a village shop is within Secondary School This school could 10 - 15 minutes walk. accommodate this level of growth. Score: 33 out of 51. Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Consider this site to be of greater value as greenfield land and believe it should be considered as part of a wider ecological network. Is close to Gamesley Sidings Local

60 Sites Key Issues from Preferred Options Sustainability Appraisal Viability Assessment Workshop Site carried to Glossopd Consultation Report High Peak Local Comments submission version Local ale Plan Preferred Options Landscape Impact Study 2012 and Additional Consultation December 2013 Wildlife Site and helps to complement and buffer this site. Aware of protected species in this area that could be adversely affected. Adderley Place Association: Strongly object access from A57 inadequate would require third party land, access from Kestrel View inadequate, loss of on street parking, increased traffic and congestion, site used for informal recreation, brownfield sites should be developed before Greenfield, wildlife on the site, Roman Road crosses the site.

Table 5 Glossopdale reassessed sites from the Issues and Options stage for additional consultation

Sites Key Issues Sustainability Viability Assessment Reason site was Workshop Included in the Glossopdale Appraisal Report not carried to Comments Additional High Peak Local Plan Landscape Impact Study Preferred Consultation Preferred Options Options February 2013 Consultation G3 • Visual impact on This large greenfield Landscape Impact Study On the basis of Ensure that the Yes Greenfield site Roughfields National Park. site is located adjacent Sloping, semi- the SA score and football pitch is adjacent to the Hadfield • Development to Hadfield boundary. enclosed/open, semi- consultation relocated with existing built up area would need to The site currently improved/improved feedback, this site the scheme. boundary well related incorporate consists of on site play grassland adjacent to was not taken Clarify the to the existing existing facilities that would existing residential forward as a amount of land settlement. recreational need to be retained or properties on the edge of preferred option. DCC require for Recognised existing facilities on the replaced in respect of the settlement. Sensitive the school site recreational uses and site any development. Part site due to high visual notified school site

61 Sites Key Issues Sustainability Viability Assessment Reason site was Workshop Included in the Glossopdale Appraisal Report not carried to Comments Additional High Peak Local Plan Landscape Impact Study Preferred Consultation Preferred Options Options February 2013 Consultation • Site is a of the site is to be prominence when seen would need to be Derbyshire retained for future from The National Park. incorporated into any County Council education use. The site However, there is some development. Viability notified school is in close proximity to potential for development Assessment and site any the National Park on lower lying land on the Landscape Impact development boundary, however the south west of the site Study found no would have to site itself has no know adjacent to existing significant constraints incorporate this features of development. Planting to development • Well related to conservation value. should be used to screen the existing Score: 27 out of 51. such development and pattern of reduce visual prominence. development There is also some • High level of potential for development public opposition along Goddard Lane • No highway adjacent to existing constraints frontage properties. Such development would have to be in keeping with the character of these properties.

G11 Land off • High level of Development on this Viability: Concern Concern that Yes Site can be Woodhead public opposition greenfield site would The site sits within the regarding impact Duke of Norfolk developed in Road Glossop • Satisfactory have principally testing typologies for the of development in school is already conjunction with the (3) access can be negative or neutral wider Woodhead Road the Conservation at capacity. adjacent Woodhead achieved but impacts. sites (G8-G10), at Code Area, this in Clarify with DCC Road sites. recognised roads Development would be level 3 or 4, development addition with the that the children Development on this are narrow with of strategic concern to is viable, including delivery SA score and can be site would be limited the National Park of policy compliant levels of consultation accommodated screened by the pedestrian Authority and would affordable homes. feedback, lead to development on the

62 Sites Key Issues Sustainability Viability Assessment Reason site was Workshop Included in the Glossopdale Appraisal Report not carried to Comments Additional High Peak Local Plan Landscape Impact Study Preferred Consultation Preferred Options Options February 2013 Consultation facilities constitute Landscape Impact : this site was taken adjoining site. SA • Duke of Norfolk encroachment up to Site not consulted on as an forward as a highlighted potential site is very the boundary. The site original preferred option - preferred option. impact on the limited and is relatively distant so not specifically Conservation Area expansion to from town centre considered by study,. considered this can be accommodate facilities and overcome through any of these would increase car use design and layout of numbers would into the town centre. development. be problematic. The site has potential Considered there was Secondary to be developed with scope for further School could adjacent discussions with the accommodate sites. The site is wholly DCC Education to see this level of within the Old Glossop if the school capacity growth. Conservation Area and issues could be • Potential adverse impacts could resolved. landscape arise from any . impact development. • The site is Score: 28 out of 51. potentially part of a larger housing site containing G8, G9 and G10 Development would need to be sensitively designed to reflect the character of the area and Conservation Area G12 Land off • High level of This predominantly Viability : On the basis of Concern that Yes Low lying

63 Sites Key Issues Sustainability Viability Assessment Reason site was Workshop Included in the Glossopdale Appraisal Report not carried to Comments Additional High Peak Local Plan Landscape Impact Study Preferred Consultation Preferred Options Options February 2013 Consultation Bute Street public opposition greenfield site is The site sits within the the SA score and Duke of Norfolk greenfield site well Old Glossop • Duke of Norfolk located within the testing typologies for the consultation school is already related to the existing site is very settlement boundary wider Woodhead Road feedback in at capacity. built up area limited and on the edge sites (G8-G10), at Code relation to impact Clarify with DCC boundary, surrounded expansion to of Old Glossop. level 3 or 4, development is on the National that the children by development on accommodate Negative impacts come viable, including delivery of Park, this site was can be three sides. Was not any of these from woodland present policy compliant levels of not taken forward accommodated considered it would numbers would on site and affordable homes. Further as a preferred Area lies in a adversely effect the be problematic. considerable flooding viability work is required option. flood plain- national Park. Secondary risk. once DCC's requirements check with EA Considered there was School could Score: 29 out of 51. in relation to highways mitigation scope for further accommodate improvements on adjacent necessary discussions with the this level of roads are known, to ensure Forms a buffer DCC Education to see growth. any cost impacts are between the if the school capacity • Potential accounted for. hospital and issues could be landscape Landscape Impact : residential resolved impact Site not consulted on as an development • Access and original preferred option - which is impact of so not specifically important additional traffic considered by study, in Old Glossop however is in an area of landscape sensitivity requiring any development to address landscape impacts through an appropriate landscape framework. G17 Land off • High level of This predominantly Viability Assessment No On the basis YES. Site not to be Cliffe Road public opposition greenfield site score Not assessed. of the SA score allocated in the Plan, Glossop • Can achieve a positively based on its Landscape Impact Study relating to but built up area

64 Sites Key Issues Sustainability Viability Assessment Reason site was Workshop Included in the Glossopdale Appraisal Report not carried to Comments Additional High Peak Local Plan Landscape Impact Study Preferred Consultation Preferred Options Options February 2013 Consultation satisfactory central location and Not assessed. biodiversity and boundary extended to access good consultation include site. • No education access to town centre feedback in Considered to have constraints facilities. Negative relation to the development • SA findings impacts include loss of potential potential. Sloping site Central location greenfield land and prominence of any with potential good access to loss of UK BAP habitat development, this landscape impact. facilities but and species rich site has not been Level area on Cliffe negative impact grasslands and impact taken forward as a Road has potential for regarding loss of on biodiversity. preferred option. development, limited Greenfield land Score: 29 out of 51. potential on remainder and impact on of the site due to biodiversity topography. • Steeply sloping Considered there was site potential scope for further landscape discussions with the impact DCC Education to see Level area on if the school capacity Cliffe Road has issues could be potential for resolved. development limited potential on the remainder of the site due to topography . G22 Plot 3 • High level of The site is close to Viability Assessment No The site was Yes Site not to be Dinting Road, public opposition Dinting train station, The site can be delivered in not identified as a allocated in the Plan, Glossop • Can achieve a but relatively distant the short term either as a preferred housing but built up area satisfactory from other facilities and single site or possibly in allocation boundary extended to access services, leading to a conjunction with because of its include site, so it can

65 Sites Key Issues Sustainability Viability Assessment Reason site was Workshop Included in the Glossopdale Appraisal Report not carried to Comments Additional High Peak Local Plan Landscape Impact Study Preferred Consultation Preferred Options Options February 2013 Consultation negative impact from G19 or G20. Development small scale contribute to the small increase in car use. of the site is viable and (below threshold sites allowance. The site contains could support payment of of ten dwellings). Capacity too small biodiversity of CIL and 20% affordable residential allocation. local value and housing provision. Can be included with development would Landscape Impact Study G21. result in loss of species Sloping, semi-enclosed, of medium ecological semi-improved grassland. value. The site Partial screening by would not deliver an vegetation surrounding the affordable housing site, medium visual contribution. prominence from the south. Score: 25 out of 51. Impact on the setting of The National Park is limited due to the proximity and location of the surrounding development. Vegetation should be retained and strengthened in order to reduce visual prominence.

Table 6 Business/Industrial sites in the Preferred Options Consultation

Site Proposal in Preferred options consultation Site carried forward to submission version Local Plan Waterside Hadfield Allocate as a primary employment zone Yes Primary Employment Zone allocation Land off Wren Nest Road Employment land allocation Yes Employment land allocation Glossop

66 Site Proposal in Preferred options consultation Site carried forward to submission version Local Plan Ferro Alloys Glossop Mixed use allocation Yes Mixed use allocation

67 6. Additional Consultation Stage

6.1 The Additional Changes consultation was carried out from 27 th December 2013 to 10 th February 204. The consultation included sought views on

• Increasing the annual housing requirement from 270 to 360 following the findings of the SHMA • Additional housing sites to met the shortfall • Boundary changes to the built up area boundary and green belt • Amending the plan period form 2006-2028 to 2011-2031 • Other development issues and policy changes

6.2 The consultation detailed the housing sites from the Preferred Options that were proposed to be taken forward into the submission version of the Local Plan and invited comments on proposed housing allocations which were either new sites or the sites from the Issues and Options stage to be reconsidered. It also proposed that small sites (below 20 dwellings in market towns) were not specifically allocated for housing but would still be included in the allowance for small sites. Where they were outside the built up area boundary the consultation proposed boundary extensions to include these sites.

6.3 The responses to the Additional Consultation were considered in a member on 4 th March 2014 and Council meetings on 18 March 2014 and 8th April which approved the publication of the Submission Version of the Local Plan (document refs O8 & O9)

68 Table 5 Additional Consultation Site Assessment

Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 G3 Proposed Public response 193 This large greenfield site is located Landscape Impact Yes Housing Roughfields, housing comments adjacent to Hadfield boundary. The Assessment : Landscape allocation. Greenfield Hadfield allocation. 183 objections,3 other, 7 site currently consists of on site play Impact Study site adjacent to the Previously not support facilities that would need to be Sloping, semi- existing built up area carried forward Increased pressure on retained or replaced in respect of any enclosed/open, semi- boundary well related to after Issues and infrastructure .
Loss of gap development. Part of the site is to be improved/improved the existing settlement. Options between Hadfield and Padfield. retained for future education use. The grassland adjacent to Recognised existing Loss of green space. site is in close proximity to the existing residential recreational uses and National Park boundary, however the properties on the edge of notified school site Statutory site itself has no know features of the settlement. Sensitive would need to be bodies/stakeholders conservation value. site due to high visual incorporated into any Highways: Score: 27 out of 51 prominence when seen development. Viability A satisfactory access can be from The National Park. Assessment and achieved. Development of the However, there is some Landscape Impact site would not cause an potential for development Study found no adverse on lower lying land on the significant constraints impact on surrounding highway south west of the site to development. network. Topography does adjacent to existing not present a highway problem, development. Planting either within the highway should be used to screen or within the site. A TA would such development and be required. Need to improve reduce visual prominence. pedestrian facilities on Padfield There is also some Main Road. potential for development Education along Goddard Lane DCC proposing extension to adjacent to existing Hadfield Infants to increase frontage properties. Such capacity to 210. S106 may be development would have to required to increase capacity be in keeping with the

69 Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 further. Site includes a notified character of these school site for which a properties. requirement remains. Viability : At Code level 3 or 4, development is viable, including delivery of policy compliant levels of affordable homes.

G11 Land off Proposed Public response 95 comments Development on this greenfield site Viability: Yes Housing Woodhead housing 88 objections,3 other, 4 support would have principally negative or The site sits within the allocation Site can be Road allocation. Infrastructure cannot cope with neutral impacts. Development would testing typologies for the developed in Previously not extra traffic. Site includes be of strategic concern to the National wider Woodhead Road conjunction with the carried forward foraging area for bats and other Park Authority and would constitute sites (G8-G10), at Code adjacent Woodhead after Issues and wildlife concerns. Impact on encroachment up to the boundary. level 3 or 4, development Road sites. Options Conservation Area. The site is relatively distant from town is viable, including delivery Development on this centre facilities and would increase of policy compliant levels of site would be screened Statutory car use into the town centre. The site affordable homes. by the development on bodies/stakeholders has potential to be developed with Landscape Impact : the adjoining site. SA Highways : adjacent sites. The site is wholly Site not consulted on as an highlighted potential A satisfactory access can be within the Old Glossop Conservation original preferred option - impact on the achieved to serve the site. Area and adverse impacts could so not specifically Conservation Area Education: arise from any development. considered by study,. considered this can be The Duke of Norfolk school was Score: 28 out of 51. overcome through brought onto a single site design and layout of recently. There is some development. capacity for expansion but by Considered there was no more than two classrooms scope for further with an appropriate S106 discussions with the education contribution, but DCC Education to see other facilities like car parking if the school capacity would be a significant problem. issues could be

70 Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: resolved. All the allocation units within this area will require additional ecological assessment of the habitats. Note drainage, particularly surface water disposal, is an issue in this area. PDNPA: Strategic concern raised in relation to setting of National Park G12 Bute Proposed Public response 92 comments This predominantly greenfield site is Viability : Yes Housing Street housing 86 objections, 1 other ,5 located within the settlement The site sits within the allocation Low lying allocation. support boundary on the edge of Old Glossop. testing typologies for the greenfield site well Previously not Green Gateway into Glossop. Negative impacts come from wider Woodhead Road related to the existing carried forward Traffic and congestion. Flood woodland present on site and sites (G8-G10), at Code built up area boundary, after Issues and risk. Impact on Conservation considerable flooding level 3 or 4, development is surrounded by Options Area and National Park. risk. viable, including delivery of development on three Score: 29 out of 51. policy compliant levels of sides. Was not Statutory affordable homes. Further considered it would bodies/stakeholders viability work is required adversely effect the Highways : once DCC's requirements national Park. A satisfactory access can be in relation to highways Considered there was achieved to serve the site. improvements on adjacent scope for further Education : roads are known, to ensure discussions with the The Duke of Norfolk school was any cost impacts are DCC Education to see brought onto a single site accounted for. if the school capacity recently. There is some Landscape Impact : issues could be capacity for expansion but by Site not consulted on as an resolved. no more than two classrooms original preferred option -

71 Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 with an appropriate S106 so not specifically education contribution, but considered by study, other facilities like car parking however is in an area of would be a significant problem. landscape sensitivity PDNPA: requiring any development Strategic concern raised: site is to address landscape a green wedge out into the impacts through an countryside of the National Park appropriate landscape and is likely to be prominent framework. when seen from certain vantage points within the National Park Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: Will need comprehensive bat survey. The Landscape Impact Assessment January 2014 identified landscape constraints on the site and it should be recognised that the landscape assessment can be integrally linked to the ecological landscape and the establishment of a coherent ecological network for the borough. Natural England: mitigation measures should be considered to avoid significant adverse effects on the landscape and the setting of the National Park. DCC Planning and

72 Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 Infrastructure: site forms an important green wedge and is prominent from the Peak Park. G17, Land off Extend the built Public response 34 comments This predominantly greenfield site Viability Assessment Yes Built up area Cliffe Road, up area 30 objections, 2other, 2 support score positively based on its central Not assessed boundary extension. Glossop boundary to Key green field site visible from location and good access to town Landscape Impact Study Small site capacity include the site the town centre. Landscape centre facilities. Negative impacts Flat/sloping, open, below the threshold for but not form a impact.Steep slope and poor include loss of greenfield land and improved/semi-improved residential allocation specific housing access loss of UK BAP habitat and species grassland open on the east but considered to have Allocation rich grasslands and impact on side with the rest of the site development potential. Previously not Statutory biodiversity. enclosed by development Sloping site with carried forward bodies/stakeholders Score: 29 out of 51. and allotments. Steeply potential landscape after Issues and Highways sloping on northern edge. impact. Level area on Options Can achieve a satisfactory Partial screening by Cliffe Road has access vegetation and topography, potential for Education : medium visual prominence. development, limited it would be difficult to Visible from the National potential on remainder accommodate the additional Park but low impact on the of the site due to pupils arising from the total setting due to the topography. growth proposed within the surrounding development. Considered there was normal area of St James’ Existing trees within and scope for further Primary School. surrounding the site should discussions with the Derbyshire Wildlife Trust: be retained, particularly the DCC Education to see DWT’s alert map shows that a woodland blocks in the if the school capacity small area of the site (<0.5ha) south-west corner and issues could be has been identified as semi- along the northern resolved. improved grassland. This area boundary. Tree is on the very steep slope to the and shrub planting should north-west of the site and it is be used along the eastern unlikely this area will be boundary to screen

73 Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 developable. DWT would development and additional welcome a reduction in the trees and shrubs should be allocation area to exclude the planted within the site in area of biodiversity interest. order to break up Natural England: development. If seeks reassurance that there development is proposed it would be no adverse impacts will be necessary to create on the ancient woodland and an appropriate landscape other UK BAP priority habitat framework. from increases in recreational use. DCC Planning & Infrastructure site is potentially visible at distance from across Glossop near Shire Hill so it is considered preferable to restrict development to the northern (upper slopes) of the site to reduce any visual intrusion. G18 Bank Extend the built Public response 25 comments Predominantly greenfield site, partly Viability Assessment Yes Built up area Street, up area 17 objections,3 other, 5 support in flood zone two. The site scores Not assessed. boundary extension. Glossop boundary to Loss of green space and positively on its access to town centre Landscape Impact Study Small site capacity include the site biodiversity. facilities and public transport. Steeply sloping, enclosed below the threshold for but not form a Score: 36 out of 51. site comprising a mix of residential allocation specific housing Statutory ruderal grassland and but considered to have Allocation bodies/stakeholders woodland. Well screened development potential. Highways by topography and existing Predominately Issues with providing properties with low visual Greenfield site, sloping, satisfactory access to the site. prominence and impact on well related to existing Education the setting of The National built up area but it would be difficult to Park. Development should recognised there were

74 Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 accommodate the additional be in keeping with the some issues with pupils arising from the total character of the access and growth proposed within the Conservation Area. landownership. normal area of St James’ Existing vegetation should Considered there was Primary School. be retained where possible scope for further Derbyshire Wildlife Trust : in order to reduce visual discussions with the This allocation should be seen prominence. DCC Education to see as part of the G17 & G16 if the school capacity complex. Suggested a issues could be development brief should be resolved. used to identify the environmental opportunities and constraints of these 3 areas together, including managing the contribution of Glossop Brook to the ecological network. DCC Planning & Infrastructure Site abuts G17 but is much less conspicuous in wider views. Public footpath (HP12/24) runs through the site. As this site has been identified, it should be allocated in the Local Plan with an accompanying site allocation policy that specifies that this footpath must be safeguarded and should require the developer to incorporate improvements to the section of footpath between Cross Cliffe and Bank Street to bridleway

75 Sites Question in Key Issues from Additional Sustainability Appraisal Report Viability Assessment Site carried to Glossopdale Additional Consultation High Peak Local Plan Preferred submission version Consultation Options 2012 and Additional Landscape Impact Study Local Plan Consultation December 2013 standard as part of the design of any future development at this site. G21/G22 Extend the built Public response 22 comments Greenfield site with limited access. Viability Assessment Yes Built up area Land off up area 14 objections,1 other,7 support The site includes medium The site can be delivered in boundary extension Dinting Road, boundary to Impact on strategic gap archaeological value and the short term either as a Small site capacity Dinting include the site between Hadfield and Glossop. development risks adverse impacts. single site or possibly in below the threshold for but not form a Traffic. Change in character of Score: 29 out of 51 conjunction with residential allocation specific housing area. G19 or G20. Development but considered to have Allocation of the site is viable and development potential. Statutory could support payment of Can be included with bodies/stakeholders CIL and 20% affordable G21. Viability Highways housing provision. Assessment and Can achieve a satisfactory Landscape Impact Study Landscape Impact access. A proposed bridleway Sloping, semi-enclosed, Study found no (HP12/124) runs along the semi-improved grassland. significant constraints eastern boundary of this site Partial screening by to development and should be protected. vegetation surrounding the DCC Planning & Infrastructure site, medium visual concerns that development prominence from the south. alongside the other allocations Impact on the setting of The could lead to the visual National Park is limited due connection of Dinting and to the proximity and Glossop. location of the surrounding Education : development. Vegetation it would be difficult to should be retained and accommodate the additional strengthened in order to pupils arising from the total reduce visual prominence. growth proposed within the normal area of St Luke’s Primary School.

76 7. Pre-Submission Stage

7.1 The submission version of the Local Plan was published on 23 rd April 2014 and representations invited until 23 rd June 2014 (document refs A1 & A2)

7.2 Following the publication of the submission version of the Local Plan and the receipt of representations, the Council agreed at its meeting on 15 th July 2014 to submit the Local Plan for examination with no further main changes (document ref O10). A number of minor modifications were however agreed in order to improve the clarity of the Local Plan and to reflect the latest information in response to representations. The following minor modifications relate to the site allocations

Table 7 –Key Minor Modifications Affecting Housing Site Allocations

Mod. Site Proposed Modification Reason No. M124 North Road, Retain site as an allocation but with an Site is now a commitment Glossop indicative provision of 0 dwellings and a following appeal allowed 12 th (G6) footnote to explain that it now has June 2014 but needs to be outline planning permission for up to 150 retained as an allocation to dwellings (which has been included in ensure its provision in the event the number of dwellings committed). that permission lapses M125 Charlestown Retain site as an allocation but with an Site is now a commitment Works , indicative provision of 0 dwellings and a following approval in March 2014 Glossop footnote to explain that it now has but needs to be retained as an (G31) outline planning permission for up to 100 allocation to ensure its provision dwellings (which has been included in in the event that permission the number of dwellings committed). lapses

77